Courts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 263 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      Arsenal and Chelsea to be dragged into Man City vs Premier League legal battle as landmark case leads to bitter war

      by

      MANCHESTER CITY’S legal brawl with the Prem is set to drag rivals, including Arsenal and Chelsea, into the fight.In what was hailed a landmark ruling, the Prem champs claimed victory as an element of the rules on commercial deals involving companies linked to clubs’ owners was judged “unlawful”.Manchester City claimed victory in a dispute with the Premier LeagueCredit: GettyMan City’s legal battle with the Prem is set to drag Arsenal and Chelsea inCredit: GettyArsenal and Chelsea are believed to have ploughed hundreds of millions into the club in loansCredit: AlamyIt related to shareholder loans not being included in the “Associated Party Transaction” calculation.Arsenal owners the Kroenkes are believed to have ploughed nearly £260million into the club in loans. Chelsea received £146m in the first year of their new ownership model.Brighton’s Tony Bloom has put £373m into the Seagulls, while Everton, who are subject to a takeover from The Friedkin Group, have the highest shareholder loans at £451m.That has been loaned at low or even zero interest and will almost certainly now need recalculating.Read More on FootballFormer Master of the Rolls — the country’s second most senior lawyer — Lord Dyson and two fellow judges agreed the rule preventing City from responding to the Prem over “Fair Market Value” of two proposed deals was “procedurally unfair”.But a number of City’s other claims against Prem rules “failed”, including that the League wrongly applied its regulations.Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Brentford, West Ham, Fulham, Wolves and Bournemouth gave evidence on behalf of the Prem.It has all left battle lines drawn even deeper — with the case into City’s alleged 115 financial breaches still being heard.Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSCity launched the case after tighter rules were voted in by Prem clubs at a meeting in February.The club said yesterday: “The Tribunal found both the original APT rules and the current (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and procedural fairness . . . ”Man City vs Fulham: Player Ratings Breakdown“The Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.“They deliberately excluded shareholder loans while the Premier League reached decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.”City’s case centred on two sponsorship proposals, with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad Aviation Group.But while the Arbitration Tribunal — which heard evidence in June — did side with City on some matters, League bosses claimed THEY had won.A Prem spokesman said: “Manchester City brought a wholesale challenge to the APT Rules.“The club was unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge.“Significantly, the Tribunal determined the APT Rules are necessary.“It rejected Manchester City’s argument that APT Rules were to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the ‘Gulf region’.“Except in two respects, it found that Manchester City’s arguments were unfounded.”READ MORE SUN STORIESBut League chiefs believe they need only make minor changes — and new rules will be tabled for club chiefs to vote on as soon as next week.The spokesman added: “In the meantime, the Premier League will operate the existing APT system, taking into account the findings made by the Tribunal.”Man City vs the Premier League: Q&ABy Martin LiptonBOTH Manchester City and the Premier League were claiming a win after their legal scrap over Associated Party Transactions.SunSport sifts the claims to try to explain the latest issues.What was the case about?City were furious that Prem bosses brought in new tougher regulations – by the smallest possible majority under League rules – in February. They were aimed at blocking clubs bypassing financial controls by earning “unfair” amounts via sponsorship from a company with the same owners, or selling players on the cheap to teams under the same ownership umbrella.Why were City so upset?The Etihad club argued that the rules were illegal and had been deliberately aimed at them by rivals and were both flawed and politically driven. They also branded the “two thirds support” rule that has been part of Prem regulations since its inception as a “tyranny of the majority”This was an Arbitration Tribunal – explain that?Under Prem rules, any club has the right to ask for Arbitration if they are unhappy about the regulations or due process. The three retired judges heard evidence in June and their full ruling was distributed to the 20 Prem clubs on Monday afternoon.And what did they say?Depending on who you listen to, they either totally vindicated one side or the other. The actual answer is that there were “wins” for both City and the Prem. But it’s your choice which ones meant more.OK, what were City’s wins?Maybe the most important one in terms of the repercussions. That both the new rules and the previous version – brought  in after Saudi Arabia’s PIF bought Newcastle in 2021 –  were “unlawful” as they exclude shareholder loans to clubs in any APT calculations.  City also won over their claims that the rulebook prevented them from responding to Prem decisions over whether two proposed deals with Abu Dhabi companies represented “Fair Market Value”, access to the “databank” of comparable deals and the time it took for decisions to be reached.That sounds pretty big. So what about the Prem’s side?The key finding as far as the League is concerned is that the Tribunal backed the concept of APT rules as well as the Fair Market Value tests. Additionally, City’s challenges to the actual decisions on the two proposed deals “failed”. Prem bosses insist the “rulebook has been found to comply with competition and public law standards and is an effective and necessary system”.Is that it, then?Of course not. That shareholder loan issue is a big deal, given that it is believed owners have loaned around £1.5bn at low or preferential rates across the Prem. Those loans will almost certainly have to be calculated at commercial rates now, unless the owners convert them into shares. But the League is convinced the main thrust of the rules remains valid.And what will be the impact on the “115 charges” case?Probably nothing. That is an allegation of breaking the rules, while this matter was City questioning whether one small element of the current rulebook was legitimate. But City are using the same legal team, headed by £10,000 per hour Lord Pannick KC. And the stakes on the bigger case are a great deal higher. More

