Lassana Diarra case - Bosman 2.0?

[RobinLFC]

Didn't see a thread on this yet.

The EU Court Of Justice will render a decision tomorrow on this case, which could result in players being able to walk out on their contracts a lot easier in the near future, basically giving all power to the players and their agents again.

Basically Diarra was prohibited by FIFA regulations to join another club in 2014 when Lokomotiv Moscow terminated his contract. He decided that these regulations were a breach of EU law (free movement of workers and competition laws). The advocate-general already advised in favor of Diarra's reasoning (who's being assisted by the same lawyers as in the Bosman case by the way). If the court shares this view as well, then players will be able to walk away from their current contracts way more easily in the future - they might only owe a small compensation to their club, which their new club would obviously be very happy to pay or assist with given that it'll likely be a lot lower than an actual transfer fee like we currently see.

So, will be interesting what the outcome will be tomorrow. The Court of Justice will only refer the case back to the Belgian court as well, but it's unheard of that its reasoning wouldn't be followed in the next stages.

Summary of the entire case can be found in an article from The Guardian, for those interested.

 

[Chipper]

Brext means Brexit.

What was that other ruling that we heard about for a while then seemed to disappear completely, nowhere near as notable as Bosman. It was that players could buy out their own contracts. I think it was involving a Scottish player but I'm not sure.

Found it: The Webster Ruling - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_ruling

Not much came of that, but in theory more similar to this case. After 3 years of your contract the ruling stated that if you paid off the remainder of your wages or only a small amount extra you could go.

 

[Pexbo]

Didn't see a thread on this yet.

The EU Court Of Justice will render a decision tomorrow on this case, which could result in players being able to walk out on their contracts a lot easier in the near future, basically giving all power to the players and their agents again.

Basically Diarra was prohibited by FIFA regulations to join another club in 2014 when Lokomotiv Moscow terminated his contract. He decided that these regulations were a breach of EU law (free movement of workers and competition laws). The advocate-general already advised in favor of Diarra's reasoning (who's being assisted by the same lawyers as in the Bosman case by the way). If the court shares this view as well, then players will be able to walk away from their current contracts way more easily in the future - they might only owe a small compensation to their club, which their new club would obviously be very happy to pay or assist with given that it'll likely be a lot lower than an actual transfer fee like we currently see.

So, will be interesting what the outcome will be tomorrow. The Court of Justice will only refer the case back to the Belgian court as well, but it's unheard of that its reasoning wouldn't be followed in the next stages.

Summary of the entire case can be found in an article from The Guardian, for those interested.

I’m struggling to see how this case can lead to what you say it can?

Diarra had his contract cancelled by Lokomotiv so he should have been a free agent. Surely this ruling won’t effect players still under mutual contract?

 

[RobinLFC]

I’m struggling to see how this case can lead to what you say it can?

Diarra had his contract cancelled by Lokomotiv so he should have been a free agent. Surely this ruling won’t effect players still under mutual contract?

Diarra has argued that a footballer should be able to unilaterally terminate his contract just like any other employee within the EU, and the advocate-general came to the conclusion that this is currently not possible because of the draconic consequences imposed by FIFA in such an instance (fines for player, owed by his new club, transfer ban for new club, and suspension for the player). If those FIFA regulations are deemed to be in conflict with EU laws, they'll need to be abolished and as a result players could be sooner be inclined to terminate their contracts. Their remuneration would need to be determined based on national legislation (e.g. in Belgium it would be a (small) compensation owed to the club but in Italy it would be much harder to do so because it needs to go to some kind of arbitration court each time).

At least that's what I'm reading in Belgian press, Diarra's new club was a Belgian one and it's a Belgian court involved so got a bit of buzz here lately. Not sure much will come of it (if anything) even if the court decides against FIFA, but would be interesting to see what happens in that case.

 

[JinnerJamie]

Madrid will be licking their lips at the thought of this coming off.

