Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham face transfer change as groundbreaking FIFA decision imminent

Sign up to the free Arsenal newsletter so you don't miss the latest Gunners news, straight to your inbox

Sign up to the free Arsenal newsletter so you don't miss the latest Gunners news, straight to your inbox

The transfer market as most football fans know it could be about to have its biggest change for over 30 years. According to Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, speaking to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), potential new rules could be coming.

Following 10 years of frustration, and in his view, injustice, former Arsenal and Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra is set to learn the outcome of a case against world football's governing body, FIFA. On Friday, October 4, the laws around player transfers may well be deemed unsuitable.

Szpunar, who spoke of the FIFA regulations which might be in breach of European Union regulations, has explained that the current system is 'draconian.' But why? And what are the possible outcomes?

Firstly, it is thanks to Diarra, who joined Chelsea from Le Havre of France in 2005 before moving to Arsenal two years later, Portsmouth after just six months, and then remarkably being picked up by Real Madrid just 12 months on again, that this is all happening. Because after he left Madrid in September 2012, things started to go badly for him.

Joining wealthy Russian outfit Anzhi Makhachkala, Diarra was soon elsewhere, moving to Lokomotiv Moscow after one season. He started well but lost his place and this is where the issues being debated in court right now come into play.

Lokomotiv wished to reduce his salary as he fell out of favour and into a peripheral role relatively quickly. Understandably, given it doesn't happen often, Diarra declined. With three years left to run on his deal at the club, Lokomotiv terminated his contract after claiming he missed training on multiple occasions as relationships broke down entirely.

READ MORE: Man City Premier League 115 charges feelings made clear before Arsenal clash as stance taken

READ MORE: Man City 115 charges latest as Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham watch on with hearing date set

He was sued for breaching the terms in the contract and had a ban imposed by FIFA after it was taken to a dispute panel. Diarra appealed, taking matters to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following Lokomotiv's attempts to land over £15million in compensation (the price of the transfer fee).

That was upheld with Diarra paying just less than £10million plus interest. “I will accept the situation as I have always done in the past,” he said at the time. The real problems were just starting though, as Belgian outfit Royal Charleroi offered to give him a way back to European club football.

They sought guarantees from FIFA and the Belgian FA that it would not be their responsibility to pay compensation on behalf of Diarra. Without that, Charleroi backed out and left Diarra out of options. The player, his legal team - including Jean-Louis Dupont, who represented Jean-Marc Bosman in the UEFA contract dispute marking football's last major transfer shift - the French player's Union (UNFP), and FIFpro (the international players' union), took on the fight.

The explanation is that Diarra had been prevented from taking part in his own profession after FIFA had denied the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), which is needed to register a player. Despite it not being down to him - as Lokomotiv and Anzhi were in discussions - his career stalled.

CJEU has therefore been tasked with ruling on whether FIFA's decision was within the laws or not. The noises from the hearing appear to be that changes will be on the way with ITC regulations effectively forming the very system of global transfers.

Szpunar's statement from April - "There can be little doubt as to the restrictive nature of Fifa’s regulation on the status and transfer of players" - is for this reason telling. "By their very nature, the contested provisions limit the possibility for players to switch clubs," he continued.

"The contested provisions necessarily affect competition between clubs on the market for the acquisition of professional players." What does this all mean? “The consequences of a player terminating a contract without just cause are so draconian that it is highly unlikely that a player will go down this route."

"The contested provisions are designed in such a way as to have a deterrent effect and send a chill down each player’s spine.” In essence, players are bound so tightly by their contracts and are so scared of being in breach that they would do little to complain.

If the current guidelines are not lawful then the prospect of major change is imminent. This is not to be taken completely as done though, with CJEU able to go against its own Advocate General, even if the opinion cannot be totally ignored.

The CJEU has also demonstrated that outcomes in non-sports law do not necessarily apply here. As was clear with the European Super League case against UEFA over a competition monopoly, there is not a complete overlap in what is and isn't deemed unlawful.

What will be crucial for FIFA, is proving that they are not running the system in its current format so as to benefit themselves rather than to serve the sport. If this isn't found to be the case then the transfer model might be about to change.

“The likely practical outcome of Diarra will be that the transfer system in football, as we know it, will fall," said sports law expert and academics Robby Houben, Oliver Budzinski and Melchior Wathelet (an ex-CJEU Advocate General) in June. It leaves giant question marks over the outcome of Friday's hearing with the rest being unknown.

Click here to read article