Football could be forced to adopt US-style transfer system with game becoming Wild West after Lassana Diarra ruling
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.
For 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.
And 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”.
BEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERS
More 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.
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 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…
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 change
Fifa 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.
But 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.