YOU MAY REMEMBER the name Lassana Diarra from such high-profile clubs as Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid, and Paris Saint-Germain, or perhaps from his 34 senior international caps for France, across which he was witness to the grave injustice that was Thierry Henry’s handball against Ireland.
Diarra’s true legacy may instead to be remembered for his reaction to a perceived injustice off the field, for which he may yet earn status alongside Jean-Marc Bosman as a footballer who took to the courts to fundamentally change the transfer market and thus the entire fabric of the professional game.
Having fought a case against Fifa all the way to the European Court of Justice and won, Diarra has forced a change to the rules around player transfers and opened the door to a class action law suit that its backers claim could cost Fifa billions of euro.
The Professional Footballers Association of Ireland (PFAI) this week announced they have become the eleventh players’ union to sign up to the class action suit.
The path to this point began in Russia in 2013, when Diarra signed a contract with Lokomotiv Moscow, having spent the previous season at another Russian club, Anzhi Makhachkala, whom he joined from Real Madrid. In 2014, Lokomotiv attempted to reduce Diarra’s wages, citing his performances.
Diarra didn’t accept this, and Lokomotiv ultimately terminated his employment and sued him for breach of contract. Fifa’s disputes resolution chamber sided with the club, banning Diarra and ordering him to pay compensation to Lokomotiv. The club set that compensation at €20 million – the fee they paid Anzhi for his services ahead of the season – given this was viewed as Diarra’s market value.
When Diarra then took his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the court endorsed Fifa’s decision, and so the player was ordered to pay Lokomotiv €10.5 million plus interest. Diarra was without a club at this point, though he had been offered a contract by Belgian club Charleroi on the proviso they would not be liable to pay any of this compensation. (Fifa’s rules at the time stated they would be jointly liable with Diarra to pay the money.)
But Fifa didn’t offer them this guarantee, and with the fines in Moscow outstanding, they did not issue the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) which Charleroi needed to register him.
Diarra ultimately took his case all the way to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where his lawyers contested two elements of Fifa’s transfer rules.
Firstly, they contested the rule which makes a club wishing to sign a player jointly liable for compensation to a player’s old club in circumstances in which the player’s previous contract was terminated without just cause, as Charleroi were with respect to Diarra.
Advertisement
They also challenged the rule which allows the national association of a player’s former club to withhold and ITC where there was a dispute, as the Russian FA did regarding Diarra’s fine.
Diarra’s legal team argued these rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and in October 2024 – more than a decade after the dispute with Lokomotiv – the court found in Diarra’s favour.
Fifa reacted by adapting his transfer regulations on an interim basis. They now issue the ITC on an automatic basis to allow a player be registered with their new club, even if a dispute with a previous club is ongoing.
They also removed the assumption that a player’s new club was automatically liable for that player’s breach of contract: now it must be proven that a player’s new club induced the player to break their existing contract. (In other words, were this to have applied to Diarra’s life a decade earlier, Charleroi would have only been liable to pay the €10.5 million compensation if Lokomotiv had been able to prove the Belgian club induced Diarra to break his contract to join them.)
And along with that, Fifa removed an automatic two-window transfer ban for any club signing a player who had broken their contract with their previous club. Like the above, the ban would only apply if the original club could prove the new club had played in a role in the contract-breaking.
In short, the Diarra case removes the guarantee of punitive sanctions for a player and his new club in the event of a player’s break of contract for merely the possibility that these punitive sanctions will apply.
This marks a further shift in the balance of power from clubs to players; from employers to employees.
Where the Bosman case reshaped the market by giving players the power to leave a club on a free transfer at the end of their contract, the Diarra case gives players in the final couple of years of their contract more power to leave.
It should be noted that the Diarra case can’t precipitate a total free-for-all. Each contract in professional football has a “protected period” – the first three years of a contract if the player is 28 or under; the first two years of the deal if the player is over 28 – that remains subject to robust penalties in the event of a breach of contract. If a player tries to rip up their contract during its protected period, Fifa can give them a four to six-month ban from official matches.
But those outside the protected period now have more power to decide to leave and play elsewhere, without needing their employer to hold out for a specific transfer fee. The player would merely have to pay up the residual value of their contract – the rest of the wages owed, in effect – along with a compensation fee.
