On October 4, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in FIFA v. Lassana Diarra (Case C-650/22), a ruling that has essentially dismantled the mechanisms underpinning the global football transfer system. In a decision comparable to the Bosman ruling of 1995, the Court declared that key provisions of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically those governing the consequences of unilateral contract termination “without just cause”, are incompatible with European Union law.

The Court found that FIFA’s regime, which imposed joint and several liability on new clubs for compensation owed by players, mandatory sporting sanctions, and the withholding of International Transfer Certificates (ITCs), constituted a restriction on the free movement of workers under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and a restriction of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU.

By categorising the RSTP as a “no-poach” agreement among undertakings, the CJEU has stripped FIFA of its ability to enforce contractual stability through punitive deterrence, mandating a shift toward a civil liability model based on demonstrable damages.

This research report provides an analysis of the Diarra case. It examines the legal arguments regarding EU competition and labour law, traces the evolution of compensation jurisprudence from Webster to Matusalem, and assesses the profound economic consequences for the transfer market. Furthermore, it details the financial implications for football club balance sheets, specifically regarding the impairment of intangible assets (player registrations) and the viability of the selling club business model prevalent in leagues such as the Portuguese Primeira Liga and French Ligue 1. Finally, the report evaluates FIFA’s interim regulatory response and the looming prospect of collective bargaining and mass litigation.

FIFA v. Lassana Diarra (Case C-650/22)

This landmark ruling lies in a contractual dispute that erupted in August 2014 between the French international midfielder Lassana Diarra and his employer, Lokomotiv Moscow. Following a deterioration in the employment relationship, precipitated by a dispute over salary reductions and alleged poor performance, Lokomotiv Moscow terminated Diarra’s contract, citing a breach “without just cause” by the player. The club subsequently filed a claim for compensation before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC).

In May 2015, the DRC ruled in favor of Lokomotiv Moscow, ordering Diarra to pay €10.5 million in compensation for breach of contract. Crucially, the application of the FIFA RSTP (2014 edition) extended the consequences of this termination beyond the player himself. Under Article 17(2), any new club signing Diarra would be “jointly and severally liable” for the payment of this compensation. Furthermore, under Article 17(4), any new club signing the player would face a rebuttable presumption of having induced the breach, triggering automatic sporting sanctions in the form of a ban on registering new players for two consecutive transfer windows.

Following the termination, Diarra sought to continue his career and received an offer from the Belgian club Royal Charleroi SC.

However, Charleroi, cognisant of the severe regulatory risks, made the offer conditional upon receiving two written assurances from FIFA and the Royal Belgian Football Association (URBSFA): firstly, that Diarra could be registered to play (requiring the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate or ITC); and secondly, that Charleroi would not be held liable for the compensation owed to Lokomotiv Moscow.

FIFA and the URBSFA refused to provide these assurances.

Specifically, the issuance of the ITC was withheld under Article 9.1 and Annexe 3, Article 8.2 of the RSTP, which prohibited the transfer of the certificate if a contractual dispute was pending between the player and his former club. Consequently, the transfer to Charleroi collapsed, and Diarra remained unemployed for an entire season.

Diarra subsequently initiated legal proceedings against FIFA and the URBSFA before the Belgian Commercial Court (Tribunal de l’entreprise du Hainaut), claiming €6 million in damages for loss of earnings. He argued that the RSTP provisions constituted an impediment to his right to free movement and free competition within the EU. The Belgian Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Mons) ultimately referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of these regulations with Articles 45 and 101 TFEU.

The CJEU ruling

The Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered a judgment that fundamentally alters the legal landscape of international sport. The Court’s analysis dissected three specific enforcement mechanisms within the RSTP that, in combination, created an insurmountable barrier to player mobility.

Violation of Free Movement of Workers (Article 45 TFEU)

Article 45 TFEU guarantees the right of EU nationals to move to another Member State for employment purposes. The Court found that the contested RSTP provisions imposed “considerable legal risks, unforeseeable and potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks” on both players and prospective employing clubs, thereby dissuading them from exercising this fundamental freedom.

