The Case of Lassana Diarra: Another Bosman Ruling?
In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) delivered their judgement in favour of Lassana Diarra, a former premier league footballer, against Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow. The ruling has been likened to the famous Bosman Ruling for its potential transfer and contractual implications for professional footballers. The Diarra case reopened discourse regarding the rights of players and FIFA’s complicated relationship with European labour laws. This microblog provides an analysis of Diarra’s ruling and the reasons why some are referring to this as Bosman 2.0.[1]
The Bosman Ruling – A Brief Recap
In 1995, the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) decided in favour of Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman against his club Royal Club Liégois SA. The club had blocked Bosman’s transfer to Dunkerque after his contract had expired and slashed his wages by 70 percent,[2] and the transfer regulations in place at the time had never prohibited such actions. The ECJ held the transfer system violated EU labour laws by restricting the free movement of workers, prohibited by Article 48 of the EEC Treaty at the time of the ruling.[3] As a result, players were permitted to move freely amongst European clubs upon the expiration of their contract. Though the ruling empowered players to exercise their rights, it also bolstered the power of the elite European clubs, because they were able to sign players for free and deter smaller clubs with attractive wages for such players.
Lassana Diarra
On the back of a stellar career, having represented the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal and Real Madrid, Diarra signed with Lokomotiv Moscow for €20 million on a four-year contract in 2013. The following year, disputes arose between Diarra and the club regarding his salary, and Lokomotiv terminated his contract for breach of contract, despite Diarra still having three years remaining on his contract. In turn, Lokomotiv Moscow filed claims for compensation before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber for €10 million.[4] Diarra subsequently filed a counterclaim for unpaid wages, and ‘compensation equivalent to what he would have earned had the contract been fulfilled’.[5]
The Court of Justice of the European held in favour of Diarra, as the FIFA transfer regulations in question were held to have restricted the freedom of workers, for the regulations ‘impose severe financial penalties and restrictions on the players’ and the ‘requirement to withhold international transfer certificates (‘ITCs’) during contract disputes significantly restricts player mobility and career progression’.[6] It is evident under EU law these regulations imposed heavy restrictions on the right to freedom of movement.
The specific provisions of the FIFA regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (‘FIFA RSTP’) were deemed unlawful by the court:
Article 17(2) – if a player had terminated his contract with his former club, without just cause, the player and his new club would be liable for payments of compensation owed to his former club.[7]
Article 17(4) – The new club would ‘be presumed to have induced a breach of contract when they signed a player who terminated his previous contract without just cause’.[8]
Article 9(1) and Annex 3 – If a player was transferred between clubs of differing national associations, the ITC required for the new club to register the player ‘would not be provided’ while the contractual dispute between the player and his former club was ongoing.[9]
Is it really Bosman 2.0?
The two rulings address the same legal tension: How compatible are the internal regulations imposed by FIFA with EU law? Both cases address issues of freedom of movement within the EU, as Bosman was susceptible to post-contractual fees, while Diarra was banned from working after the termination of his contract. Additionally, the decisions of both cases impose greater restrictions on the legal autonomy of Football’s Governing body in the EU, namely, UEFA. Both Courts involved held EU law remains supreme over UEFA.
Yet, one significant factor differentiates the two cases. Bosman revolved around post-contractual conduct, and the ruling permitted that once the contract had expired, players were free to move clubs without penalty. Diarra on the other hand, was concerned with an early termination of a contract, with FIFA’s regulations imposing a presumed liability on the new club.
FIFA’s rapid response
Per the new FIFA RSTP as of January 2025, the organisation responded rapidly to amend the articles noted above. Under Article 17, the compensation for the breach is now calculated in accordance with the ‘positive interest principle’,[10] ensuring the damages should place the innocent party in the position they would have been had the contract been performed. The new Article 17(4) removes automatic liability on the new club, for the club may be liable for compensation or sanctions depending on ‘the individual facts and circumstances of each case’.[11] Lastly, Annex 3 was amended so ITCs cannot be withheld even if contractual disputes between a player and his former club are ongoing.[12]
Conclusion
The Bosman ruling shaped football transfers today, as players are running down contracts to secure transfers, while clubs are able to sign players after their contracts have expired for no transfer fee, the Bosman ruling continues to shape the global football transfer market. The repercussions of the Diarra case have been subject to much speculation from legal and football experts alike, and with the case heading back to the Belgian Courts, it is unclear if Diarra’s case will have as grand implications as the Bosman ruling did.
[1] https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/football-transfer-system-could-be-blown-up-after-stunning-eu-court-ruling-in-bosman-20-case/news-story/b563647f81b891553533db80d3966fc8
[2] https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/bosman-ruling/
[3] (ECJ, Bosman v UEFA, Case C-415/93).
[4] https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/ckgz9524l24o
[5] https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2024/october/the-lassana-diarra-case-a-new-chapter-for-fifas-transfer-regulations
[6] Ibid
[7] RSTP (June 2024) Article 17(2)
[8] RSTP (June 2024) Article 17(4)
[9] RSTP (June 2024) Article 9(1)
[10] RSTP (January 2025) Article 17(1)
[11] RSTP (January 2025) Article 17(4)
[12] RSTP (January 2025) Annex 3