Diarra v FIFA: The EU ruling that could redefine football transfers
Imagine being a professional footballer, ready to sign with a new club, only to be blocked by a rule that leaves you without a club and facing a large fine. On 4 October 2024, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled in favour of French footballer Lassana Diarra, finding that parts of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which govern how players move between clubs, violate EU laws. The case, sparked by a dispute in Belgium, challenged the RSTP rules that punish players like Diarra for ending their contracts early without just cause, limiting their ability to join new teams.
The CJEU ruled that FIFA’s RSTP rules unfairly blocked players from switching clubs and stifled competition between teams, violating core EU principles. The decision could transform European football, giving players more freedom to join new clubs and forcing teams to rethink how they manage contracts. As European football braces for change, this article unpacks Diarra’s fight, the court’s reasoning, FIFA’s response, and what it all means for the future of the beautiful game.
FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), adopted in March 2014 and enforced from August that year, govern how footballers move between clubs, setting the rules that became the heart of Lassana Diarra’s legal battle. Two key provisions, Articles 9 and 17, were central to Diarra’s case.
Article 9 allowed a player’s former league to block the issuance of their International Transfer Certificate (ITC), preventing them from joining a new club during a contract dispute. Article 17 required players who ended their contracts early without just cause to pay substantial compensation, often alongside their new club, who would be held jointly liable for the amount. Though designed to protect clubs from losing players, these rules effectively derailed Diarra’s career by preventing his move to a new team and putting off potential employers. Diarra challenged the system on the grounds that it unfairly restricted his freedom of movement and distorted competition between clubs.
Diarra’s Contract Termination and Blocked Move to Belgium
On 20 August 2013, French midfielder Lassana Diarra signed a four-year contract with Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow after leaving fellow Russian Premier League side Anzhi Makhachkala. Following an alleged breakdown in his relationship with then-manager Leonid Kuchuk, allegations arose from the club that Diarra had refused to train and had declined a proposed pay cut. On 22 August 2014, Lokomotiv formally terminated Diarra’s contract, citing a breach of contract without just cause under Article 17 RSTP. Lokomotiv filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking €20 million in damages for Diarra’s alleged breach of contract.
In May 2015, the DRC ruled for Lokomotiv, ordering Diarra to pay €10.5 million in compensation, a decision later upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. While these proceedings were ongoing, in February 2015, Belgian club Royal Charleroi Sporting Club (Charleroi) sought to sign Diarra, but faced barriers under the RSTP. To join Charleroi, Diarra needed an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for registration with the Belgian Football Association (URBSFA), but the Russian Football Union withheld it under Article 9 RSTP, citing the ongoing dispute. Moreover Charleroi, concerned it could be held jointly and severally liable for the €10.5 million compensation imposed on Diarra, received no guarantees from either FIFA or the URBSFA. As a result, the club pulled out of the deal, leaving Diarra without a team and unable to continue his career.
Diarra then initiated proceedings against FIFA and URBSFA before a Belgian commercial court, seeking €6 million in damages for lost earnings caused by the RSTP’s restrictive rules. Diarra’s legal team argued that Article 9 RSTP’s ability to withhold an ITC during disputes, and Article 17’s imposition of joint and several liability for contract breaches without just cause, breached his freedom of movement under Article 45 TFEU (which protects the free movement of workers within the EU) and restricted club competition under Article 101 TFEU ( which prohibits anti-competitive practices).
The Belgian court of first instance ruled for Diarra, but FIFA and URBSFA appealed, prompting the Belgian Court of Appeal to refer the RSTP’s compatibility with EU law to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU. The CJEU was tasked with determining whether the RSTP’s ITC refusal and joint and several liability rules violated Diarra’s freedom of movement (Article 45 TFEU) and Charleroi’s ability to compete (Article 101 TFEU), setting the stage for a landmark ruling.