The Court focused on the “paralysing effect” of Joint and Several Liability (Article 17.2). By mandating that a new club is automatically liable for the compensation owed by the player, compensation often calculated based on the original contract value or punitive criteria, FIFA created a deterrent so severe that it “deprived [the player] to a very large extent” of the possibility of finding new employment. The Court noted that no rational employer would hire a worker if doing so carried an automatic, unquantifiable multimillion-euro liability unrelated to the value of the new contract.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the withholding of the International Transfer Certificate (Article 9 and Annexe 3) constituted a manifest restriction on the freedom of movement. While the Court accepted that ensuring the regularity of sporting competitions is a legitimate objective, it found the measure of withholding an ITC to be disproportionate. It effectively granted the former club a mechanism to block a player’s professional activity in another Member State solely due to a financial dispute, a measure the Court found to “go beyond what is necessary” to achieve sporting stability.

Violation of Competition Law (Article 101 TFEU)

Perhaps the most economically significant aspect of the ruling was the categorisation of the RSTP under EU competition law. Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements between undertakings that restrict competition. The CJEU classified the FIFA regulations as a “restriction of competition by object”.

This classification is legally potent. A restriction “by object” is deemed harmful by its very nature, obviating the need to demonstrate actual anti-competitive effects in the market.

The Court likened the RSTP rules to a “no-poach” agreement, wherein clubs mutually agree (via the FIFA regulatory structure) not to hire players who have terminated their contracts, thereby artificially partitioning the labour market.

The Court emphasised that the recruitment of talented, trained players is an “essential parameter of competition” between professional football clubs. By imposing automatic liability and sporting sanctions on acquiring clubs, FIFA effectively insulated clubs from competitive pressures, allowing them to retain talent not through superior employment conditions, but through regulatory coercion.

The judgment explicitly rejected the notion that the transfer market is a purely sporting mechanism, characterising it instead as a market for the allocation of human resources where restrictive practices must be strictly justified.

The failure of the “specificity of sport” justification

FIFA attempted to defend its regulations by invoking the specificity of sport, arguing that the rules were necessary to maintain contractual stability and the integrity of competitions. While the CJEU acknowledged that maintaining stable team rosters during a season is a legitimate objective, it applied a rigorous proportionality test that the RSTP failed to meet.

The Court identified three critical failures in proportionality:

1. Indiscriminate Application: The presumption of inducement and joint liability applied automatically, regardless of whether the new club had actually encouraged the breach. This created a presumption of guilt that violated basic legal principles.
2. Lack of Specificity in Compensation: The criteria for calculating compensation under Article 17.1 were deemed “unclear, vague, and discretionary.” The Court criticised the inclusion of factors such as “specificity of sport,” which allowed DRC panels to award punitive damages far exceeding the civil law standard of restitutio in integrum (restoring the injured party to their original position).
3. Draconian Consequences: The combination of financial liability, transfer bans, and ITC refusal created a holistic barrier to entry that was not necessary to ensure teams could field eleven players. The Court suggested that less restrictive measures, such as purely financial compensation based on demonstrable loss, could achieve the same objective without paralysing the labour market.

The evolution of compensation jurisprudence: from Webster to Diarra

To fully grasp the magnitude of the Diarra ruling, it must be contextualised within the volatile history of FIFA compensation jurisprudence. The legal definition of “compensation” for breach of contract has oscillated wildly over the past two decades, defining the leverage clubs hold over players.

The Webster case (2008): The “residual value” anomaly

In 2008, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling in the case of Andrew Webster (Heart of Midlothian v. Webster & Wigan Athletic). Webster had terminated his contract outside the “Protected Period.” The CAS ruled that the compensation owed to Hearts should be limited to the residual value of the contract essentially, the wages Webster would have earned had he stayed.