    • 313 Shares139 Views

      in Boxing

      I married my coach before he tried to KILL me, then fell in love with rival – now Sydney Sweeney will play me in movie

      by

      CHRISTY MARTIN had a life and career fit for the big screen – and her story from escaping death to marrying an old opponent is heading to Hollywood.The boxing legend was stabbed and shot by her ex-husband and trainer Jim Martin after years of abuse. Christy Martin survived a murder attempt from her ex-husband and trainerCredit: ReutersJim Martin coached and married ChristyJim is now serving 25 years in prisonIt threatened to bring a tragic end to one of the sport’s most inspiring and influential careers. But after overcoming the frightening ordeal, Christy revealed in a Netflix documentary how surviving that day was her greatest victory.She said: “I came to some realisation that I got my 50th win when I got off the floor, November 23, 2010.”Christy’s boxing journey began in 1986 when she was dared by her friends to enter a toughwoman contest. READ MORE IN BOXINGShe knocked out all three of her opponents and pocketed $300 while becoming hooked on the sport. Christy was then put in contact with coach Jim by a promoter – and her life would never be the same. Jim – embarrassed at the thought of even training a women – instructed his boxers to try break Christy’s ribs and punch her out the gym.He soon found out that was not an option. Most read in BoxingJim, speaking from Orange County Jail in Florida, said: “Christy’s got a granite chin. “You hit her with a sledgehammer and she’s still standing there looking at you.”Inside the astonishing real life story of Christy Martin, who Sydney Sweeney will portray in upcoming Hollywood biopicChristy was forced to fight for free to even get a shot by promoters, earning as little as $60 if she ever did get paid. But as her KO streak grew so did her relationship with Jim – before one day something out of the ordinary happened.Christy revealed: “After one of the fights, you know you’re so excited and everyone’s so happy. And I kissed him.”I don’t even know what happened.”Christy had grown up a secret lesbian, hiding it from her family despite being in a relationship with an old school friend Sherry Lusk. She soon went public with her relationship with cornerman Jim – who was 25 years her senior and even older than her dad. The two married in 1991 after buying their rings from Walmart and three years later Christy was signed to legendary but controversial promoter Don King. King was initially going to watch tapes of Martin’s previous fights to help him decide whether to give her a contract – but after his TV stopped working he instead made her shadow box in front of him and saw enough to give her a deal.The two married in 1991Credit: GettyJim trained Christy during her riseCredit: AFPBut King was not the only iconic boxing name to take notice – an incarcerated Mike Tyson was among Martin’s admirers.So much so by the time he came out of jail in 1995 – after serving three years for a rape charge – he wanted her on his undercard.Tyson said: “I believe I was in jail and they were talking about “Coleminer’s daughter”, she’s knocking out people, she’s really exciting.”I’m like, ‘Get the f*** out of here.’ But then I started going to some of her fights. “She throws a lot of hard punches, crowd-pleasing. She gave everybody their money’s worth. So I said, ‘Put Christy Martin on my undercard.'”Martin made history by fighting in the first-ever women’s bout on pay-per-view the night Tyson knocked out Frank Bruno in 1996. She was booed into the ring with fans convinced it was no more than a novelty act – but Martin was cheered out.Martin fought Lisa Holewyne in 2001 and made jibes about her opponent’s sexuality – despite her secret lesbian past.She throws a lot of hard punches, crowd-pleasing. She gave everybody their money’s worth. So I said, ‘Put Christy Martin on my undercard.’Mike Tyson She admitted: “I said a lot of rude comments about homosexuals. But also, Jim did encourage that type of behaviour.”And I would tell him, ‘Jim, you don’t understand, I’m gonna keep saying this stuff and somebody from my past is going to creep up.”As Martin’s career as a star boxer reached its height in the early 2000s – her private life was the opposite. She wanted to bring in a new trainer – but husband Jim would not tolerate the thought – and made it known during a sparring session. Christy said: “He knocked me out. I’d never been knocked out. I’d never been dropped even. “You know when you’re hitting someone in the right spot. You know when you’re hitting someone hard enough to knock them out. “He knew exactly what he was doing. Is it abuse? Yeah, he’s smart. He disguised it. “All I wanted to do was leave him, all I wanted to do was live my life freely.”Christy Martin and Lisa Holewyne fought in 2001 before later getting marriedCredit: AFPChristy begged for Jim to divorce herCredit: GettyIn 2003, Christy stepped up to super-middleweight to challenge Muhammad Ali’s daughter Laila despite the ONE STONE weight difference. Laila dominated the bout but Jim refused to pull Christy – perhaps on purpose as punishment.Christy said: “He could’ve stepped up and stopped it. I could always say, ‘Jim stopped it, I didn’t quit.’ “But I quit and that’s hard for me to live with.”In the years following, Christy and Jim became hooked on cocaine, even using it while training for fights. Christy said: “If I was hitting the heavy bag, I’d say, ‘Jim, I’m so tired. Do you have any more?’ He’d say, ‘Keep hitting the bag.'”He would go cut a line, I’d still have my gloves on. I was high all the time. But I couldn’t stop, I didn’t want to stop.”The relationship was disintegrating behind the scenes and Christy pleaded for divorce. She said: “I would tell him, ‘You know I’m a lesbian, so let’s get divorced! I’m begging you to please divorce me.'”I went as far as to write up a contract, I’ll take care of all these expenses, just please leave.’ “He hit me and knocked my tooth through my lip. Blood went everywhere.”Jim denied that Christy asked for a divorce. But he made her fight on in the ring. In 2010, Christy reconnected with her old partner and friend Sherry on Facebook – but she claimed Jim threatened to kill her if she left.Eventually, Christy did walk out and Jim released explicit images of her in retaliation.”This was my revenge,” he admitted. But the compromising pictures pale in comparison to what would come next as on November 23, 2010 an argument broke out between Christy and Jim. ‘Please don’t let me die’Following a physical altercation, Jim stabbed Christy four times and ignored her desperate pleas to help. Christy said: “He stopped everything and just left me laying there… I could hear my lung gurgling. So I know it’s filling up with blood.”He’s walking in and out of the room to see if I had to died yet. I’m begging him, ‘Please don’t let me die. I’m sorry Jim, I made a mistake. Truth is, I love you.'”But then by the time I realised he can’t let me live I was like, ‘Oh, f*** you. I never loved you. You’ve been a piece of s*** the whole time. I’m your personal ATM, you’ve done nothing but use me.'” Jim did eventually walk back towards Christy – only to fire a shot into her torso. Christy remembered: “He stands at my feet with my own pink 9-millimeter. I told him, ‘You don’t have the balls to shoot me.’ And he shot me.'”My mind’s like, ‘No, I don’t wanna die. I have to get out. I have to save me. Some way, I have to save me.'”Jim callously left Christy to die – but she was not done fighting yet. My mind’s like, ‘No, I don’t wanna die. I have to get out. I have to save me. Some way, I have to save me.Christy Martin after being stabbed and shot by her ex-husbanfAs her former trainer took a shower, Christy miraculously escaped the house on to the road where a stranger took her to hospital.Jim fled and slept in a tool shed behind an abandoned home – still clutching on to a blood-soaked knife – until police found him.The murder attempt exposed Christy’s sexuality – but she received widespread support from the boxing world. Amazingly less than a year after the attack – with a bullet still lodged in her back – Christy began training for a comeback bout.And she was seconds away from winning her return fight only for the ringside doctor to pull her out after she broke her hand. Christy had just one more fight – losing in 2012 – before suffering a stroke. By that time, her and Sherry had split up and soon Holewyne – almost a decade from their bitter bout – got back in touch. Jim was also standing trial in 2012 and was later sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison for the attempted murder. Christy during the 2012 trialCredit: GettyJim was later sentenced to 25 years in prisonCredit: GettyFive years on from Jim’s sentencing, Christy married former rival Holewyne in 2017 with the two happily together to this day.She said: “I love her without question and I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my life. I’m happy in my own skin.”Christy – who was inducted into the boxing Hall of Fame in 2020 – now works as a promoter and motivational speaker. And her incredible life story is set to be depicted by Sydney Sweeney in a biopic directed by David Michod. Sweeney, 26, told Deadline: “I grappled and did kickboxing from 12-19 years old. “I’ve been itching to get back into the ring, train, and transform my body. “Christy’s story isn’t a light one, it’s physically and emotionally demanding, there’s a lot of weight to carry. But I love challenging myself.”READ MORE SUN STORIESDespite all the accolades in and outside the ring, Christy’s biggest triumph was surviving her evil husband. She said: “That was not just my 50th win but that was my biggest win of my life.” Christy Martin beat Lisa Holewyne a decade before they fell in loveCredit: GettyThe two are now happily marriedCredit: GettySydney Sweeney is set to play Christy in a Hollywood biopicCredit: Getty More

