Parallels between the effects of the Diarra and Bosman cases

At the end of last week, much was made of a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that could bring significant changes to the soccer market. The decision dealt with a case involving former player Lassana Diarra, a Frenchman with spells at major European clubs such as Arsenal, Chelsea, Real Madrid and PSG.

The player signed a four-year contract with Lokomotiv Moscow in Russia. However, at the end of the first year, the club considered his performance to have been below expectations and tried to renegotiate his salary, proposing a substantial reduction in pay.

Diarra did not accept the new proposal and the club considered his contract to have been terminated, claiming that he had abandoned training after disagreements with the team's coach and the aforementioned refusal to reduce his salary.

The club took the matter to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), arguing that the player had violated the rules when his contract was terminated after he decided to leave without cause following a pay cut. FIFA decided to suspend the player for 15 months, as well as paying compensation to the club, as it understood that there was no just cause for the departure.

The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but only had the amount of the fine reduced, keeping Lokomotiv right.

The player sought to resume his career and was approached by a Belgian club, Charleroi. However, the club was advised not to sign the player in order to avoid having to pay compensation and suffer sanctions such as a “transfer ban” (when the club is prevented from registering new players), and FIFA refused to sign the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), preventing Diarra from registering with the Belgian Federation.

Charleroi felt aggrieved and filed a new complaint with the Belgian courts, and the player sued FIFA. The CJEU ruled in favor of the player, deciding that the FIFA transfer rules currently in force are contrary to European law, both because they hinder the free movement of workers and because they restrict competition between clubs.

Currently, Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players provides for sanctions on any club that induces a player to break his contract with another club, and its liability is presumed if the player transfers to the club after terminating his contract with his original team without just cause.

Since soccer is considered an economic activity like any other, FIFA would be obliged to respect the labor rights of the European Union. For the time being, FIFA has not reacted with concern to the events, stating that only minor changes to its regulations would be necessary.

The decision has undoubtedly had global repercussions and sparked a number of debates about the future of world soccer. Most of the comments even compared the situation to the case of Jean-Marc Bosman.

To give a quick context, it should be explained that, until the 1990s, the athlete was still associated with the club even after his contract ended. In other words, as well as having the right to renew, the club could decide the player's future, restricting his freedom to transfer. For this reason, Liège, the Belgian club, demanded compensation from Bosman to release him even after the end of his contract.

With the advent of the “Bosman Law”, players were given greater freedom in their working relationships, being able to change clubs and countries more easily. In this sense, the decision in Diarra's favor could represent another major change in the power given to players in contractual relationships.

It's worth noting that, even though the ruling applies only to the case in question, it could set a precedent and trigger several lawsuits along the same lines. The Bosman Law, for example, influenced the abolition of the “passe” in Brazil, which kept the athlete “tied” to the club, as well as being a forerunner in the change of transfer rules in world soccer.

Due to its jurisdiction over the countries of the European Union, the CJEU can request that the judgment be binding on other similar conflicts. Because FIFA's rules are not sovereign, the organization may be forced to change its regulations if its rules are invalidated in its main market. The CJEU aims to show that FIFA has no legitimacy to regulate the labor market.

A critical analysis of the CJEU's decision allows us to understand that the athlete assumes a position of strength in the contractual relationship and cannot be prevented from leaving his current club and continuing his career. Likewise, it is understood that the club that hires the athlete after termination could not be harmed by using him either.

As a result, the transfer market could undergo major changes. Clubs usually avoid signing players who leave their team without just cause, as they could be ordered to compensate the club of origin as well. However, the CJEU takes the view that this joint and several liability cannot be presumed, and that the home club must provide evidence of alleged harassment of the player when it wishes to claim compensation.

It is important to note that, like the Bosman case, the decision in the Diarra case could also have negative effects on soccer, more specifically on the economic balance between sports bodies. The Bosman Law favored the most traditional and powerful clubs, giving them even more power to attract athletes, leaving their home clubs at the end of the contract without any financial return. This marked the beginning of a great diaspora of players from South American soccer and other peripheral markets to Europe.

Likewise, the CJEU's decision opens up various possibilities for transfers, such as harassment from clubs with greater economic power to force players to terminate their contracts. Of course, if a player terminates his contract without just cause, he will have to pay the penalties, but there is no doubt that there is a clear risk to the stability of contracts and that this could represent a significant economic loss for training clubs.

It is FIFA's responsibility to find a way to protect athletes' labor rights, the economic balance between clubs and contractual stability, while avoiding any risks to the sport's competitiveness.

In short, it is clear that the Diarra case could have similar effects to those resulting from the Bosman case. The ruling in the Bosman case gave players greater freedom to move between clubs after the end of their contracts, while the recent judgment involving Diarra suggests a further expansion of players' rights by questioning the restrictions imposed by FIFA on the free transfer of players involved in terminations without cause. In both cases, there is a clear strengthening of the players' position in the negotiations, which, on the other hand, can generate imbalances in the sports market, favoring more economically powerful clubs and weakening the training clubs. It is therefore essential for FIFA to find a balance, protecting both players' rights and the integrity and competitiveness of world soccer.