 

[didz]

I’m struggling to see how this case can lead to what you say it can?

Diarra had his contract cancelled by Lokomotiv so he should have been a free agent. Surely this ruling won’t effect players still under mutual contract?

As far as Lokomotiv are concerned (at least outwardly) it was Diarra who broke his contract.

Under current FIFA rules, if a player terminates their contract without just cause, that player and their prospective new club are jointly liable for compensation to the club with which the contract was broken.

That bit of the rulebook is what the Bosman guy is going after, on the basis that Diarra was denied a move because of concerns over that compensation. So in theory a player would be able to break a contract and then neither they nor their prospective new club would be liable for compensation.

It sounds more likely that they'll come up with a solution that doesn't rip the transfer market apart, but that's the threat.

 

[NotChatGPT]

Madrid will be licking their lips at the thought of this coming off.

They wont

 

[ArmaDino]

I’m struggling to see how this case can lead to what you say it can?

Diarra had his contract cancelled by Lokomotiv so he should have been a free agent. Surely this ruling won’t effect players still under mutual contract?

Didn't see a thread on this yet.

The EU Court Of Justice will render a decision tomorrow on this case, which could result in players being able to walk out on their contracts a lot easier in the near future, basically giving all power to the players and their agents again.

Basically Diarra was prohibited by FIFA regulations to join another club in 2014 when Lokomotiv Moscow terminated his contract. He decided that these regulations were a breach of EU law (free movement of workers and competition laws). The advocate-general already advised in favor of Diarra's reasoning (who's being assisted by the same lawyers as in the Bosman case by the way). If the court shares this view as well, then players will be able to walk away from their current contracts way more easily in the future - they might only owe a small compensation to their club, which their new club would obviously be very happy to pay or assist with given that it'll likely be a lot lower than an actual transfer fee like we currently see.

So, will be interesting what the outcome will be tomorrow. The Court of Justice will only refer the case back to the Belgian court as well, but it's unheard of that its reasoning wouldn't be followed in the next stages.

Summary of the entire case can be found in an article from The Guardian, for those interested.

Not sure how it is in Europe, however in the US people who have contracts can be subjected to non-compete agreements. For example: friend of mine owned a home health business. After he sold, he couldn't open a new one, until his non-compete expired(2 years later). Another friend of mine worked at as a marketer. She couldn't work for a direct competitor for 6 months after she was terminated.

Might depend on the contract really.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I’m struggling to see how this case can lead to what you say it can?

Diarra had his contract cancelled by Lokomotiv so he should have been a free agent. Surely this ruling won’t effect players still under mutual contract?

"In the summer of 2014 Diarra was playing for Lokomotiv Moscow. The France international was in dispute with the club over his salary. The club decided this amounted to a breach of contract and terminated it. They then took Diarra to Fifa’s dispute and resolution chamber, seeking damages. Despite a counterclaim from Diarra, the DRC found in Lokomotiv’s favour and fined the player €10.5m. At the same time, Diarra received an offer of a contract from the Belgian club Charleroi. It came with a condition, however: Charleroi wanted confirmation from Fifa that Diarra would be able to move and that his new club would not be liable for any of the costs owed to Lokomotiv. Fifa did not give those guarantees, with its rules mandating that an international transfer certificate must be granted by the league a player is leaving before any deal could take place. With no moneys having been paid to Lokomotiv that permit was not forthcoming. As a result, in December 2015, Diarra brought legal action against Fifa and the Belgian football league, claiming a loss of earnings and starting a long process that has led to this week’s judgment."

So it seems to stem from the power that clubs still have over players that aren't 'theirs.'

 

[Teja]

If those FIFA regulations are deemed to be in conflict with EU laws, they'll need to be abolished and as a result players could be sooner be inclined to terminate their contracts. Their remuneration would need to be determined based on national legislation (e.g. in Belgium it would be a (small) compensation owed to the club but in Italy it would be much harder to do so because it needs to go to some kind of arbitration court each time).