This ruling caused panic among clubs, as it effectively allowed players to buy out their contracts for a relatively low sum. However, its application was limited to unilateral termination outside the protected period, and subsequent panels moved away from this “employee-friendly” interpretation.

The Matusalem case (2009): The “positive interest” doctrine

The pendulum swung decisively back in favor of clubs with the Matusalem case (Shakhtar Donetsk v. Matusalem & Real Zaragoza). When Matusalem terminated his contract to join Real Zaragoza, the CAS panel rejected the residual value method. Instead, they applied the principle of “Positive Interest”.

Under this interpretation, compensation was calculated to put the injured party (the club) in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed. Crucially, the CAS included the “replacement cost” of the player in this calculation meaning the transfer fee Shakhtar would need to pay to sign a replacement of equivalent quality. The result was a €11.9 million compensation award, far exceeding the player’s remaining wages. This precedent effectively re-established the transfer fee system by making the cost of breach equivalent to a market transfer fee, thereby rendering unilateral termination economically unviable for players and new clubs.

The Diarra correction: redefining positive interest

The Diarra judgment explicitly attacks the unpredictability and punitive nature of the post-Matusalem regime.

By ruling that the compensation criteria were “vague and discretionary,” the CJEU essentially invalidated the inclusion of punitive “specificity of sport” elements and speculative “replacement costs” that serve as deterrents rather than genuine compensation.

The CJEU’s insistence on “reasonable and predictable” consequences implies a return to a narrower definition of positive interest. Under the new paradigm, compensation is likely to be strictly limited to:

• The unamortised portion of the transfer fee paid by the former club.
• The residual value of the player’s contract (wages saved).
• Provable, direct financial losses (e.g., sponsorship rebates).

Crucially, transfer fees paid between clubs can no longer be used as a benchmark for compensation owed by a player. This decouples the break fee from the market transfer fee, fundamentally altering the economics of the transfer market.

Economic consequences for the transfer market

The Diarra ruling disrupts the economic equilibrium of the football transfer market, which has relied on the premise that a contract is tradable only via a transfer fee negotiated between clubs.

Prior to Diarra, the transfer market operated on a forced retention model. A player under contract was effectively locked in; the cost of unilateral termination (due to joint liability and sporting sanctions) was prohibitively high and legally uncertain. Clubs could demand transfer fees far in excess of a player’s economic value (wages) because the alternative, unilateral breach, was not a viable option.

Post-Diarra, the shadow price of a transfer is no longer the selling club’s valuation, but the cost of legal compensation under the revised Article 17. If a player can terminate a contract by paying compensation limited to the residual value of their wages plus unamortised costs, this sets a hard ceiling on transfer fees.

Hypothetical economic impact analysis:

• Scenario: A player has 2 years remaining on a contract with an annual salary of €5 million. The club (selling club) values him at €60 million.
• Pre-Diarra: The buying club must negotiate with the selling club. If the selling club demands €60 million, the buying club pays it, or the player stays. Breach is too risky due to bans and unpredictable damages.
• Post-Diarra: The player terminates the contract. Compensation is calculated based on “positive interest” (e.g., €10 million remaining wages + €5 million unamortised costs = €15 million). The buying club is not automatically liable but may agree to cover this cost.
• Market Consequence: The selling club is forced to negotiate a fee closer to the €15 million compensation figure rather than holding out for €60 million. This represents a massive deflationary pressure on transfer values, transferring value from clubs (transfer fees) to players (signing bonuses and wages).

The collapse of the selling club business model

This shift poses an existential threat to leagues and clubs that operate on a develop and sell business model. Leagues such as the Portuguese Primeira Liga, Dutch Eredivisie, Belgian Pro League, and French Ligue 1 frequently function as talent nurseries for the economically larger leagues (Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga).

