Lassana Diarra case made clear: ‘The new Boseman’ will change the football transfer market forever

If the transfer system were to end tomorrow, what would actually replace it? Will there be collective bargaining between clubs and players, as is the case in American sports?

As bizarre as this prospect may seem, some in the football world are currently clamoring for it – right down to whether Friday morning will bring such profound turmoil.

That’s when the European Court of Justice will rule on Lassana Diarra’s case, which has been seen as a challenge to the legitimacy of the entire transfer system, as well as FIFA’s authority over it, after he pushed for major changes last year. This could radically change the game, as well as the player’s legacy, and change the direction of football for years to come.

There would be great surprise in that too, given that Diarra is now remembered mostly for his unfulfilled potential. He has long been merely the answer to the competition’s age-old questions, as one of the few players to have featured for two of the Premier League’s old ‘big four’: Arsenal and Chelsea, before moving to Real Madrid. The move to the Bernabéu went wrong because Diarra refused to submit to Jose Mourinho’s demands, which is why those who know him were not surprised that he was pursuing the case.

Instead, his name may carry a completely different legacy, similar to that of Belgian pioneer Jean-Marc Bosman. The sense of danger was made even greater by the fact that Boseman’s lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont, took up the case. Even some details seem vague, such as Bosman’s attempt to move from RFC Liège to Dunkirk in 1990, which eventually led to a legal victory against UEFA and the first major market reform in 1995.

Diarra moved to Lokomotiv Moscow from the then-big-money club Anzhi Makhachkala in 2013, but a good start turned sour and the midfielder lost his place in the team. Lokomotiv believed that justified the lower salary, which Diarra refused to accept. The club later claimed that he had missed training sessions under false pretenses, which they used as an excuse to sack him in August 2014 and sue him for breach of contract, which still had three years to go.

Lokomotiv took the case to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber [DRC]who ruled in their favor with Diarra banned from signing for another club until they were paid what he was entitled to on their balance sheet, which was £8.8m. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which also ruled in favor of Lokomotiv. At the time, Diarra’s quality ensured he received a lot of attention, including from Royal Charleroi. The Belgian club were willing to strike a deal, on the condition that they could sign the midfielder as a free agent and not have to pay the compensation Lokomotiv wanted.

Diarra asked FIFA to confirm that he was a free player, but they said it was a legal matter that only the Democratic Republic of the Congo could confirm. They did just that a few weeks later, but Diarra claimed the delay meant losing transfer opportunities. Without the necessary international transport certificate [ITC] Charleroi was asked to register with the Belgian Football Association at the time, and the club withdrew.

Open the image in the gallery

This forms the crux of the issue. Diarra, DuPont, the French players’ federation and FifPro say this delay and the basic rules constitute a violation of European Union labor law. They decided to sue FIFA and the Belgian Federation for restricting trade and losing 6 million euros in profits.

Ultimately, the Belgian court awarded Diarra €60,000 – not €6 million – while holding FIFA responsible for the fact that he could not get a new contract due to the clubs fearing that he would be held liable for Lokomotiv’s compensation. The Belgian Federation was also held jointly responsible for failing to ensure the player was able to exercise his fundamental rights in the European Union by taking up a position with one of the country’s clubs.

One factor in this ruling was how FIFA applies its own rules within EU law, which is why many in the game do not regard this referral to the European Court of Justice as a “new Boseman”. There was even a surprise when FIFA refused to grant Charleroi guarantees faster, given there was a previous high-profile case that appeared to have settled the issue. Juventus were not required to pay compensation when they signed Adrian Mutu after terminating his contract with Chelsea.

The only way the Diarra case could be seen as likely to bring down the entire transfer system is for FIFA’s refusal to issue an international transfer decision to be ruled unlawful, and the entire statute to be ruled anti-competitive, which would force FIFA to Cancel its regulations. Regarding the status and transfers of players.

This is seen as unlikely given the fact that the case has already been interpreted within EU law, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport recognizing that “one of the aims of the FIFA Regulations is to protect contractual stability, which is ‘of paramount importance in football, from the clubs’ point of view’. And the players and the fans.” In other words, FIFA’s transfer rules are legal.

Open the image in the gallery

Perhaps this goes some way to suggesting that the major football agencies are not particularly worried about Friday. Some barely think about it at all. There is a widespread – but not unanimous – view that the government will not even approach a new Bossman. Some representatives believe that a Diarra win could actually go against the players, in a way that would be the opposite of what happened with Boseman. There will be less contractual stability. One argument is that players will ultimately lose out if they can break contracts and move at will, because without transfer income, salaries at the vast majority of clubs would fall. Ultimately, the bigger clubs will end up with more footballers.

But on the other side of all that was the non-binding opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, Maciej Sponar. The following has been submitted to the European Court of Justice.

“There is no doubt about the restrictive nature of FIFA’s regulations on the status and transfer of players. By their very nature, the disputed provisions limit the possibility of players switching clubs… [and] It necessarily affects the competition between clubs in the market to acquire professional players.

“The consequences of a player terminating his contract without just cause are so severe that it is unlikely that the player would take that route. The disputed provisions have been designed in such a way as to have a deterrent effect and send shivers down every player’s spine.

Open the image in the gallery

As important as these words may seem, the European Court of Justice did not take up the Advocate General’s opinion in the Premier League case in December. They may ignore it here, and there is a view within legal circles that FIFA will make a much stronger case for its transfer regime at the actual hearing.

One expectation is that the rules will be seen as restrictive, but possibly justified by “economic efficiency” such as contractual stability. In this case, FIFA just needs to further clarify its own rules.

Open the image in the gallery

If things go the other way, they’ll have to rewrite those rules. This would represent a whole new world for football.

Even if the case does not turn out to be a Boseman case, the story points to a much broader issue. It is just another legal test of the sport’s regulations, in the way that has become the defining subject of football in the 2020s. This is why many are forced to imagine completely alternative visions of this sport.