That's really interesting. I don't know if it's good or bad or who the winners and loses are. Obviously, players are the big winners but will clubs actually loose? Does it make youth development infeasible as a business model? Would love some proper economic analysis here.

 

[RobinLFC]

That's really interesting. I don't know if it's good or bad or who the winners and loses are. Obviously, players are the big winners but will clubs actually loose? Does it make youth development infeasible as a business model? Would love some proper economic analysis here.

Not sure about economics in the broad sense, but would be a big blow for teams (and smaller leagues in general) like Benfica, Ajax, Anderlecht, Dortmund, ... Basically clubs that have built a profit model with identifying young talented players and selling them for a shitload of money after a few years. Barça wouldn't have paid €100m for Dembele if he could've terminated his contract for €20m.

 

[Teja]

Not sure about economics in the broad sense, but would be a big blow for teams (and smaller leagues in general) like Benfica, Ajax, Anderlecht, Dortmund, ... Basically clubs that have built a profit model with identifying young talented players and selling them for a shitload of money after a few years. Barça wouldn't have paid €100m for Dembele if he could've terminated his contract for €20m.

They go and do the same to their league in turn though. Ajax are the royalty in Netherlands.

 

[The Cat]

Hope this would work both ways and we can get rid of players just as easily.

 

[Ish]

Not sure about economics in the broad sense, but would be a big blow for teams (and smaller leagues in general) like Benfica, Ajax, Anderlecht, Dortmund, ... Basically clubs that have built a profit model with identifying young talented players and selling them for a shitload of money after a few years. Barça wouldn't have paid €100m for Dembele if he could've terminated his contract for €20m.

Yeah it would have massive repercussions (if we assumed Bosman type far reaching consequences) and basically render contracts - especially long term ones pointless.

 

[pcaming]

I can't begin to understand the legal stuff, but at a base level I do agree that footballers are not commodities, they are still human employees and should be treated as such.

If that means a shake up in contracts etc, then so be it.

 

[Scriblerus]

So the court is now in the process of ruling that FIFA transfer rules breach EU regulations because they impede the free movement of professional footballers..... Details still to come..... https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ted-europa-league-reaction-football-news-live

 

[Yorkeontop]

Dude! Read about this last week.

 

[Bepi]

Basically and if enforced, (top level) footballers will not be employees any more but independent artists, while the non top level ones will look at agreed contract formats like any other salaried worker.

 

[Chipper]

Can't wrap my head round the potential ramfications of this.

Can't even figure out which is more likely, EU clubs being the only relevant teams on the planet should things be taken to their extreme, or EU club football being destroyed by this with the PL and potentially far flung leagues around the world benefiting, having the chance become truly elite (USA, Saudi etc.).

 

[TsuWave]

 

[SilentWitness]

Whenever I've listened to people talking about him at Portsmouth I always imagined that he played more games than he did.

 

[P-Nut]

Aren't Chelsea the biggest losers if this actually has some weight?

They have built their model around long contracts which would basically become pointless given the player could just decide they don't want to stay.

 

[Chipper]

Aren't Chelsea the biggest losers if this actually has some weight?

They have built their model around long contracts which would basically become pointless given the player could just decide they don't want to stay.

Well they're not in the EU!

But of course the UK kept many of the EU laws post-Brexit, drafted some new ones, chucked some out. No idea where they are on this one. So maybe?

Would guess there have to be a seperate hearing brought by someone else if the laws are the same. A UK ruling could even go the other way.

Always some potential for the wording of laws to change too I suppose so that something once deemed to breach a law no longer does. Now I don't know who might want to or not, and tinkering laws that impact everyone due to one industry doesn't seem like a good idea but I'm pretty sure it's happened before. The Beckham tax regulation change within Spain for example that saw wealthy foreign workers pay lower rates than they would have previously in an attempt to attract star footballers.

