Diarra speaks of a milestone day that could change the balance of power in football | FIFA

It feels like we’ve been waiting an eternity for another legal ruling that would not only change the face of football, but also be synonymous with a single professional player. Finally we may have a new Bosman. The judgment delivered on Friday by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – also known as the Lassana Diarra judgment – ​​will almost certainly lead to significant changes in the game.

This legal process, which began nine years ago, is still not completed. Ultimately, it will be up to the Belgian courts to decide whether the key Fifa laws governing the transfer market constitute a going concern. But given that these latter considerations must be made within the jurisdiction of EU law, and that the EU’s highest court has said that FIFA’s rules “in several respects go beyond… in some cases far beyond… what is necessary is”, we can assume that the status quo may be on its last legs.

Ostensibly, the case concerns what happens when a player’s contract is terminated “without just cause.” This is what happened to Diarra in 2014, when he played for Lokomotiv Moscow. A dispute over performance and wages led to his contract being terminated by the Russian club, with FIFA’s Dispute and Resolution Chamber (DRC) convicting the former France midfielder and subsequently fining him.

When Diarra subsequently signed a new contract with Belgian club Charleroi, he was unable to complete the move as a transfer permit would only be granted after the fine had been paid. Furthermore, Charleroi would have been held liable for that debt if they had tried to complete a deal and may have been punished if they refused to pay it. This was an outcome that the Belgian club decided they could not risk and therefore walked away from the deal. From this situation, the CJEU was asked to consider two details: first, whether the refusal of a permit restricted Diarra’s freedom of movement, and second, whether the obligations imposed on Charleroi and the possible penalties limited their competitiveness.

The court ruled against FIFA on both issues. Even the global governing body’s defense that such rules were necessary to “guarantee the regularity of sporting competitions” was deemed insufficient as the court found that the rules “go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose.”

FIFA now has one last chance to argue otherwise when it takes its case to the Belgian Court of Appeal where the case is being heard. The CJEU says that the plea must be convincing. “An exemption (is only possible) if it is shown through convincing arguments and evidence that all the conditions set for this have been met,” it argued in the judgment.

The outcome will not be immediate, but it seems that FIFA’s initial reaction, that this ruling was small beer and that “the questions remained only about two paragraphs of two articles of the FIFA regulations”, does not quite capture the extent of shows the possibilities. For starters, it seems much more likely that this ruling will allow players to cancel their contracts. It also seems likely that the rules determining who is owed compensation and how much in the event of a divorce “without just cause” will have to change, as the CJEU says: “such compensation criteria appear more intended to protect the financial interests of clubs …than ensuring the supposed smooth running of sporting competitions”. It also seems likely that the financial commitments for purchasing clubs will also change, away from the assumption that they are somehow responsible for the move, and possibly to the opposite conclusion.

These are all substantial, interrelated changes that will likely have unintended consequences no matter how they are resolved. But these are not the only things at stake for FIFA and other governing bodies as a result of this ruling.

Dupont-Hissel, the law firm representing Diarra and which also happens to be Jean-Marc Bosman’s lawyers, immediately responded to the verdict by saying it was a “total victory” for Diarra, a victory that affected “all professional players” in 2001 and which would allow them to “seek compensation for their losses”, presumably those resulting from their failure to tear up their contracts and move to a club that paid them better. So more legal action is coming.

But more than that, there is a renewed scrutiny on FIFA as the rule maker. Last year’s Super League case led to an outcome where UEFA was told it needed to be more accountable and make its rules more transparent. This case is mentioned several times in the Diarra judgment, which could be regarded as a follow-up. Not only does it raise questions about whether FIFA’s rules are fair and its provisions proportionate, the judgment also refers to the “uncertainty” or “lack of certainty” caused by the same rules, which at the very least implies that they need to be rewritten for greater clarity.

This is incidentally in line with the sentiment of the players’ unions on a number of issues. Dupont-Hissel has been hired by Fifpro, the global trade union, to represent the union in a case it brought against FIFA during the upcoming Club World Cup, arguing that the plans breach EU law on employee well-being. On Friday, Association of Professional Footballers CEO Maheta Molango, herself a successful sports lawyer, said the Diarra ruling made a broader point, “again demonstrating that football cannot behave as if it does not have to operate within the same labor laws. applicable to any other sector”. Football authorities, Molango added, “must make a fair and open assessment of the appropriateness of their rules and how they relate to labor laws. They must then make real and proactive efforts to work with players and their unions.”

A thorough reform of the entire governance system remains unlikely. But this statement certainly makes things more possible, and it’s hard not to conclude that it has the potential to change the balance of power in professional football.