    • 288 Shares169 Views

      in Soccer

      I was in prison FIVE times before I turned my life around to become an EFL star… now I’m a full-time church pastor

      by

      ON October 28, 1988, Ricky Junior Otto was sentenced to four years in prison aged 20 — the last of his five jail terms.He accepts he was a thug, bully and out-and-out menace to society — a product of a violent culture which ruled with fear growing up in Hackney, East London.EFL hero Ricky Otto is now a church pastorCredit: SuppliedOtto exclusively revealed how two inmates serving a combined 41 years during his time in Wandsworth changed his lifeCredit: AlamyBut following the time he served at Wandsworth, on this occasion for armed robbery, Otto walked out on January 25, 1990 an entirely different person to the one who arrived.And, remarkably, it was two inmates serving lengthy sentences who provided him with a lightbulb moment that changed his life forever.Now 56, Otto revealed: “It was these two guys — one was doing 24 years for murder, the other 17 for manslaughter.“They had watched me playing football in the gym and realised I had a talent and expressed this in the most incredible way.READ MORE IN FOOTBALL“They told me something that day I have never forgotten: ‘Don’t serve the time, let the time serve you’.“From that moment I understood what they meant: ‘Don’t just sit in prison doing nothing but rather start preparing yourself now for when you are released’.“After that I became a gym orderly and started to prepare myself mentally and physically for a life after prison. It was just the kick up the backside that I needed.“When I walked out of Wandsworth in 1990, I knew it was a new beginning — with football being my escape into a new world.”Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSThe former winger said: “My immediate thought was to re-engage with my old team-mates who were now playing for amateur side Haringey Borough.“After a few games I got injured and I was sent for treatment at non-league Dartford. I ended up playing four games for them.Leicester City Players Under Fire for Harassing Fan “My performances caught the eye of Leyton Orient management duo Frank Clark and Peter Eustace.“They knew of my past and did not judge me but offered me a week’s trial, which was the opportunity of a lifetime that I’d been dreaming of while serving my time.“The trial was successful and I signed my first professional contract ten months after being released and just a couple of weeks before my 23rd birthday. It was the best birthday present ever!”After playing in the reserves and learning the game, Otto eventually got the chance to make his league debut when he was made sub for Orient’s fourth-tier game at Fulham in 1991, just 15 months after his release.He continued: “It was the last game of the season. I played the last 15 minutes, I should have scored too. But I was on the pitch playing and I had this wonderful feeling of achievement.”The following season he played 32 league games for the O’s, scoring his first goal at Hartlepool in September 1991.Otto said: “It was flattering that Barry Fry — then with Barnet — had watched me play against his side in the London Cup final and was clearly impressed.“When Barry joined Southend in April 1993 he signed me for £100,000. I don’t think I played in a better side at the start of the 1993-94 season.They knew of my past and did not judge me but offered me a week’s trial, which was the opportunity of a lifetime that I’d been dreaming of while serving my timeRicky OttoSunSport“Had Barry not been headhunted by Birmingham I genuinely believe we would have gone on to make the play-offs in what was the Championship at the end of that season.“We had such a wonderful camaraderie, with wins against big clubs with multi-million-pound budgets like Sunderland, Derby, Stoke and Middlesbrough. We were flying!”Otto’s next move was to link up with Fry again at Birmingham — this time in an £800,000 switch to St Andrew’s.His greatest football memories include his stunning equaliser against Liverpool at Anfield in the 1995 FA Cup and playing for City in the Football League Trophy final the same year — when his assist provided the extra-time winner for Paul Tait in front of over 76,000 fans at Wembley.Otto said: “I remember travelling on the coach to Wembley with a sea of Birmingham fans walking towards the stadium.“I had that pinch-me moment where I couldn’t believe I was going to be playing at Wembley.”After Birmingham, Otto played at Charlton, Peterborough and Notts County on loan.It was while he was with County, under Sam Allardyce, that he suffered a cruciate ligament injury which ultimately ended his career.I remember travelling on the coach to Wembley with a sea of Birmingham fans walking towards the stadium.I had that pinch-me moment where I couldn’t believe I was going to be playing at WembleyRicky OttoSunSportHe said: “I did manage to play again but I was never the same player. I’d lost that yard of pace and I always had that twinge of pain when I was playing.”After ten years, he knew his career was over.He added: “Having left school with no qualifications this was a period when I had think what I was going to do for the rest of my life.“Of course, I could have slipped back into my old ways before football but I knew I had to build another chapter to my life.”Instead, he trained as a probation officer, later creating his own consultancy working with offenders and those at risk of offending.Ricky said: “My work has enabled me to engage with some of the country’s most prolific offenders.“Being able to relate to their journey, I am able to use the same old adage that was spoken into my life when incarcerated: Don’t serve the time, let the time serve you.“For nearly 20 years I have primarily worked with adults. However, over the last two years I’ve been working with Walsall Youth Justice Service as a Resettlement Disproportionality Officer.”READ MORE SUN STORIESEven more remarkably, father-of-three Ricky is a committed Christian and, after passing his degree in Theology, is Pastor of ARC Birmingham Church. He is currently studying for a Masters degree.Yet in reflection of his extraordinary 56 years, Otto readily admits: “Without a shadow of a doubt, football saved my life.” More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in Soccer