 

[Zehner]

I know that people are tired of the high transfer sums but they are one of the few ways how smaller clubs can catch up ecomically. It would be a disaster for the competitiveness of European football if this goes through without a salary cap being implemented.

 

[leoric]

Football would be so much more interesting if they did away with football transfer fees all together and it was just purely down to salaries and agent fees (maybe). All teams operating within a salary cap of course.

Players should be able to move freely between clubs each year if they choose too, would be an interesting proposition. Obviously it would never happen.

 

[Chipper]

I know that people are tired of the high transfer sums but they are one of the few ways how smaller clubs can catch up ecomically. It would be a disaster for the competitiveness of European football if this goes through without a salary cap being implemented.

Agreed. Was one of the reasons where I can't figure out if this potentially benefits EU football or not if taken to the extreme.

In one way = potenttial huge benefit. All the top players want to play in the EU because they can pretty much do whatever they want, moving at will between clubs and making massive amounts of money, cleaning up on trophies. It could become the only place to be.

On the other hand fans of smaller clubs become disillusioned of losing their best players all the time on top of the financial implications, it kills football from the bottom up and so many teams could potentially fold. Not sure fans of big clubs would feel much affection for their team any more either if players could just leave and re-join whenever they want to as I'm sure they would. No club legends any more and no affinity for the players built up over time. Fan interest would potentially die for the big clubs as well, hard to say, they might just be blinded by the excitement of being able to sign a bunch of superstars at any given moment instead but I'm not sure. I wouldn't like it at United personally even though we're not in the EU, would be a huge turn off and sounds crap.

The more stable, non EU leagues might become the leagues people around the world would want to watch if things go to the extreme at some point after the initial rush of star names only wanting to play there should fans reject it all.

 

[rimaldo]

just make all footballers temps and allow a maximum length of contract to be 12 months. it incentivises them not to play like most of our players.

 

[rimaldo]

Football would be so much more interesting if they did away with football transfer fees all together and it was just purely down to salaries and agent fees (maybe). All teams operating within a salary cap of course.

Players should be able to move freely between clubs each year if they choose too, would be an interesting proposition. Obviously it would never happen.

i’d be interested to see a model that said you could only sell academy graduates.

 

[Bright_Eyes]

Could we have done this with Ronaldo then? Sack him for bringing the club into disrepute and then he wouldn't have been able to sign for other clubs?

 

[RoyH1]

This gives players and agents a lot more power but could be a death knell for smaller feeder clubs. So many clubs in Europe depend from player sales. A player that makes it big is worth more to them than almost any marketing deal

A salary cap is a possible solution, but the huge clubs will never accept it. Interesting times.

 

[giorno]

So Diarra wanted to be paid more. Because of this, Lokomotiv sacked him, successfully sued him for 10mil and then prevented him from joining any other clubs? I don't understand how this happened, it makes no sense.

For whatever reason Lokomotiv were within their rights to cut his wages and Diarra reacted by refusing to work, hence the breach of contract

 

[G3079]

So Diarra wanted to be paid more. Because of this, Lokomotiv sacked him, successfully sued him for 10mil and then prevented him from joining any other clubs? I don't understand how this happened, it makes no sense.

Other way around, Lokomotiv wanted to pay Diarra less:

Following a dispute with manager Leonid Kuchuk, Lokomotiv alleged Diarra refused to appear at training or accept a lower salary, and dismissed him three years before his deal was due to expire.

See the BBC article linked above.
FIFA then ruled that Diarra had indeed been in breach of contract, that the termination of his contract by Lokomotiv was correct and that Diarra owed them money for his refusal to work to the extent of his contract. So far nothing's wrong, none of that was ruled against by the court.
The contradiction with EU law, as far as I understand it, then occurred when FIFA refused the player the ITC that he needed to transfer to Belgium's Charleroi, which contradicts with an EU citizen's freedom to work in any of the member states. FIFA does not get to interfere there in the future is my guess. The second thing that was ruled against was that the intaking club automatically took on any damages that the player owed to their former club.

