There are events in football so monumental that the shock waves from them reverberate through the entire sport.
Last Friday, during a court case in Belgium, a former footballer seemingly put the current transfer system on notice. Or at least, that’s the way it’s being portrayed by media outlets, always eager to whip up the next big panic. Now, that’s not to say this case isn’t worth some concern, but the Diarra ruling won’t fundamentally reshape football in the way some fear.
Let’s break this down simply. The case is complicated, but we’ll try to keep it straightforward.
Lassana Diarra went to court because, back in 2014, his contract with a Russian club was terminated three years early after he refused to accept changes to the deal and was asked to train with the reserves. After his contract was torn up, the Russian club sued him for £8.6 million, claiming breaches of his agreement. When he tried to move to Charleroi, the club sought assurances that they wouldn’t have to pay any part of that sum. FIFA refused to issue him an International Transfer Certificate, collapsing the move.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) agreed that this amounted to a restriction of trade. Moreover, they decided that the club signing the player shouldn’t be held “jointly liable” for any amount owed to the former club when a player breaches a contract.
This is where the media frenzy comes in. Some are suggesting this ruling could lead to players breaching contracts, paying their clubs a modest sum compared to what they’d fetch in a transfer fee, and then walking away to sign for anyone they like. A few commentators even claim this might collapse the transfer market as we know it.
The clubs most affected would be those like ours, who operate a policy of buying young players, developing them, and selling them for profit. The idea that players could no longer be seen as assets has naturally caused consternation in European football circles. If this played out as the media predicts, the knock-on effects for Celtic would be massive—and not in a good way.
However, after reading the legal analyses and countless articles, I’m convinced FIFA is in a stronger position than many think. This ruling only necessitates a tweak to two paragraphs in the transfer regulatory framework, and I don’t believe those two paragraphs are the linchpin of the entire system. Here’s why.
First, the case arose because a player’s contract was terminated, and he was prevented from moving to another club. This wasn’t a case of a player voluntarily walking out on a deal to sign elsewhere. Diarra’s situation involved a justifiable grievance, where the club had already ended his deal; he was not contracted to anyone, so why should he not have been able to go and play wherever he wanted? Frankly, I was astonished FIFA even tried to win this case. Contracts will still be upheld unless a player breaches them for a legitimate cause; that’s one of the thing some outlets have glossed over in their attempt to drum up their lurid headlines.
The idea that this ruling will trigger Bosman 2.0 overlooks some key differences. As with the Bosman case, the player was unfairly blocked from finding a new club after his contract had ended. With Bosman, that needed to change, and the game was ready for that shift. The current case doesn’t deal with such sweeping issues. It’s narrowly focused on one player’s situation, and while it grants more freedom to players in certain circumstances, it doesn’t threaten the system itself.
What’s often forgotten is that law is simply a form of words.
Most legal changes come down to the addition or removal of certain words, and that’s what will happen here. FIFA will revise its regulations, taking into account this ruling while safeguarding the current transfer system.
While the players’ union may push for greater rights, few high-profile players genuinely want a system where contracts can be torn up willy-nilly. Players, clubs, and governing bodies will all resist such a chaotic transformation. If necessary, clubs will adopt measures like putting minimum release clauses into player contracts, and the governing bodies will legislate accordingly.
The Bosman ruling forced football to adapt to a new reality, but it didn’t destroy the system; it merely corrected a grossly unfair aspect of it.
The same can’t be said for this case. FIFA and UEFA know they can’t allow the transfer system to collapse. They will find the legal wording needed to preserve the current structure, and because football has a protected status under European Union law there will be a certain amount of leeway granted them to do it; this allows the game to make rules that diverge from those in other industries, and that protection will be leaned on.
While the media enjoys sensationalising the issue, this won’t alter the football landscape like Bosman did. The governing bodies, clubs, and most players have no interest in seeing the system unravel, and FIFA and UEFA will do everything in their power to prevent it. The transfer market will remain, even if it’s tweaked slightly to reflect this ruling.
Now, I’m not against players having more rights. For example, I don’t disagree with those who argue that players are being overworked, and if this case gives them leverage to address those concerns, that’s fine. But tipping the balance too far towards the players could lead to chaos. And that’s not something players, clubs, or fans want.
As an aside to this piece. Manchester City has just claimed victory in its case against the English Premier League on what are called associated party transactions.
These are the regulations that stop clubs from being funded by their owners via dodgy sponsorship deals.
And what is the English Premier League’s response to that?
That it’s they who have been vindicated, that it’s their regulations which have been upheld because the verdict agrees with the need for some version of associated party transaction rules. And what has the EPL said that it will do in response to the verdict?
Simple. It’ll change a couple of lines in its regulations to account for this ruling, and things will go on as they always have.
At the end of the day, law is just a form of words.
And because the stakes are so high, the right form of words will be found to ensure the game continues as it always has.
Celtic will be watching this closely, because we have to … but I don’t think there will be too many sleepless nights unless there’s a stunning, and unforeseen, development to this case.
Football used to be such simple game as well…
Changing by the minute and not always in a good direction either –
That scenario would suit Sevco more than Celtic for sure…
There again maybe actually not –
As they’d lose all these Gazillions that The Scummy’s say their players are worth for Sweet Fanny Adams…
What a pity that The Scummy’s of The Scummy Scottish Football Media are Pathological Liars then !
I’m possibly being over simplistic here, but I couldn’t help seeing shades of Diarra’s case in Ianis Hagi’s situation at Ibrox. His contract wasn’t terminated but he was banished to the B team because his employers didn’t want to honour his legally agreed contract to trigger a wage increase after 100 appearances. If Hagi decided to leave he could’ve taken his employers to court on
the grounds of constructive dismissal, with a fair chance of winning. Instead he agreed not to trigger the increase and saved Sevco yet another potentially damaging blow to their credibility. Is it possible this solution came about because of the Diarra case?
Please read Douglas Dickie Scottish Express comments re S. N. P. First Minister and more importantly his biased comments in re to his team along with his anti Celtic rant.
I won’t be reading it Micheal as I won’t pay a red cent towards The Scummy’s –
However it’s liable to be Pathological Lies if it’s in a ‘Scottish’ Scummy mainstream media publication…
Hopefully if it involves Celtic James will be on it for the likes of myself to dissect !