      Fifa launch desperate mission to prevent transfer fees from being SCRAPPED after landmark Lassana Diarra case

      by

      FIFA will try to prove that the current transfer system is vital for smaller clubs – to prevent the Lassana Diarra ruling ripping up the footballing eco-system.Former Chelsea, Arsenal and Portsmouth midfielder Diarra’s victory at the European Court of Justice had his lawyer Jean Louis Dupont declaring the only possible outcome will be the end of clubs being able to demand fees for players.The Lassana Diarra ruling could rip up the football transfer systemCredit: GettyThe ruling could mean football clubs are no longer able to demand fees for their playersCredit: PADupont, 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.But while Fifa publicly insisted the defeat was a minor one relating to “only two paragraphs of two articles” of their transfer regulations, Zurich’s legal chiefs will now go all out to persuade the Euro Judges that they cannot afford to crash the system.West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady warned in her exclusive Sun column of the potential for “chaos and anarchy” if the potential repercussions do lead to players walking out on their contracts for better deals elsewhere.Fifa insiders conceded that the ruling would force a rewriting of some of the current rules regarding players who fall out with their employers.READ MORE IN FOOTBALLThat would mean clubs engaging those players whose contracts were terminated would not be expected to pay any “fines” – with Diarra going to Court in 2014 after Belgian club Charleroi pulled out of a deal to sign him because they faced being hit by a demand for £8m from Lokomotiv Moscow.World chiefs also recognise that they can longer withhold processing International Transfer Certificate requests for players who are in conflict with a former club.But Fifa remains hopeful it can persuade the Court that its current rules are proportionate.The five Judges on the Court confirmed the need for “stability” in the football system, backing the existing two transfer registration windows which prevent players being able to move clubs at any time.Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSIt is likely, though, that Zurich lawyers will attempt to argue that scrapping transfer fees wholesale would be a disaster for the entire economic fabric of the game.The business models of clubs in many European countries – especially France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal  and Scandinavia – are designed to develop and sell on talent to “bigger” markets.Top 10 highest paid footballers in the world revealed with no Premier League players making the top fiveIf those fees can no longer be demanded, with players free to simply break their contracts and move on, those clubs would no longer be capable of remaining solvent.The argument will almost certainly be that allowing players to tear up their deals without any sanctions or consequences would prove a death-knell for the sport outside the biggest and wealthiest markets.And Fifa will be backed by Europe’s most powerful clubs including the Prem Big Six.The Diarra ruling will now be a major topic of conversation when the European Club Association, which represents more than 700 clubs across the continent, holds its General Assembly in Athens this week.Transfer fees scrapped Q&A: How landmark ruling could mean NFL-style trades and stars suing for millionsFORMER 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…In a statement, the ECA said: “The ECJ did recognise the legitimacy of rules aiming at protecting the integrity and stability of competitions and the stability of squads.“It also recognised rules which aim to support such legitimate objectives, including the existence of registration windows, the principle that compensation is payable by anyone who breaches an employment contract and the imposition of sporting sanctions on parties that breach those contracts.“The football transfer system is designed to establish a balance between the rights of players to free movement and stability of contracts, together with the legitimate objectives of the integrity and stability of squads and competitions.READ MORE SUN STORIES“Crucially, the transfer system affords medium and smaller sized clubs the means to continue to compete at high levels of football, especially those who are able to develop and train players successfully.“The transfer system as a whole, and transfer fees and solidarity mechanism more specifically, are an efficient and effective means of wealth distribution from bigger clubs to smaller ones.”Inside Lassana Diarra’s legal case with FifaLASSANA DIARRA’S case with Fifa dates back to 2014 when he was playing for Lokomotiv Moscow.The former Chelsea and Real Madrid midfielder was in a dispute with Lokomotiv over wages – with the Russian side ultimately terminating his contract.The case was referred to Fifa’s Dispute and Resolution Chamber (DRC) which ruled against Diarra, fining him £16MILLION.During this time, Diarra received a new contract offer from Belgian side Charleroi.But Charleroi wanted clarification from Fifa that they would not be liable to pay any of the money owed to Lokomotiv.Fifa could not make that guarantee and the move never happened.As a result, Diarra brought new legal action against Fifa and the Belgian league claiming a loss of earnings.That started the long process that has led to this week’s groundbreaking judgment. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      Football could be forced to adopt US-style transfer system with game becoming Wild West after Lassana Diarra ruling