(Exactly how that fee would be determined is nebulous – Fifa’s regulations state it would be calculated “on the basis of national law” – but one sports lawyer we spoke to for this piece speculated it would be the transfer market value for a player as determined by a tribunal, not dissimilar to the process in English football whereby a tribunal decides on the fee payable from one club to another in the event a player under the age of 24 moves following the expiration of their contract.)
Which brings us to the proposed class action suit.
The ECJ’s opinion and the shift in Fifa’s rules from ‘these sanctions will apply if you break contract’ to ‘these sanctions might apply if you break contract is’ marks a shift in leverage from the club to the player, and those leading the class action argue that, up to now, footballers have lost out on career earnings having been denied this leverage.
The suit is lead by a group titled Justice for Players, which includes among its advisors Jean-Louis Dupont, previously lawyer to Diarra and, most famously, Bosman.
A preliminary analysis by economists at Compass Lexecon estimates that players have earned on average approximately 8% less over the course of their career than they would have had the rules changed by the Diarra case never been applied in the first place.
The group estimate that approximately 100,000 footballers across Europe are eligible to join the action, and say that it is fully funded by Deminor, a litigation funding body in Europe, meaning it will not cost players anything to get involved.
The class action is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action, and in the event of a payout, each player would receive the same amount, regardless of their career earnings.
“As a union representing professional players in Ireland, it is our responsibility to support an action that is clearly in the interest of our members”, says PFAI general-secretary, Stephen McGuinness. “Social dialogue must become central to the regulation of the labour market for professional footballers. In addition, PFA Ireland considers it essential that players who played in the EU since 2002 are compensated for damages they have suffered as a result of restrictive rules deemed illegal.
“In Ireland, income for professional footballers has never been significant and in many cases has been below a living wage. The unjustified restrictions have exacerbated the already difficult environment in which contracts here are negotiated. We are determined to fight for those that have lost out since 2002 and continue to do so.”
The class action is understood to need approximately 1,000 sign-ups to proceed, and were Fifa to be ultimately be held liable to pay, their potential bill would be, in the opinion of PFAI legal advisor Stuart Gilhooly, “monumental.”
Fifa have yet to comment on the proposed class action suit.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Close
Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic.
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy
here
before taking part.
Why Ireland's players union are backing a class action suit that could cost Fifa billions
YOU MAY REMEMBER the name Lassana Diarra from such high-profile clubs as Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid, and Paris Saint-Germain, or perhaps from his 34 senior international caps for France, across which he was witness to the grave injustice that was Thierry Henry’s handball against Ireland.
Diarra’s true legacy may instead to be remembered for his reaction to a perceived injustice off the field, for which he may yet earn status alongside Jean-Marc Bosman as a footballer who took to the courts to fundamentally change the transfer market and thus the entire fabric of the professional game.
Having fought a case against Fifa all the way to the European Court of Justice and won, Diarra has forced a change to the rules around player transfers and opened the door to a class action law suit that its backers claim could cost Fifa billions of euro.
The Professional Footballers Association of Ireland (PFAI) this week announced they have become the eleventh players’ union to sign up to the class action suit.
The path to this point began in Russia in 2013, when Diarra signed a contract with Lokomotiv Moscow, having spent the previous season at another Russian club, Anzhi Makhachkala, whom he joined from Real Madrid. In 2014, Lokomotiv attempted to reduce Diarra’s wages, citing his performances.
Diarra didn’t accept this, and Lokomotiv ultimately terminated his employment and sued him for breach of contract. Fifa’s disputes resolution chamber sided with the club, banning Diarra and ordering him to pay compensation to Lokomotiv. The club set that compensation at €20 million – the fee they paid Anzhi for his services ahead of the season – given this was viewed as Diarra’s market value.
When Diarra then took his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the court endorsed Fifa’s decision, and so the player was ordered to pay Lokomotiv €10.5 million plus interest. Diarra was without a club at this point, though he had been offered a contract by Belgian club Charleroi on the proviso they would not be liable to pay any of this compensation. (Fifa’s rules at the time stated they would be jointly liable with Diarra to pay the money.)
But Fifa didn’t offer them this guarantee, and with the fines in Moscow outstanding, they did not issue the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) which Charleroi needed to register him.
Diarra ultimately took his case all the way to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where his lawyers contested two elements of Fifa’s transfer rules.