Why FIFA’s Transfer Rules Breached EU Law
In its landmark ruling, the CJEU held FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players breached EU law, vindicating Lassana Diarra’s challenge. It held that Articles 9 and 17 RSTP breached both the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU and the prohibition on anti-competitive practices under Article 101 TFEU. While recognising FIFA’s aim to ensure contractual stability and competitive integrity, the CJEU held that Articles 9 and 17 violated the principle of proportionality, excessively restricting Diarra’s mobility without justified necessity.
Article 17 RSTP held a player who terminated their contract without just cause as jointly liable with their new club for substantial damages and imposed sporting sanctions, such as registration bans, even without evidence of inducement, which deterred clubs from signing players. Similarly, the CJEU found that Article 9 RSTP, which permitted a player’s former league to withhold an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) during a contractual dispute, unlawfully blocked Diarra’s transfer to Charleroi.
While FIFA argued that Articles 9 and 17 RSTP were necessary for contractual stability and competitive integrity, the CJEU held that these measures disproportionately restricted Diarra’s mobility and club competition, violating the principle of proportionality. The CJEU concluded that less restrictive measures could achieve FIFA’s goals without infringing EU law, freeing players like Diarra from undue transfer barriers. While the Belgian court will determine the proportionality of FIFA’s rules in Diarra’s case, the CJEU’s ruling signals a transformative shift, declaring the RSTP’s burdens on players and clubs unlawful, forcing FIFA to rethink the legal foundation of its transfer system.
How has FIFA since amended its provisions?
Following the CJEU’s ruling in the Diarra case, FIFA has introduced an interim regulatory framework to its RSTP to address legal flaws exposed by the judgment. These amendments address the CJEU’s concerns with Articles 9 and 17 RSTP, which Diarra challenged for their vague compensation calculations, the automatic liability imposed on a player’s new club, and restrictions on international transfers during contractual disputes. To clarify Article 17’s vague ‘just cause’ that penalised Diarra, FIFA defined it in the RSTP as circumstances where a party cannot reasonably and in good faith continue the contract, aligning with general contract law.
FIFA has also revised Article 17’s compensation model to adopt the positive interest principle, focusing on actual damages rather than vague sporting factors, and eliminated the automatic presumption of inducement that burdened Diarra’s prospective club. Addressing the CJEU’s critique, FIFA now requires proof of inducement for liability under Article 17 and mandates cooperation with evidence requests, allowing adverse inferences where parties refuse to assist.
To resolve issues like Diarra’s blocked transfer, FIFA amended Article 9 RSTP to prohibit national associations from withholding an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) during contractual disputes, allowing registration if no response is received within 72 hours.
These reforms align the RSTP with EU law as mandated by the CJEU’s ruling, balancing players rights with the sport’s contractual framework, with significant implications for football’s transfer system.
What the Decision Means for Clubs, Players and Contracts
The Diarra judgment represents a landmark milestone in regulating football transfers under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players within the European Union, reshaping the legal landscape for players. By striking down key provisions of FIFA’s transfer rules, the CJEU reaffirmed the primacy of EU law in sport and bolstered players’ freedom of movement.
A key outcome is the elimination of Article 17’s automatic joint liability, which imposed financial damages and sporting sanctions on new clubs for a player’s contract termination without just cause. This reform is likely to reduce clubs’ reluctance to sign players like Diarra in contractual disputes, enhancing their employment prospects under EU law. The ruling also strengthens player mobility across EU member states, as players may feel more confident to change clubs without fear of excessive penalties.
Clubs are also expected to revise contract terms under Article 17 RSTP, clarifying terms for early termination and eliminating joint liability clauses to align with the CJEU’s ruling. The ruling reshapes the balance between clubs and players, granting athletes greater contractual autonomy and EU law protection, heralding a new era for football transfers.
Player Rights, EU law and the Future of Football Transfers
The Diarra ruling has struck down core parts of FIFA’s transfer system, reinforcing player rights and the primacy of EU law in sport. As FIFA, national associations and clubs adjust to the new legal landscape, the decision marks a pivotal shift in how footballers’ contracts are regulated across Europe.