      by

      FOOTBALL has always believed it did not have to follow the American model.But if the ramifications of the latest European Court ruling on the game are as claimed by the man who broke the system in the 1990s, we could be entering the Wild West.Lassana Diarra’s beef with Fifa’s rules could lead to the end of the current transfer systemCredit: GettyFootball could be entering a US-styled Wild West after the latest European Court rulingCredit: GettyFor players, it will be like walking into the casinos in Las Vegas with a massive pile of chips but knowing they have already been dealt a winning hand on a loaded table.Jean-Louis Dupont was the lawyer who beat Uefa over the treatment of Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman.That landmark judgement meant clubs could no longer demand a fee for a player who was out of contract.But the secondary repercussions was the end of the “three plus two” rule demanding that clubs fielded a minimum quota of homegrown stars, turning European club football into a continent without borders.Read More on FootballAnd even if former Chelsea ace Lassana Diarra’s beef with Fifa’s rules was about his right to walk away from Lokomotiv Moscow when they stopped paying him in 2014, the final outcome could well be the end of the current transfer system.The ruling of the five senior Judges in the Luxembourg-based Court said: “The rules in question impede the free movement of footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club.“Those rules impose considerable legal risks, potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks on those players and clubs wishing to employ them.”No wonder a crowing Dupont claimed a “total victory”, adding that the Court had “severely censured the structurally illegal actions of the current regulations”.Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSMore critically, he predicted: “This paves the way for a modernisation of governance, in particular through the use of collective bargaining between employees and employers.”And that was always Dupont’s end-game as he allied himself with the international players’ union Fifpro to take on Fifa.Transfer fees could be scrapped in biggest change to football in 30 years after landmark court case brought against Fifa If clubs cannot demand transfer fees for players who are under contract, then it is all about the package they are offered.Either their current club puts so much on the table, with US-style ten-year contracts including massive £100million-plus loyalty bonuses for seeing out the deal, that the player wants to stay.Or they simply jump when a higher bidder knocks on the door. And whichever is the outcome, the players and their agents win. Of course, Dupont would say that. He is not averse to exaggeration.On the other side, Fifa attempted to downplay its significance, claiming this was a very narrow ruling with no wider implications.Transfer fees scrapped Q&A: How landmark ruling could mean NFL-style trades and stars suing for millionsFORMER 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…A spokesman said: “Fifa is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been re-confirmed.“The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.” Transfers could changeFifa insiders are pointing fingers at Fifpro, asking what the union hopes to gain.They do, though, concede the world body should have intervened to grant the International Transfer Certificate which would have allowed Diarra to join Belgian side Charleroi after his fall-out with Moscow and must now rewrite that aspect of its rulebook.Likewise, the rules that meant Charleroi would have been liable to pay Diarra’s fine from Moscow will also have to go.Yet many fear this could be a case of shutting the stable door after the entire herd has bolted.There are also concerns that the consequences will go way beyond the initial scope of the case.The judges did rule, specifically, that a “certain degree of stability in the squads of all professional football clubs” was a good thing during a season.They implicitly backed the current transfer registration windows that mean players can only move in the summer and in January.Likewise, if a club can be found, unquestionably, to have “incited” a player to walk out on a rival, then a sanction might be appropriate.Good luck in getting hold of those WhatsApp messages.READ MORE SUN STORIESBut with the current regulations now deemed to have breached EU law, the very fabric of the transfer rulebook will be in question.And nobody can be sure where it will end up. More

    • 225 Shares169 Views

      in Soccer

      Transfer fees Q&A: How landmark court ruling could mean NFL-style player trades and stars suing clubs for millions

