Diarra v Fifa: Some transfer rules break EU law - top court

[carmeldevil]

Lassana Diarra: Fifa transfer rules break EU law - top court rules

After a long-running dispute between ex-Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra and Fifa, a court has ruled against the governing body.

www.bbc.com

Whoa - this could be big. I'm sure Chelsea is licking their lips.

 

[Col_M]

Implications here is that long contracts will be off the table, and therefore transfer fees will take a massive hit.
This makes all players free agents. Unless of course the EU make a change to the law.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Gives the players the power, so by default, it gives the agents the power. Agents are about to get very rich and I can't tell you how much that makes bile rise in my throat, even if it does make things fairer for the player.

Hopefully the clubs will start pushing back the cost of agents to the players. They employ the agent, how it ever ended up with clubs paying off the agents is still a mystery to me.

 

[Real_madyidd]

Lassana Diarra: Fifa transfer rules break EU law - top court rules

After a long-running dispute between ex-Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra and Fifa, a court has ruled against the governing body.

www.bbc.com

Whoa - this could be big. I'm sure Chelsea is licking their lips.

I only skimmed it but it seems that when a club terminates a contract the player is free to move without the club getting a transfer fee. Makes no real difference.

 

[Real_madyidd]

Implications here is that long contracts will be off the table, and therefore transfer fees will take a massive hit.
This makes all players free agents. Unless of course the EU make a change to the law.

How does it mean that?

 

[Tucker]

I only skimmed it but it seems that when a club terminates a contract the player is free to move without the club getting a transfer fee. Makes no real difference.

Yeah that was my reading of the situation. This looks like a really specific case of when someone is sacked by their club. Not sure it’s going to have wide ranging consequences.

 

[carmeldevil]

More details from Tariq Panja of NYT

By Tariq Panja
Oct. 4, 2024, 6:43 a.m. ET
Europe’s top court ruled on Friday that some elements of soccer’s multibillion-dollar global player trading market are illegal, a decision that is likely to force changes to the way thousands of athletes move between teams around the world every year.
The ruling, concerning the right of players under contract to terminate those agreements under rules drawn up by FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, came in a case brought by a French player who was subject to millions of dollars in fines after walking out of his agreement with a Russian team in a pay dispute and trying to sign with a club in Belgium.

The penalties levied against the player, Lassana Diarra, and any team that wanted to sign him, “are contrary to E.U. law,” the European Court of Justice said in a statement on Friday.

The full ruling has yet to be published, and the details in that decision will provide greater understanding of how significant any changes to player trading rules will be. The so-called transfer market, an industry that is closely followed by tens of millions of soccer fans, serves as a major engine of cash generation to hundreds of teams that develop players around the globe.
The statement said judges at the court had considered the impact of roster stability in its decision but determined that the rules managed by FIFA “go beyond what is necessary to pursue that objective.”

Diarra’s case was brought by a Belgian lawyer, Jean Louis-Dupont, who was also a key figure in a major case heard by the court a generation earlier that revolutionized the trading market. That case, named for Jean Marc-Bosman, the former player who brought it, mandated that free agents could join the club of their choosing without a fee after their contracts expired — instantly flipping the power over the market from clubs to players, and ushering an era of supersize contracts for the game’s top stars.

Confusion about the significance of Friday’s ruling could be read by the reactions to it, with FIFA acknowledging he decision but saying that it would lead to only minor adjustments to its rules, while Mr. Dupont and a global players union described it as seismic.

“FIFA is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been reconfirmed in today’s ruling,” the governing body said in a statement. “The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which the national court is now invited to consider. FIFA will analyze the decision in coordination with other stakeholders before commenting further.”

The players union FIFPro described it as a “major ruling” and said it would “change the landscape of football.”
Mr. Dupont said the ruling meant that players could now seek compensation for losses as a result of the regulations that have been in place since 2001. “We are convinced that this ‘price to pay’ for violating E.U. law will — at last — force FIFA to submit to the E.U. rule of law and speed up the modernization of governance,” said a statement released by his law firm, Dupont-Hissel.
In recent years, soccer’s transfer industry has grown to become a form of entertainment in itself, creating entire media businesses solely focused on news and rumors about player movements.