Data from the CIES Football Observatory highlights the dependency of these leagues on transfer revenues:

• Benfica and Porto: These clubs have generated hundreds of millions in net transfer profits over the last decade (e.g., Benfica’s €332 million profit over 5 years) to subsidise operational losses. Their leverage relies on long-term contracts with high release clauses (often exceeding €100 million).
• Ligue 1: French clubs have a structural deficit in operational revenue, balanced by a positive net transfer spend from buying clubs (primarily the Premier League). In 2024, Ligue 1 clubs had a net positive transfer balance of €230 million.

If the enforceability of high valuations is undermined, the revenue stream for these clubs will contract sharply. If a star player at Benfica can leave for a court-determined compensation of €20 million instead of a €100 million release clause, the selling club model becomes economically unsustainable. This will likely exacerbate the financial polarisation between the wealthy buying clubs (who can afford high wages) and the selling periphery.

The proliferation of buy-out clauses and the French anomaly

The ruling effectively mandates a mechanism for unilateral termination. In jurisdictions like Spain, “cláusulas de rescisión” (buy-out clauses) are already mandatory. The Diarra ruling forces a convergence towards this model across Europe, where every contract effectively carries a “break price” determined by legal principles.

However, this creates a conflict with national laws in France. Under Article L. 222-2-7 of the French Sports Code, purely unilateral buy-out clauses are prohibited, as they are seen to contravene the fixed-term nature of sports employment contracts. The Diarra ruling, by prioritising EU free movement principles, clashes directly with this domestic legislation. French clubs may be forced to adopt private side agreements or “penalty clauses” to mimic buy-out mechanisms, or French legislation will have to be amended to comply with EU supremacy. This places French clubs in a precarious position where they may lose the legal protection that previously prevented hostile approaches for their players.

Implications for football finance and club balance sheets

The legal and economic shifts described above have immediate and material consequences for financial reporting, asset valuation, and the solvency of football clubs.

Player registration rights as intangible assets (IAS 38)

Under standard accounting practices (e.g., IAS 38 Intangible Assets or FRS 102 in the UK), transfer fees are capitalised as intangible assets on a club’s balance sheet. These assets are then amortised (expensed) over the duration of the player’s contract.

• Asset recognition criteria: For an asset to be recognised under IAS 38, the entity must control the resource. The Diarra ruling weakens this “control.” If a player can unilaterally terminate the contract with predictable and affordable consequences, the club’s ability to restrict access to the player’s economic benefits is diminished.
• Amortisation schedules: Clubs like Chelsea FC have used long-term contracts (7-8 years) to spread amortisation costs and lower annual expenses for Financial Fair Play (FFP) compliance. The Diarra ruling introduces significant uncertainty regarding the useful life of these assets. If contracts are easier to break, the justification for long-term amortisation weakens, potentially forcing auditors to demand shorter amortisation periods, which would increase annual costs and worsen FFP positions.

Impairment triggers and balance sheet volatility

Auditors are required to test assets for impairment, a reduction in the recoverable amount of an asset below its carrying value, whenever there is an indication that the asset may be impaired.

• Trigger event: The Diarra ruling serves as a macro-economic indicator of impairment. If the market value of a player drops because the recoverable transfer fee is capped by the new compensation rules, the “fair value less costs of disposal” (one of the measures of recoverable amount) may fall below the book value.
• Write-down risks: Consider a club that bought a player for €100 million, amortised to €80 million. If the new legal landscape suggests the player could leave for a compensation of €40 million, the club faces a potential impairment loss of €40 million. Systemic write-downs of player portfolios could lead to massive reductions in club equity, pushing many clubs into technical insolvency (negative equity) and triggering regulatory intervention under UEFA’s Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR).

Erosion of solidarity mechanism and training compensation

The FIFA system includes redistributive mechanisms designed to support grassroots football: training compensation (paid to training clubs when a player signs their first pro contract or transfers internationally before age 23) and the solidarity mechanism (5% of the transfer fee distributed to previous training clubs).

• The loophole: These payments are calculated as a percentage of the transfer fee. If the Diarra ruling leads to a reduction in transfer fees and a shift towards “compensation for breach” or higher wages/signing bonuses paid directly to players, the base for these levies erodes. Compensation for breach of contract is generally not subject to solidarity contributions.
• Grassroots impact: Smaller clubs that rely on these trickledown payments could see this revenue stream dry up. Without a regulatory fix, such as applying levies to “breach compensation” or signing bonuses, the redistribution model that FIFA argues justifies the transfer system will fail.

The future of football governance: responses and reforms

FIFA’s interim regulatory framework (Circular 1970)

In response to the judgment, FIFA issued Circular no. 1970 and an Interim Regulatory Framework, effective from January 1, 2025. This framework represents a provisional attempt to align the RSTP with the CJEU’s requirements.

Key changes in the interim framework:

1. Removal of automatic liability: The new rules explicitly state that a new club is not automatically jointly and severally liable for compensation. Liability only attaches if the new club is proven to have induced the breach.
2. Burden of proof reversal: The burden of proof for inducement and sporting sanctions has shifted from the accused club to the former club. The presumption of guilt for signing a player in the Protected Period has been abolished.
3. Mandatory ITC issuance: The framework mandates that national associations must issue an ITC upon request, regardless of any ongoing contractual dispute, ensuring the player’s right to work is prioritised.
4. “Positive Interest” codified: The calculation of compensation is now explicitly based on “positive interest,” defined by the actual damage suffered and national law, rather than punitive sporting criteria.

While these changes address the CJEU’s immediate concerns, player unions like FIFPRO have criticised them as insufficient, arguing that the mere existence of any sporting sanction or compensation regime maintained by a private association lacks legitimacy.

The “Justice for Players” class action

The Diarra ruling has energised the “Justice for Players” litigation in the Netherlands. This class action, funded by third-party litigation funders, seeks billions of euros in damages on behalf of players who allege their wages were artificially suppressed by the RSTP’s “no-poach” cartel over the last two decades.

• Economic argument: The claim posits that if players had been free to move, competition for their services would have driven wages higher. The RSTP restricted this competition, causing an estimated 8% loss in potential earnings for players.
• Liability: The success of the Diarra case significantly strengthens this claim. If the courts accept the “restriction by object” finding applies retrospectively, FIFA and national associations could face catastrophic financial liabilities that threaten their solvency.

The path to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

The governance crisis precipitated by Diarra suggests that unilateral regulation by FIFA is no longer legally viable. The CJEU explicitly questioned FIFA’s legitimacy to impose what are effectively labour laws without the consent of the workers.

The future of the transfer system likely lies in a comprehensive Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiated between:

• Employers: Represented by the European Club Association (ECA) and World Leagues Association.
• Employees: Represented by FIFPRO.
• Regulator: FIFA/UEFA acting as facilitators rather than legislators.

FIFPRO has signaled that any restrictions on player movement, such as transfer windows, compensation caps, or protected periods, must be the result of genuine social dialogue and negotiation. A CBA could establish standardised buy-out formulas and procedural safeguards that comply with EU law while preserving the stability essential for the sport’s commercial value.

Conclusion

The Diarra ruling is a structural demolition of the instruments that have sustained the high-value transfer market for decades. By declaring that the restriction of player movement during a contract constitutes a violation of competition and labour law, the CJEU has mandated a transition from a market governed by punitive sporting sanctions to one governed by civil damages.

For clubs, this necessitates a fundamental shift from asset-hoarding strategies to sophisticated contract management. The value of a player is now strictly defined by the enforceability of their contract’s termination clause in a civil court. For finance directors, the ruling demands a conservative approach to asset valuation and a reimagining of revenue models that depend on trading profits.
The “Diarra effect” may result in a secular decline in transfer fees, a corresponding increase in player wages, and a profound reshaping of the economic hierarchy of European football.
Please click for Part II