“The Diarra judgment is the extension of the Bosman judgment” which “liberalizes the transfer market even more”, explains a lawyer

According to Thierry Granturco, lawyer specializing in sports law, we should expect a deflation of transfer fees and discussions between football authorities and the European Commission.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favor of ex-footballer Lassana Diarra, who turned against Fifa after his departure from Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014. The latter contested the compensation of 20 million euros demanded by his former club, which considered that the French midfielder had terminated his contract without reason. Certain rules laid down by Fifa, relating to transfers between clubs, are “opposites” to European Union law and “likely to hinder free movement” professional footballers wrote the CJEU on Friday October 4.

Some observers from the world of football see it as the start of a revolution, a Bosman 2.0 ruling. This text dating from 1995, born from a dispute between Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman and RFC Liège, the club having prevented him from signing up for Dunkirk, had blown up the (very low) quotas for foreign players in the European championships and completely change the face of international football. Thierry Granturco, lawyer and specialist in sports law, plans for franceinfo: sport on the possible consequences of what already bears the name of “the Diarra judgment”.

Franceinfo: sport: Is the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union a new Bosman ruling?

Thierry Granturco : I would rather say that this is the extension of it. The principle established in 1995 was to no longer make an international transfer impossible through unreasonable transfer fees. At the time, we only talked about transfer fees fixed between clubs. With the Diarra ruling, these obstacles are extended to the compensation that can be requested from a player in the event of termination of his contract. What the Court of Justice says is that, whatever the method used by clubs and agents, there is no question of hindering the free movement of a worker through compensation of any kind, whether is paid from one club to another club or from a player to his club with a view to making the transfer financially impossible.

Is the application of this judgment immediate or other steps still need to be taken?

The decision is sufficient in itself. The judgment is immediately transposable into the legal practices that will follow. Compensation will have to be calculated seriously and no longer as folkloric as it was until now. On the other hand, what happened just after the Bosman ruling will certainly happen. On the basis of this judgment, the European Commission and, on the other hand, Fifa and UEFA will have to sit around the table and think about what to do with this judgment. Can you terminate a contract at any time, outside of transfer window periods? I very much doubt it. The judgment of the Court of Justice seems to mean: “We must change the way of calculating termination compensation, on the other hand we leave it to the footballing authorities to determine how to resolve this in practice.”

“We are in the process of further liberalizing the transfer market by lowering the compensation claims of players.”

Thierry Granturco, lawyer and specialist in sports law

at franceinfo: sport

Should we expect that the next transfer window will already be transformed?

Very clearly. If at the next transfer window, you do not want to transfer your player, you ask for 50 million euros when you know very well that beyond 10 million he is untransferable, you will certainly find yourself facing agents and players who will refer to the Diarra ruling. Everything that we have experienced so far, with a wet finger in the air, when we put a number behind compensation, will have to be transformed into a slightly more rational calculation.

What about excessive release clauses, which have become commonplace?

In Spain, for a little over three seasons, release clauses approaching a billion euros have been included in the contracts of certain hopefuls. This means putting both feet in the way of hindering the freedom of movement of workers. These clauses will very easily end up before the courts in the event of a blockage.

On the other hand, as long as all parties agree, it will still be possible to see sums of up to 200 million euros. If the seller, buyer and player agree, there is no hindrance. Kylian Mbappé and all the international stars, from my point of view, will escape this stoppage. I think it’s more the class of players just below, that of very good players from Ligue 1, the Premier League or the Bundesliga, recruited for sums ranging from 30 to 50 million euros. We can imagine that the players are tense and that this implies big changes, in particular for the revenues of clubs which are already in rather bad shape and which risk seeing a source of financing dry up.

Is this Diarra ruling another argument for supporters of the Superleague or any other closed league project?

We are once again putting club revenues at risk. We add uncertainty to uncertainty. There is obviously the sporting aspect: what will be my ranking at the end of the championship and therefore the amount that will be allocated to me in terms of TV rights? We can clearly see, moreover, that it is very difficult to manage to sell your TV rights in line with the hopes of club managers.

Finally, the Court of Justice takes another step forward in the liberalization of the football economy. The next move was the creation of private championships. The same Court of Justice has already suggested that they are legally compatible with European law. These closed leagues can make it possible to manage this uncertainty because we no longer go up, we no longer go down, we know before starting what the income and expenses will be.