The market’s growing profile and value have also turned a group of agents into significant actors with the ability to shape entire rosters while taking in huge commissions themselves, payments that often dwarf salaries for all but the biggest stars.
The ruling is the latest setback for FIFA, which failed to tame agents after losing a legal challenge over rules to cap commissions. In similar wording, courts around Europe agreed that those rules ran the risk of contravening existing employment and commercial laws.

FIFA officials had privately been warning that any changes to the transfer rules based on the claim brought by Diarra would lead some agents to encourage players to break contracts in an effort to move to bigger clubs, reducing the motivation for smaller teams to nurture talent in their own academies.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

This is a ruling by the ECJ which only applies to the EU, the UK and many other football countries are not subject to EU employment laws or ECJ rulings so what do FIFA do.
Diarra himself is French so an EU citizen but how does this ruling apply to say footballers in South America, leave that one to the lawyers.

 

[Marty]

I only skimmed it but it seems that when a club terminates a contract the player is free to move without the club getting a transfer fee. Makes no real difference.

That's the Bosman ruling?

The way this was explained to me is pretty much whole case basically equates to players now being allowed to hand in their notice like any other employee is allowed to do.

 

[cwy21]

Coming from American sports the idea of clubs paying agents is strange to me. Here the player negotiates their fee with their agent and the money comes out of the players check. Which to me makes sense because it's their agent doing them a service.

 

[Marty]

Coming from American sports the idea of clubs paying agents is strange to me. Here the player negotiates their fee with their agent and the money comes out of the players check. Which to me makes sense because it's their agent doing them a service.

That would make far more sense.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Coming from American sports the idea of clubs paying agents is strange to me. Here the player negotiates their fee with their agent and the money comes out of the players check. Which to me makes sense because it's their agent doing them a service.

In the end - it does not really matter where the money is coming from.

The clubs in both systems ultimately pay the agent - whether it is directly, or indirectly via more money paid to the player.

In the US, I will say that some players have wised up to the large agent fees, who typically ask for a small % of a players contract. Now, player unions are capping agent fees, and some players are going with a lawyer, and paying him/her an hourly rate to negotiate a contract. In sports like the NBA - where players are typically getting max contracts, or rookie contracts that are locked in - there is no reason to pay an agent to negotiate those deals.

 

[Col_M]

How does it mean that?

It calls into question the legality of employment contracts You and I can resign and join another company.

why would a club offer a transfer fee when they can get someone for free?

 

[rossdapep]

Coming from American sports the idea of clubs paying agents is strange to me. Here the player negotiates their fee with their agent and the money comes out of the players check. Which to me makes sense because it's their agent doing them a service.

What's even more OTT is that the agent will negoatiate a percentage of the players salary AND be paid from both the buying and selling club in some cases.

Im all for agents being paid well (after all I scout and work with some) but it would make sense if only the player paid the agent.

Although one issue is when players are paid a low salary.

 

[ERO]

What's even more OTT is that the agent will negoatiate a percentage of the players salary AND be paid from both the buying and selling club in some cases.

Im all for agents being paid well (after all I scout and work with some) but it would make sense if only the player paid the agent.

Although one issue is when players are paid a low salary.

If your agent can't help you negotiate a higher enough salary to cover the payment for his services you are better off without him anyway.

 

[Real_madyidd]

It calls into question the legality of employment contracts You and I can resign and join another company.

why would a club offer a transfer fee when they can get someone for free?

Wow I have really misread that. I was very tired and slightly hungover to be fair

 

[muppetman]

I struggle to understand the ins and outs of this, but this guy (reposted by a respected journalist) seems to think that things are going to change quite dramatically - Bosman #2

Thread here -

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

I only skimmed it but it seems that when a club terminates a contract the player is free to move without the club getting a transfer fee. Makes no real difference.

But it is an eu ruling. Will not apply in the uk and other non eu European countries surely?

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

But it is an eu ruling. Will not apply in the uk and other non eu European countries surely?

My initial thought on that is that it if it changes the basis on which UK clubs can trade with EU clubs and players, it will have a direct impact in the UK anyway.

Market forces will mean that in practice UK clubs will find they have to comply even if it’s not (yet) the law here. Otherwise they’ll lose out on the best EU-based players.

And it won’t be long before UK players will start to insist on parity too. And other non-EU markets and players will also be forced to follow, for the same competitive market reasons.

I can’t imagine UK clubs will carry on as they currently are, despite it not being UK law.