      by

      FORMER Chelsea, Arsenal and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra has won his landmark case at the European Court of Justice.And the decision could have major ramifications on the future of football transfers. Lassana Diarra won his landmark case against Fifa at the European Court of JusticeCredit: APThe ruling could spell the end of transfer fees entirelyCredit: GettyWill an NFL-style draft and the complete scrapping of transfer fees really come to pass? SunSport explains what it was all about – and what it might mean.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. READ MORE ON FOOTBALLBelgian club Charleroi wanted to sign Diarra but were told they would have to pay the money – which was halved from £16m to £8m after the player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.He was fined by Moscow, while Fifa refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate unless they coughed upWhat did the Court say?Basically, a 3-0 victory for Diarra and his lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont. Pointing to Moscow’s compensation claim after Diarra was deemed to have broken his contract, the proposed sanction against Charleroi and Fifa’s stance, the ECJ said: “All of those rules are contrary to EU law.”Most read in FootballFOOTBALL FREE BETS AND SIGN UP DEALSOkay, so what does that mean?Theoretically, if the ECJ ruling is now ratified by the court in Mons, Belgium, where the case began, 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. Transfer fees could be scrapped in biggest change to football in 30 years after landmark court case brought against Fifa 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.So what happens next?Fifa will try to find a way of tweaking its rules to meet with the approval of the Court. But that seems unlikely given the tone of the ruling.Inside Lassana Diarra’s legal case with FifaLASSANA DIARRA’S case with Fifa dates back to 2014 when he was playing for Lokomotiv Moscow.The former Chelsea and Real Madrid midfielder was in a dispute with Lokomotiv over wages – with the Russian side ultimately terminating his contract.The case was referred to Fifa’s Dispute and Resolution Chamber (DRC) which ruled against Diarra, fining him £16MILLION.During this time, Diarra received a new contract offer from Belgian side Charleroi.But Charleroi wanted clarification from Fifa that they would not be liable to pay any of the money owed to Lokomotiv.Fifa could not make that guarantee and the move never happened.As a result, Diarra brought new legal action against Fifa and the Belgian league claiming a loss of earnings.That started the long process that has led to this week’s groundbreaking judgment.Does that mean players will be able to move whenever they want?No. The Court confirmed the legitimacy of the current transfer window regulations which “ensure the stability of squad compositions during a given season” by banning “unilateral termination” of contracts during the campaign. Like other businesses, players seeking to move may have to serve notice periods, potentially up to 12 months.Anything else?If Dupont is right, the result will mean a large number of players who can claim they were restricted from moving clubs by the current rules will be able to make back-dated compensation claims, running into millions of pounds.And how soon could this all start to happen?Once the court in Mons ratifies the ECJ ruling, which might take a few months, it would come into effect across Europe.READ MORE SUN STORIESThat’s all right then. We’re not in the EU any more, are we?No. But English clubs, the FA and the leagues would have no option but to fall into line as Premier League clubs could argue any attempts to hold them to the current regulations breach competition law as they will be put at a disadvantage to their rivals in Europe.Former France international Diarra was at Chelsea for the 2005-06 title winCredit: GettyDiarra’s case was heard at the European Court of Justice in LuxembourgCredit: EPA More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in Soccer

      Transfer fees could be SCRAPPED in biggest change to football in 30 years after landmark court case brought against Fifa

      by

      FIFA’s transfer rules have been declared ILLEGAL by Europe’s highest court.In a landmark ruling that could see the entire transfer system ripped up, the European Court of Justice backed former Chelsea, Arsenal and Portsmouth midfielder Lassana Diarra in his case against Fifa.Fifa’s transfer rules have been declared illegal by Europe’s highest court.Credit: GettyLassana Diarra has won a court case arguing Fifa broke European labour lawsCredit: AFP or licensorsFifa could lose its authority over transfers allowing players to move on free transfers for big wagesCredit: GettyDiarra, 39, sued the world body after it upheld a £16m fine imposed on him by former club Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014 after he was sacked for allegedly boycotting training over a pay dispute.The massive fine was halved to £8m after the player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.But the case has since gone all the way to the Luxembourg-based ECJ, Europe’s highest court.Diarra’s lawyer, Jean Louis Dupont – the man responsible for the “Bosman” ruling in the 1990s that transformed the face of European football – argued that Fifa had broken European labour laws by refusing to issue the International Transfer Certificate which would have allowed him to join another club and exercise his rights as a professional.READ MORE IN FOOTBALLAnd in an eagerly-awaited ruling the ECJ has now declared the current regulations are in breach of EU Law on the free movement of people.The Court ruled: “The rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club.“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.”Potential ramifications could be huge depending on the full judgement, which will be published later today.Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSIf the Court has made a strong ruling, it could effectively declare the entire current system is in breach of EU Law.That would see Fifa losing its current authority over the transfer system and allow players the right to break their contracts and change clubs with impunity.Top ten Premier League managers’ WagsTransfer fees scrapped Q&A: How landmark ruling could mean NFL-style trades and stars suing for millionsFORMER 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.In turn, that would end the current “trickle down” system where many smaller clubs are reliant on transfer income.Such an outcome would lead to big stars being able to hawk their services for free but for huge wages, allowing the wealthiest clubs – including the bulk of the Premier League – the opportunity to hoover up the best talent.In its summary of the ruling, the Court added: “Restrictions on the free movement of professional players may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest consisting in ensuring the regularity of interclub football competitions, by maintaining a certain degree of stability in the player rosters of professional football clubs.Inside Lassana Diarra’s legal case with FifaLASSANA DIARRA’S case with Fifa dates back to 2014 when he was playing for Lokomotiv Moscow.The former Chelsea and Real Madrid midfielder was in a dispute with Lokomotiv over wages – with the Russian side ultimately terminating his contract.The case was referred to Fifa’s Dispute and Resolution Chamber (DRC) which ruled against Diarra, fining him £16MILLION.During this time, Diarra received a new contract offer from Belgian side Charleroi.But Charleroi wanted clarification from Fifa that they would not be liable to pay any of the money owed to Lokomotiv.Fifa could not make that guarantee and the move never happened.As a result, Diarra brought new legal action against Fifa and the Belgian league claiming a loss of earnings.That started the long process that has led to this week’s groundbreaking judgment.“But these rules have as their object the restriction, and even prevention, of cross-border competition by unilaterally recruiting players under contract with another club or players about whom it is alleged that the employment contract was terminated without just cause.“The possibility of competing by recruiting trained players plays an essential role in the professional football sector.“Rules which place a general restriction on that form of competition, by immutably fixing the distribution of workers between the employers and in cloistering the markets, are similar to a no-poach agreement.“Those rules do not appear to be indispensable or necessary.”Dupont declared the ruling a “total victory”, adding that the Court had “severely censured the structurally illegal actions of the current regulations”.How football changed after Bosman rulingTHE Bosman Ruling transformed football transfers in 1995.Before the Bosman Ruling, clubs could demand a transfer fee for a player even after their contract had expired.But Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman went to the European Court of Justice and the judge ruled in his favour.And that meant that when a player’s contract expired, they could move freely to another club within the EU without a transfer fee.The landmark court case gave players far more power in the final year of their deals – with clubs either needing to extend them or lose them for nothing at the end of the season.Footballers can now also sign pre-contract agreements with new clubs from January when their deals run out to move on a free transfer.The Bosman Ruling essentially removed the restrictions on EU football players with expired contracts, giving them the same rights as free agents and increasing the freedom of movement.And even with the UK leaving the EU, the Bosman Ruling still applies for Premier League clubs.He said: “This paves the way for a modernisation of governance, in particular through the use of collective bargaining between employees and employers.“All professional players who have been affected by these illegal rules can therefore now seek compensation for their losses.“We are convinced that this will force Fifa to submit to the EU rule of law and speed up the modernisation of governance.”Diarra’s dispute originated in 2014 when he left Lokomotiv Moscow following a disagreement over his salary.The midfielder’s contract was terminated and he was subsequently fined £16million by Fifa after the Russia club took the case to the Fifa resolution chamber seeking damages.Diarra almost signed for Belgian side Charleroi at the same time and they wanted assurances from Fifa that they would not be liable for those damages if he joined, but those guarantees were not forthcoming.READ MORE SUN STORIESFifa rules stipulate an international transfer certificate must be granted by the league a player is leaving – but the Russia league did not grant it.As a result, Diarra began legal action against Fifa and the Belgian football league, claiming a loss of earnings, and was initially unsuccessful before the latest ruling.Lassana Diarra’s career statsLASSANA DIARRA played for some of the top clubs in Europe as an all-action defensive midfielder.He started at Le Havre before earning his big break with a £4million move to Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea in 2005.Diarra was largely a rotation option but won an FA Cup and League Cup double with the Blues before a brief move across London to join Arsenal.But it was at Portsmouth where Diarra really made his name, winning a historic FA Cup and earning a massive £19m move to Spanish giants Real Madrid.Diarra played 117 times in five seasons for Los Blancos, winning one LaLiga title, again under Mourinho, and the Copa Del Rey.Then came Diarra’s fateful move to Russia, first Anzhi Makhachkala and then Lokomotiv Moscow, before he saw out his playing career in his native France with Marseille and then PSG, where he won one Liga 1 crown.Le Havre (2003–2005)Chelsea (2005–2007)Portsmouth (2008–2009)Real Madrid (2009–2012)Anzhi Makhachkala (2012–2013)Lokomotiv Moscow (2013–2015)Marseille (2015–2017)Al Jazira (2017–2018)Paris Saint-Germain (2018–2019) More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in Soccer