Firstly, they contested the rule which makes a club wishing to sign a player jointly liable for compensation to a player’s old club in circumstances in which the player’s previous contract was terminated without just cause, as Charleroi were with respect to Diarra.
They also challenged the rule which allows the national association of a player’s former club to withhold and ITC where there was a dispute, as the Russian FA did regarding Diarra’s fine.
Diarra’s legal team argued these rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and in October 2024 – more than a decade after the dispute with Lokomotiv – the court found in Diarra’s favour.
Fifa reacted by adapting his transfer regulations on an interim basis. They now issue the ITC on an automatic basis to allow a player be registered with their new club, even if a dispute with a previous club is ongoing.
They also removed the assumption that a player’s new club was automatically liable for that player’s breach of contract: now it must be proven that a player’s new club induced the player to break their existing contract. (In other words, were this to have applied to Diarra’s life a decade earlier, Charleroi would have only been liable to pay the €10.5 million compensation if Lokomotiv had been able to prove the Belgian club induced Diarra to break his contract to join them.)
And along with that, Fifa removed an automatic two-window transfer ban for any club signing a player who had broken their contract with their previous club. Like the above, the ban would only apply if the original club could prove the new club had played in a role in the contract-breaking.
In short, the Diarra case removes the guarantee of punitive sanctions for a player and his new club in the event of a player’s break of contract for merely the possibility that these punitive sanctions will apply.
This marks a further shift in the balance of power from clubs to players; from employers to employees.
Where the Bosman case reshaped the market by giving players the power to leave a club on a free transfer at the end of their contract, the Diarra case gives players in the final couple of years of their contract more power to leave.
It should be noted that the Diarra case can’t precipitate a total free-for-all. Each contract in professional football has a “protected period” – the first three years of a contract if the player is 28 or under; the first two years of the deal if the player is over 28 – that remains subject to robust penalties in the event of a breach of contract. If a player tries to rip up their contract during its protected period, Fifa can give them a four to six-month ban from official matches.
But those outside the protected period now have more power to decide to leave and play elsewhere, without needing their employer to hold out for a specific transfer fee. The player would merely have to pay up the residual value of their contract – the rest of the wages owed, in effect – along with a compensation fee.
(Exactly how that fee would be determined is nebulous – Fifa’s regulations state it would be calculated “on the basis of national law” – but one sports lawyer we spoke to for this piece speculated it would be the transfer market value for a player as determined by a tribunal, not dissimilar to the process in English football whereby a tribunal decides on the fee payable from one club to another in the event a player under the age of 24 moves following the expiration of their contract.)
Which brings us to the proposed class action suit.
The ECJ’s opinion and the shift in Fifa’s rules from ‘these sanctions will apply if you break contract’ to ‘these sanctions might apply if you break contract is’ marks a shift in leverage from the club to the player, and those leading the class action argue that, up to now, footballers have lost out on career earnings having been denied this leverage.
The suit is lead by a group titled Justice for Players, which includes among its advisors Jean-Louis Dupont, previously lawyer to Diarra and, most famously, Bosman.
A preliminary analysis by economists at Compass Lexecon estimates that players have earned on average approximately 8% less over the course of their career than they would have had the rules changed by the Diarra case never been applied in the first place.
The group estimate that approximately 100,000 footballers across Europe are eligible to join the action, and say that it is fully funded by Deminor, a litigation funding body in Europe, meaning it will not cost players anything to get involved.
The class action is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action, and in the event of a payout, each player would receive the same amount, regardless of their career earnings.
“As a union representing professional players in Ireland, it is our responsibility to support an action that is clearly in the interest of our members”, says PFAI general-secretary, Stephen McGuinness. “Social dialogue must become central to the regulation of the labour market for professional footballers. In addition, PFA Ireland considers it essential that players who played in the EU since 2002 are compensated for damages they have suffered as a result of restrictive rules deemed illegal.
“In Ireland, income for professional footballers has never been significant and in many cases has been below a living wage. The unjustified restrictions have exacerbated the already difficult environment in which contracts here are negotiated. We are determined to fight for those that have lost out since 2002 and continue to do so.”
The class action is understood to need approximately 1,000 sign-ups to proceed, and were Fifa to be ultimately be held liable to pay, their potential bill would be, in the opinion of PFAI legal advisor Stuart Gilhooly, “monumental.”
Fifa have yet to comment on the proposed class action suit.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
after diarra FIFA PFAI