Honestly I don't see the huge impact that some people do. Players who are EU citizens which go against their contract will still be liable to pay damages, they will just not be chained to their former club's country anymore, and their new club does not automatically take on their debts. Contracts will probably get bigger clauses for damages written into them, and clubs will only be able to claim those from the player themself instead of third parties. It will make it easier for EU players to force their way out of contracts, but it will not be as much without consequences as some people seem to suggest.

 

[didz]

Could we have done this with Ronaldo then? Sack him for bringing the club into disrepute and then he wouldn't have been able to sign for other clubs?

Sure, but he can probably afford better lawyers than us. Besides, what's the value in blocking his move to Saudi Arabia?

 

[Chipper]

So Diarra wanted to be paid more. Because of this, Lokomotiv sacked him, successfully sued him for 10mil and then prevented him from joining any other clubs? I don't understand how this happened, it makes no sense.

I've seen something saying he was refusing a pay cut, not that he wanted paying more. Changes how much sympathy I'd have for him and how I'd see it all from his perspective. He was refusing to train.

I think if a player demanded a pay rise and refused to attend work (training) until given it then the system where you can sack them and sue them while holding their registration does make sense. At least if contracts and the transfer system are to have any standing or meaning at all which they may not have now! Would have to say there has to be some sort of responsibility on a player to act reasonably in terms of what's right for his club otherwise you could have all sorts going on. Again, that's only if you want the transfer and contract system to survive.

Without it all you you could just turn up one day after another club has offered you more to play for them, demand for it to be matched and refuse to play / train until it is. You could even thell tell them you're going to score own goals, or start eating a dozen burgers a day and getting drunk all the time until they coughed up or released you. If released with no consequences, free to join someone else you've won and your old club wasted the transfer fee on you. It destroys the system completely if a player is allowed to do all that.

Kind of reminds me of the Mutu case actually the legal shenanigans surrounding it. Different, but can draw some parallels in the sense of a player behavioural expectations and suing them if in breach etc.

 

[terraloo]

Other way around, Lokomotiv wanted to pay Diarra less:

See the BBC article linked above.
FIFA then ruled that Diarra had indeed been in breach of contract, that the termination of his contract by Lokomotiv was correct and that Diarra owed them money for his refusal to work to the extent of his contract. So far nothing's wrong, none of that was ruled against by the court.
The contradiction with EU law, as far as I understand it, then occurred when FIFA refused the player the ITC that he needed to transfer to Belgium's Charleroi, which contradicts with an EU citizen's freedom to work in any of the member states. FIFA does not get to interfere there in the future is my guess. The second thing that was ruled against was that the intaking club automatically took on any damages that the player owed to their former club.

Honestly I don't see the huge impact that some people do. Players who are EU citizens which go against their contract will still be liable to pay damages, they will just not be chained to their former club's country anymore, and their new club does not automatically take on their debts. Contracts will probably get bigger clauses for damages written into them, and clubs will only be able to claim those from the player themself instead of third parties. It will make it easier for EU players to force their way out of contracts, but it will not be as much without consequences as some people seem to suggest.

That’s very much my take on it.

The basis of this to a degree dates back to the Webster ruling and in particular the rulings , very much stemming from CAs, that if a player does indeed end their contract then compensation is payable at the moment there is a joint and several liability as to who is liable to pay that compensation. In other words the player and or the new club are liable and in this inxtance I think it was the Belgian club who wanted in effect an assurance from FIFa that the club wouldn’t be liable. I suppose the question would be if the clubs are indeed excluded would that mean the player is liable akin to how it operates in Spain/ Portugal.

 

[terraloo]

I've seen something saying he was refusing a pay cut, not that he wanted paying more. Changes how much sympathy I'd have for him and how I'd see it all from his perspective. He was refusing to train.

