FIFA has launched its battle to ensure the transfer system remains – by asking the rest of football how the rulebook needs to be reworked.
But world chiefs have conceded that clubs may NOT be able to ask for a fee for every player who wants to leave them.
Former Chelsea, Arsenal and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra’s victory over the world body at the European Court of Justice saw a major threat to the current system.
Diarra’s lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont declared the only possible outcome will be the end of clubs being able to demand fees for players.
The ECJ ruled that current regulations, which mean clubs can sue players for breaking contracts and prevent them being able to move to a rival in another country, “impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club”.
It added: “Those rules impose considerable legal risks, unforeseeable and potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks on those players and clubs wishing to employ them which, taken together, are such as to impede international transfers of those players.”
READ MORE IN FOOTBALL
Dupont, who was also the successful lawyer behind the Jean-Marc Bosman case that upended European football in the 1990s, argued the decision would inevitably lead to US-style collective bargaining agreements between players and clubs and “trades” – swap deals – rather than transfer fees being paid.
FIFA had initially reacted to the verdict by insisting that only a minor tweak of “two paragraphs of two articles” of the regulations needed to be amended.
But now Zurich legal bosses have announced Fifa will “open a global dialogue on the transfer system, involving key stakeholders” to redraft the rules.
Fifa legal boss Emilio Garcia Silvero insisted that the ruling “confirms the sanctity of contracts”.
Most read in Football
FOOTBALL FREE BETS AND SIGN UP DEALS
However, asked if the ECJ decision does “mean the end of transfers or transfer fees” his reply hinted at a recognition that some players will be able to move for nothing.
Silvero said: “The Diarra decision does not question that employment contracts between players and clubs must be respected.
“Consequently, if players wish to be released from a contract, there will be financial consequences.
“If a club wishes to engage a player under a valid contract, this will often still mean that the transfer fee needs to be paid.”
Using the word “often” rather than “always” was a significant change of position.
Last week’s general assembly of the powerful European Club Association was dominated by behind the scenes discussions of the potentially “terrible” impact of the ruling, with serious fears the business models of clubs in “selling” countries like Portugal, France, Holland, Belgium and in Scandinavia could be destroyed.
One prominent figure suggested every case where a player walks out of a current deal might see clubs having to sue for compensation in their local courts, creating a “law of the jungle” situation.
Silvero confirmed that clubs, leagues and player unions will now be asked to comment on new proposals.
He said: “The Diarra decision confirms it remains Fifa’s responsibility to establish, protect and enforce a robust regulatory system for international football, in particular to safeguard the regulations and integrity of a sports competition.
“This includes rules related to the composition of teams, such as transfers, registration periods, contractual stability and many other important topics.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
“Fifa will now initiate a global dialogue with key stakeholders.
“Together with them, Fifa will determine what conclusions must be drawn from the Diarra decision, and which changes are most appropriate and suitable.”
Transfer fees scrapped Q&A: How landmark ruling could mean NFL-style trades and stars suing for millions
FORMER Chelsea, Arsenal and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra has won his landmark case at the European Court of Justice.
SunSport’s Martin Lipton explains what it was all about – and what it might mean for the future of football…
What was the case about?
Diarra argued Fifa’s transfer rules were illegal after the world body backed Lokomotiv Moscow’s claim that he had broken his contract by refusing to train with them.
Is that it?
No. Belgian club Charleroi wanted to sign Diarra but were told they would have to pay the money he was fined by Moscow, while Fifa refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate unless they coughed up.
Okay, so what does the ruling mean?
Theoretically players will have the right to break their contracts and switch clubs without a fee changing hands – just like any employee in any other industry.
Hang on – does that mean the END of transfer fees?
Potentially, yes. Although players would have to want to move.
We would basically end up with a US-style “collective bargaining” model where players would be free to move within transfer windows without impunity.
Clubs might be able to “trade” players – swap deals – but with no extra cash changing hands.
Is everybody agreed about this?
Absolutely not. Fifa claimed the ruling “only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles” of its transfer regulations.
Yet the Judges said the current rules were “prohibited” under EU law and “anti-competitive” as they “limit the freedom of action” of players to change employer.
Read SunSport’s full Q&A with football on the brink of the biggest shake-up in 30 years…
Source: Soccer - thesun.co.uk