      Coleen Rooney ‘BANNED Wayne’ from going on wild $150,000 night out with disgraced Diddy as clip resurfaces

      by

      THIS is the bizarre moment ex-Manchester United legend Wayne Rooney puts down a $150,000 bid to buy a wild night out with Diddy.After winning the charity auction Rooney’s girlfriend at the time and future wife Coleen banned the footballer from ever heading to New York for the party trip, according to Diddy.The England ace, sitting beside Ashley and Cheryl Cole, paid $150,000 for a Diddy partyCredit: ITVDiddy promised to turn Rooney into a ‘changed man’ following the ‘non-stop’ partyingCredit: ITVRooney’s future wife Coleen was left looking unimpressed with the star striker’s bid as she reportedly banned him from ever travelling to see DiddyCredit: ITVYears later on The Graham Norton Show Diddy revealed Rooney never came on the trip due to ColeenCredit: BBCResurfaced footage from a football charity auction in 2006 shows disgraced music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, 54, promising to take the England ace out on a “non-stop party with lots of sexy ladies”.The clip came 18 years before Combs’ arrest over a number of serious sexual allegations including racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.Combs has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.A 20-year-old Rooney can be seen in the clip laughing and joking with his England teammates and celebrities as Diddy stands on the stage next to auction hosts David Beckham and Graham Norton.read more in DiddyRooney, siting beside England teammate Ashley Cole and then wife Cheryl, was bidding on Beckham’s World Cup charity auction where the highest bidder would get the chance to spend the weekend with Diddy in New York. After placing the huge $150,000 offer, Diddy – dressed in a black tuxedo and thick sunglasses – assured that he would make Rooney a “changed man” before he returned home to Manchester. Grabbing the microphone, the rapper said: “After he comes to New York, we’ll probably be cousins. “It’ll be a non-stop party with lots of sexy ladies.”Most read in FootballCombs initially jumped on stage uninvited as he interrupted Beckham who was hosting the star-studded event at his mansion in Hertfordshire. The music star then offers himself out to those in attendance – promising the highest bidder either a night out in the US, a studio session or a weekend at his house in New York.I was 16 when I escaped Diddy’s freak-off party filled with sex, drugs, and candy – he chased me down the hallWhen talking about the wild evening of partying Diddy says: “I promise you, your a** will wake up Wednesday, laying beside me.”Several British legends were at the event and even placed their own bids on Combs such as Sharon Osbourne before Rooney upped the bidding and won Diddy’s company.Along with the winning offer Rooney reportedly asked to bring along a friend for the trip.The Sun has contacted Wayne Rooney’s representatives for comment.Over the past few weeks, several clips of Diddy have resurfaced with the producer making references to his party lifestyle.No, their wives wouldn’t allow them to come. I’m serious. I don’t know whySean Combsspeaking on The Graham Norton ShowA clip on The Graham Norton Show in 2011 is one of these where Norton references the auction.He asked Diddy about Rooney and star defender Rio Ferdinand who was also set to go and visit Combs in New York.Norton asks: “I always wondered; did they ever go? Did it ever happen?” To which Diddy responded: “No, their wives wouldn’t allow them to come. I’m serious. I don’t know why.”One saw him speaking on Late Night with Conan O’Brien over 22 years ago joking about locking up his female party guests in rooms.Wayne Rooney bought a night of partying with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs at a charity football auction in 2006Credit: ITVDiddy and Graham Norton at the auction togetherCredit: ITVDiddy at a 1999 White Party with Leonardo DiCaprioCredit: The Mega AgencyThe videos have come into question since Combs was charged with several sexual allegations.He is also accused of having “abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him to fulfil his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct.”If Combs is convicted and receives the maximum sentence, he faces life in prison.The minimum sentence is 15 years.The court indictment against Combs revealed how he would often host lavish parties for guests which involved a number of “Freak Offs” events.At these “parties” he allegedly forced victims to have sex with hired sex workers while it was filmed on camera.Freak Offs often involved drug usage to keep participants “obedient and compliant,” followed by IV fluids to help them recover afterwards, the charges allege.Combs would then use the “sensitive, embarrassing, and incriminating” footage “as collateral to ensure the continued obedience and silence of the victims,” prosecutors claim.Diddy has already lost two appeals for bail, despite making multiple promises of better behaviour in exchange for his freedom.The evidence against Sean ‘Diddy’ CombsTHE months-long federal sex trafficking probe against Sean Combs has culminated in a searing indictment that was unsealed on Tuesday.Combs has been hit with one count of racketeering and one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and one count of transportation to engage in prostitution.But behind those legal charges lies a mountain of alleged evidence of menace, violence, and horrific abuse of his fame.Combs “abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him to fulfil his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct.”He “created a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in, and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.”The rapper assaulted women by “striking, punching, dragging, throwing objects at, and kicking them.”Combs “manipulated women to participate in highly orchestrated performances of sexual activity with male commercial sex workers” that he called “freak offs.”Freak offs “occurred regularly, sometimes lasted multiple days, and often involved multiple commercial sex workers.”During freak offs, he “distributed a variety of controlled substances to victims, in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant.”After freak offs, Combs and the victims “typically received IV fluids to recover from the physical exertion and drug use.”In March 2024, during searches of his residences in Miami and Los Angeles, “law enforcement seized various Freak Off supplies, including narcotics and more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant.”During and separate from Freak Offs, Combs “hit, kicked, threw objects at, and dragged victims, at times, by their hair…These assaults often resulted in injuries that took days or weeks to heal.”He also used the “sensitive, embarrassing, and incriminating recordings” that he made during freak offs as “collateral to ensure the continued obedience and silence of the victims.”Combs himself “brandished firearms to intimidate and threaten others, including victims of and witnesses to his abuse.”During searches of his homes, “law enforcement seized firearms and ammunition, including three AR-15s with defaced serial numbers, as well as a drum magazine.”Associates “assisted him in locating and contacting victims who attempted to flee his abuse.”When witnesses to the abuse threatened his authority or reputation, he and members and associates of the enterprise “engaged in acts of violence, threats of violence, threats of financial and reputational harm, and verbal abuse. These acts of violence included kidnapping and arson.”Combs’ initial court appearance saw a judge order him to be held without bail, citing “very significant concerns” about his reported substance abuse and “anger issues.”An appeal led to Diddy’s three sons Quincy Brown, Christian “King” Combs, and Justin Combs co-signing a $50 million bail proposal.A second judge a day later once again denied the plea and ruled Diddy would remain jailed pending trial.The Metropolitan Detention Center where the hit producer and rapper is being held is synonymous with rat infestations, violent outbreaks, and being understaffed.The jail has a capacity of 1,600 inmates, often with celebrities among them.Two of the most high profile inmates include fellow musician R Kelly  and Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged acquaintance Ghislaine Maxwell.It comes as a Diddy accuser’s attorney has claimed a high-profile person was seen alongside the music mogul in a pornographic video.READ MORE SUN STORIESThe footage is said to be a pornographic film that allegedly shows someone “more high-profile” than the rapper and founder of Bad Boy, alongside the troubled hip-hop mogul.Ariel Mitchell-Kidd would not reveal who was the person in the video, allegedly shot in Diddy’s Atlanta mansion.What happened during Sean Combs’ ‘Freak Offs’?SEAN Combs’ infamous drug-fuelled freak offs, first revealed by his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura’s lawsuit in November 2023, have become a central narrative of the indictment.The allegations include:The music mogul “manipulated women to participate in highly orchestrated performances of sexual activity with male commercial sex workers.”Freak offs “occurred regularly, sometimes lasted multiple days, and often involved multiple commercial sex workers.”Combs “distributed a variety of controlled substances to victims, in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant.”He and the victims “typically received IV fluids to recover from the physical exertion and drug use” after the freak offs.Cops “seized various Freak Off supplies, including narcotics and more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant” from his homes in Los Angeles and Miami.Combs “hit, kicked, threw objects at, and dragged victims, at times, by their hair,” during and separate from the freak offs, which “often resulted in injuries that took days or weeks to heal.”He also used the “sensitive, embarrassing, and incriminating recordings” that he made during freak offs as “collateral to ensure the continued obedience and silence of the victims.”Diddy with Victoria Beckham in 2003Credit: Selma FonsecaDiddy at one of his house partiesCredit: AlamyIf Combs is convicted and receives the maximum sentence, he faces life in prisonCredit: GettyA court sketch of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs More