Fifpro – the international player’s union – has released a bullish statement.

They say the ruling will “change the landscape of professional football”.

Phil Johnson gets in touch: “If this decision reduces the perceived value of footballers as assets, then I’m all for it. Hopefully it will work in partnership with Bosman to show the money folk currently ruining the game, that a club’s only reliable asset is its fan base. “

A Fifa briefing note here:

Fifa is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been re-confirmed in today’s ruling. The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the Fifa Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which the national court is now invited to consider.

Fifa has taken note of the ruling issued today by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the case involving the player Lassana Diarra.

Fifa is satisfied that the legality of key principles of the transfer system have been re-confirmed in today’s ruling. The ruling only puts in question two paragraphs of two articles of the Fifa Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which the national court is now invited to consider.

Fifa will analyse the decision in coordination with other stakeholders before commenting further.

Diarra’s lawyers’s press release is fairly explicit in claiming a big win.

Diarra’s lawyers are claiming a big win.

We await the full verdict. The devil, as always, will be in the detail.

More from that press release:

The Court holds that all of those rules are contrary to EU law.

First, the rules in question are such as to impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club, established in the territory of another Member State of the European Union.

Those rules impose considerable legal risks, unforeseeable and potentially very high financial risks as well as major sporting risks on those players and clubs wishing to employ them which, taken together, are such as to impede international transfers of those players.

Although restrictions on the free movement of professional players may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest consisting in ensuring the regularity of interclub football competitions, by maintaining a certain degree of stability in the player rosters of professional football clubs, in the present case the rules in question nevertheless seem, subject to verification by the Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium) in a number of respects, to go beyond what is necessary to pursue that objective.

Secondly as regards competition law, the Court holds that the rules at issue have as their object the restriction, and even prevention, of cross-border competition which could be pursued by all clubs established in the European Union, by unilaterally recruiting players under contract with another club or players about whom it is alleged that the employment contract was terminated without just cause.

In that regard, the Court recalls that the possibility of competing by recruiting trained players plays an essential role in the professional football sector and that rules which place a general restriction on that form of competition, by immutably fixing the distribution of workers between the employers and in cloistering the markets, are similar to a no-poach agreement.

The Court further observes that, subject to verification by the Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium), those rules do not appear to be indispensable or necessary.

The official press release:

Judgment of the Court in Case C-650/22 | FIFA

Football: some Fifa rules on international transfers of professional footballers are contrary to EU law Those rules hinder the free movement of players and competition between clubs A former professional footballer residing in France is challenging before the Belgian courts a number of the rules adopted by Fédération internationale de football association (Fifa), the association responsible for the organisation and control of football at world level, arguing that they hindered his being employed by a Belgian football club.

The rues in question are contained in the Fifa ‘Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players’ (RSTP). Those rules, which are applied by both Fifa and its member national football associations, such as the Belgian association (URBSFA), apply, inter alia, in cases where a club considers that one of its players has terminated his employment contract without ‘just cause’ before the normal term of that contract. In that case, the player and any club wishing to employ him are jointly and severally liable for any compensation due to the former club.

Moreover, the new club may, in certain situations, be subject to a sporting sanction consisting in being banned from registering any new players for a given period. Lastly, the national association to which the player’s former club belongs must refuse to issue an International Transfer Certificate to the association where the new club is registered as long as a dispute between the former club and the player concerning the termination of the contract is pending.

The Cour d’appel de Mons (Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium) asks the Court of Justice whether those various rules are compatible with the free movement of workers and competition law.

Another interesting football-related ruling from the EU today.

We await the implications of that, and those may take years to shake down. It doesn’t currently seem like the transfer system as we know it will need to be broken up, but perhaps some reform may be in order. It certainly appears to loosen clubs’ hold on players.

EU top court says Fifa player transfer rules breach law

The verdict is in

David Weaver is an early caller: “I find it odd that since everyone’s woken up to the game-changing possibilities of the Diarra case, very little has been said about Andy Webster. Underachieving mid-level Scottish international centre back he may be, but when he broke his contract with Hearts to force a move to Rangers in 2006, many hailed that as “Bosman 2.0”, as it meant players could buy out their contracts. But it was never the revolution that many thought it would be. I wonder if you could explain why the consequences of that case were never as far reaching as anticipated, and why this case might be more significant?

“PS if you’re looking for some new music, I’d highly recommend the brand new album by Denver, Colorado’s Blood Incantation – a real analogue delight of proggy cosmic death metal, featuring none other than Tangerine Dream’s Thorsten Quaeschning; my album of the year so far”

Players have bought out contracts – this can happen in Spain, if I recall the Ander Herrera case – but it seems costly, so may not happen too often. Perhaps that’s it.

(I am off to see the mighty Dream – in whatever version it is – at the Barbican on Monday.)

Preamble