Europe’s top court has ruled that certain FIFA transfer rules break current laws in place within the EU. The legal case against soccer’s governing body was brought forth by former <a href="https://worldsoccertalk.com/teams/chelsea-tv-schedule/">Chelsea</a> and <a href="https://worldsoccertalk.com/teams/real-madrid-tv-schedule/">Real Madrid</a> midfielder Lassana Diarra. The issue between Diarra and FIFA has been ongoing for some time.



Diarra and his lawyers claimed that select transfer rules restricted his freedom and breached competition laws. As a result, the now-retired former player sued FIFA. The issue stems from Diarra’s time with Lokomotiv Moscow. The midfielder previously joined the Russian side in 2013. 



Nevertheless, the relationship between the player and the team quickly soured. Lokomotiv officials asked Diarra to lower his salary in the summer of 2014, but the midfielder denied the request. The Russian club then cut Diarra loose after the player failed to report to training. His contract was supposed to be in place until 2017. 



Along with severing ties with Diarra, Lokomotiv also sought financial restitution from the player and asked FIFA to ban him from joining another team. The governing body sided with the Russian club. Two years after the fiasco, Diarra had to pay Lokomotiv an $11 million fine for breaching his contract. He also picked up a ban, but he had already spent the entire 2014/15 season on the sidelines.



<h2>EU court claims that FIFA broke European laws by blocking transfer</h2>



After leaving Lokomotiv, the former midfielder was going to join Belgian side Charleroi on a free transfer. FIFA, however, blocked the move. The governing body’s rule in question pertains to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The law states that players who terminate their contracts “without just cause” are liable to pay compensation to their club.



Despite these previous issues, the European court ruled in favor of Diarra on Friday. The ruling <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/live/2024/oct/04/landmark-transfer-case-verdict-manchester-united-europa-league-reaction-football-news-live" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">stated</a> that by denying transfers such as Diarra’s proposed move to Charleroi, FIFA’s rules “impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><figure class="image"><img loading="lazy" width="1200" height="675" src="https://ds-images.bolavip.com/news/image?src=https://images.worldsoccertalk.com/webp/full/WST_20241004_WST_533411_Lassana-Diarra-EU-1200x675_ee4acc2b.webp&amp;width=1200&amp;height=675" alt="" class="wp-image-533436" srcset="https://worldsoccertalk.cms.futbolsitesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/10/Lassana-Diarra-EU-1200x675.jpg 1200w, https://worldsoccertalk.cms.futbolsitesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/10/Lassana-Diarra-EU-300x169.jpg 300w, https://worldsoccertalk.cms.futbolsitesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/10/Lassana-Diarra-EU-768x432.jpg 768w, https://worldsoccertalk.cms.futbolsitesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/10/Lassana-Diarra-EU-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://worldsoccertalk.cms.futbolsitesnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/10/Lassana-Diarra-EU.jpg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px"></figure></figure>



Following the decision, a FIFA spokesman claimed that the court’s ruling only affects a small portion of the law. “FIFA is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system has been reconfirmed in today’s ruling,” <a href="https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cjwdydnl3w0o" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">said</a> the spokesman.



“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.”



<h2>Ruling will likely bring biggest transfer changes since 1995 </h2>



The outcome of the case will bring some significant changes to player transfers. Ultimately, the court ruled that players should essentially have more power to play where they want to play. In turn, FIFA’s rules should be less restrictive against players’ wishes. 



There are worries that the decision will cause agents and players to exploit the ruling moving forward. British sports lawyer Tasin Patel has claimed that some players will soon break free of their contracts at certain clubs. “The result could mean far-reaching consequences for the transfer system, similar to how the Bosman Ruling affected transfers in 1995,” Patel told BBC Sport.



The Bosman Ruling allowed soccer players in the European Union to become free agents at the end of their previous contracts. These free agents could then sign with any other club of their choosing.



“Players may now be able to move more freely to other clubs by breaking with a contract as opposed to being tied to the club and contract,” continued Patel. “In addition, buying clubs may not have to pay compensation or claims.”



PHOTOS: IMAGO

EU vs FIFA: EU ruling could open Pandora's Box on transfers

Europe's top court has ruled that certain FIFA transfer rules break current laws in place within the EU. This stems from Lassana Diarra.

<div><figure class="image"></figure></div>
FIFA recently approved the “6+5 rule” in a 155-5 vote among member nations.&nbsp; The rule would mandate that clubs field at least six players from the nation in which they play.&nbsp; By targeting wealthy clubs, particularly English ones, buying foreign players, FIFA feels they would revive national teams and achieve greater parity.&nbsp; This policy would do neither.
The rule is unworkable.&nbsp; It is illegal in Europe.&nbsp; The European Union forbids employee discrimination among member states.&nbsp; Contrary to Sepp Blatter’s bleating, the EU is not going to change its laws to accommodate his whims.&nbsp; Upon implementation, the rule would be challenged immediately by players or clubs under European Law and be overturned.
It would cheapen the quality of the game.&nbsp; Managers would be forced to base tactics on flags rather than football.&nbsp; The rule would subsidize and promote inferior players because of their nationality.&nbsp; Managers with injured English players would have to call up kids from the U-18s rather than experienced foreign professionals to maintain the ratio.&nbsp; It would entirely alter the way matches are managed, for no tangible benefit.
The rule would exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them.&nbsp; The reason English clubs buy foreign players is that it is more cost effective.&nbsp; It makes far more sense to pick up Robin Van Persie for £2.5m than to shell out £17m for Darren Bent to rot on your bench.&nbsp; English players often get stifled at lower clubs because they are so overvalued (see Gareth Barry or Micah Richards).&nbsp; The 6-5 rule would only raise the already inflated value of English players, pricing the elite ones out from all but the top teams.
It would also hinder players’ development further by thrusting talented youngsters forward even more quickly.&nbsp; England’s national team is the only major European side with a slew of flawed players.&nbsp; Even the elites – Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Joe Cole – have obvious tactical and technical flaws in their game.&nbsp; The players are rushed through the system because of their talent and are not coached.&nbsp; That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not their perceived lack of access to Premier League places (even though ten English players started for Manchester United and Chelsea in the Champions League final).
If there is no direct benefit to the national teams, the assumed intent would be to achieve parity.&nbsp; However, the backhanded effort does little to create parity.&nbsp; Inflating the value of national players may even limit cost-effective alternatives and widen the gap further.
A far more sensible policy for promoting the domestic game would be the implementation of UEFA’s homegrown player rules.&nbsp; It encourages clubs to invest in their youth system and player development without foisting unwieldy tactics upon managers or breaking EU laws.
A better way to police big clubs would be to directly address them by imposing spending caps, a salary crap, or some form of revenue sharing/luxury tax in domestic leagues.
Trying to accomplish both in a slapdash, ill-considered way to achieve demagogic popularity is doomed to failure.
Also just for speculation, would Cardiff have to field six English players or six Welsh players?

ALL POSTS TAGGED "European Union"

News

EU vs FIFA: EU ruling could open Pandora's Box on transfers

General

The 6+5 Rule Would Radically Alter Football, But Not in a Good Way