I think if a player demanded a pay rise and refused to attend work (training) until given it then the system where you can sack them and sue them while holding their registration does make sense. At least if contracts and the transfer system are to have any standing or meaning at all which they may not have now! Would have to say there has to be some sort of responsibility on a player to act reasonably in terms of what's right for his club otherwise you could have all sorts going on. Again, that's only if you want the transfer and contract system to survive.

Without it all you you could just turn up one day after another club has offered you more to play for them, demand for it to be matched and refuse to play / train until it is. You could even thell tell them you're going to score own goals, or start eating a dozen burgers a day and getting drunk all the time until they coughed up or released you. If released with no consequences, free to join someone else you've won and your old club wasted the transfer fee on you. It destroys the system completely if a player is allowed to do all that.

Kind of reminds me of the Mutu case actually the legal shenanigans surrounding it. Different, but can draw some parallels in the sense of a player behavioural expectations and suing them if in breach etc.

From my reading he didn’t agree to accept a pay cut nor was a cut actually enforced but he didn’t the fulfil his contract by not turning up to training. That played into the clubs hand in that it gave them grounds to terminate his contract and that action was ruled as being justified.
I too draw some comparisons with the Mutu case

 

[Chipper]

From my reading he didn’t agree to accept a pay cut nor was a cut actually enforced but he didn’t the fulfil his contract by not turning up to training. That played into the clubs hand in that it gave them grounds to terminate his contract and that action was ruled as being justified.
I too draw some comparisons with the Mutu case

Was he ostracised at all for not agreeing to the cut? Unfair amounts of pressure put on him to take it etc. do you know? That would play a big part in how I felt aboit it. Would assume that's potentially part of his case or his argument.

From his point of view, it sounds like he could be claiming something similar to constrctive dismissal. That the club made his workplace a hostile environment so he was in the right to not train. The club say no, you not training is a big breach of your responsibility to us, and therefore we're sacking you. We can't let you just join another team for nothing as we paid money for your registration and we're suing.

My mind has now wandered to another wacky potential siituation if players could just walk at any time without a club having some measure to prevent it and holding their registration or potentially being able to sue them. A player could 'retire' the day after signing for a team, after they'd paid a transfer fee then sign for someone else immediately after 'changing their mind' about qutting the game. There's no transfer system at all if you can do that sort of thing.

 

[simonhch]

This still has to go to the top court though doesn’t it? Could drag on for a while. The ramifications are potentially huge. Not sure where it leaves English clubs. Could be a situation where a player in Europe can terminate his contract and then move to England for free. Even if England isn’t in the EU, if the law relates to players being able to walk away from contracts, they would essentially be able to do this. But clubs wanting English players would have to pay a transfer fee as an English clubs wouldn’t have to abide by EU law? Could create a bizarre multi tiered system.

Whatever happens, you feel like the smallest clubs could lose out here. Which would be awful.

 

[Cloud7]

If you really think about it, it is weird that footballers are essentially treated like commodities that their clubs can value and trade around on their whim, and only after having the approval of the club do the players actually get any say in it.

 

[G3079]

This still has to go to the top court though doesn’t it? Could drag on for a while. The ramifications are potentially huge. Not sure where it leaves English clubs. Could be a situation where a player in Europe can terminate his contract and then move to England for free. Even if England isn’t in the EU, if the law relates to players being able to walk away from contracts, they would essentially be able to do this. But clubs wanting English players would have to pay a transfer fee as an English clubs wouldn’t have to abide by EU law? Could create a bizarre multi tiered system.

What "top court"? There is no court above the European Court of Justice in the EU. Their verdict is binding for any European court, in this case the Belgian court that the case is going back to after they asked the ECJ for their input on the interpretation and impact of the EU laws in this instance.

And nothing in their ruling would result in anything like what you are talking about in any conceivable scenario. I honestly do not understand how you could read their verdict, specifically which two articles they criticize, and arrive at the conclusion that players now could freely walk out of their contracts - much less for non-EU countries.