Chelsea Transfers

[Vesper 28,801]

Why FIFA ruling may force Chelsea into £34m Raheem Sterling U-turn

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/why-fifa-ruling-may-force-Chelsea-into-34m-raheem-sterling-u-turn/

Raheem Sterling’s move to Arsenal came after he and droves of other first-teamers were forced into the now-infamous ‘bomb squad’, but that option may not be available to Chelsea for much longer.

Sterling was the most high-profile Chelsea player to be ostracised in the hopes that it would force them to move on and bring in much needed revenue and wage savings.

But 13 players in total were made to train with the reserves by Enzo Maresca over a period in the summer, including Romelu Lukaku, Trevor Chalobah, Kepa Arrizabalaga and Armando Broja.

All of those players have now moved away on loan or, in Lukaku’s case, permanently.

And while it attracted huge scrutiny from the media and supporters alike, the bomb squad treatment did prove an effective way of giving Chelsea more PSR wriggle room – at least in the short term.

Deivid Washington, Harvey Vale, Alex Matos and – most notably – £200,000-a-week left-back Ben Chilwell are the only players from the 13-man blacklist to still be on the payroll for 2024-25.

The bombastic recruitment strategy under Todd Boehly and Eghbali, who are at loggerheads in the boardroom, means the club feel this kind of draconian treatment is a necessity to relieve financial strain.

Under the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, Chelsea are allowed to lose no more than £105m over a rolling three-year period, excluding costs such as infrastructure and youth development.

The margins are very tight for Chelsea after spending more than £1.5bn on new signings under the Clearlake-led regime, so saving the bulk of Sterling’s £325,000-a-week salary for the season is significant.

But the method that the club used to persuade the 29-year-old attacker to accept a move to Arsenal has now been challenged at the very highest level.

• READ MORE: Investor who pumped £500m into Chelsea in talks over £6bn-valued takeover in the USA

Ex-Chelsea star successfully FIFA transfer system

Lassana Diarra played 31 times for Chelsea between 2005 and 2007, winning both the League Cup and FA Cup during his time at Stamford Bridge.

But his legacy in West London and beyond will now be defined by the European Court of Justice case against FIFA that has just won.

In a case which is being described as just as significant as the 1995 Bosman ruling, Diarra’s team have succeeded in the case relating to his exit under a cloud from Lokomotiv Moscow over a decade ago.

They argued FIFA’s rule, which holds the player and the club signing him jointly liable for compensation to his previous club when the player terminates his contract without ‘just cause’, is unlawful.

The ruling is expected to greatly increase ‘player power’ and some experts argue it could change football’s ecosystem forever.

Stefan Borson, a lawyer and former adviser to Man City, has claimed that the ruling may mean that ‘bomb squad’ treatment may be grounds for a player to terminate his deal, specifically namechecking Chelsea in the process.

‘In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence.

‘Bomb squad treatment – where players are excluded from training without justification – could, in theory, meet this test.

‘However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

‘The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts.

‘The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams.

‘While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.’

 

Sterling is under contract until 2027, meaning Chelsea will still owe him two years wages – approximately £34m – after this season is done.

If freezing him out is no longer an option, it would be a major blow to Chelsea and would force them to rethink their strategy in trying to get high-wage players off the books.

• READ MORE: Chelsea poised to make £158m transfer announcement with major PSR impact

The ruling and its impact on Sterling, Chilwell and more

In essence, the ruling may mean that the way Chelsea have treated Sterling in order to try and oust him may – in future – be grounds for the player to terminate his deal and another club to sign him for free.

This would give Chelsea far less leverage in their attempting to rid themselves of the likes of Sterling and Chelsea, damaging their chances of complying with PSR.

They are by no means the only club who might be impacted by the seismic ruling, but their financial situation does mean that they will likely have more anxiety about the Diarra ruling than most.

[Vesper 28,801]

EXPLAINED: How the Diarra case could end Chelsea's and other team's "Bomb Squads"

The Diarra v FIFA ruling could significantly impact clubs unilaterally sending players to "Bomb Squads" (isolating players from first-team training to force an exit). Whilst the case doesn't directly change the interpretation of constructive dismissal or abusive processes, it may remove key barriers that discouraged clubs from signing players in disputes, empowering more players to seek just cause departures.

FIFA’s Article 14(2) and Bomb Squads

While Article 14(2) of FIFA’s regulations prohibits abusive conduct, the rule is not specific enough to definitively address bomb squad situations where players are isolated from first-team training. It focuses more on clear harassment or bullying and has not yet been fully tested in marginalisation cases. This means the current interpretation of abusive conduct in such cases remains unclear but it is clear that preventing a player from training with the first team may constitute a abuse by the club. This was reiterated in the recent case of Football Club FCSB SA v. Lukasz Gikiewicz (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/6950.pdf…).

Constructive dismissal, abusive conduct and just cause

In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence. Bomb squad treatment - where players are excluded from training without justification - could, in theory, meet this test. However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

What Diarra changes

The Diarra ruling challenges FIFA’s solidarity liability and presumption of inducement, finding they were disproportionately restrictive. Removal of these rules would reduce the risk for new clubs signing players involved in disputes eliminating a significant disincentive that has previously kept clubs from taking on players claiming just cause termination. Post Diarra, new clubs may be more willing to gamble on signing players isolated by their current clubs comfortable that they aren't inviting big compensation claims from former clubs.

Buying clubs more willing to sign an ostracised player?

With the presumption of inducement removed, new clubs will likely feel more confident in signing players alleging just cause. In the past, clubs feared joint liability for signing such players. Under Diarra, this concern is lowered, making Bomb Squad players more attractive to new clubs, even if their case for just cause is uncertain.  

A new transfer world?

The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts. The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams. While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.

[Vesper 28,801]

Thomas Tuchel given £84m Chelsea transfer shortlist as Man United find Erik ten Hag replacement

Chelsea could help Thomas Tuchel jumpstart his tenure at Manchester United by selling the German a few players

https://www.football.london/Chelsea-fc/transfer-news/thomas-tuchel-given-84m-Chelsea-30085239

Thomas Tuchel could jumpstart his tenure at Manchester United by signing a few familiar faces. The former Chelsea boss has remerged as a potential replacement for Erik ten Hag at Old Trafford, with the Dutchman under incredible pressure.

According to the Manchester Evening News, the Red Devils have identified Tuchel as a candidate for the head coach position. The report states Manchester United were interested in the German, who parted ways with Bayern Munich at the end of last season, when they contemplated sacking Ten Hag in the summer.

Instead, the club activated the option to extend the 54-year-old's contract by a year after winning the FA Cup final. Nevertheless, it's said the United hierarchy will hold a meeting in London on Tuesday, with the Ten Hag's position to be discussed in the coming days.

As it stands, the former Ajax boss has a contract that keeps him at Old Trafford until June 2026. So, with that being said, football.london has looked at what players Tuchel could sign from Chelsea if he were to replace Ten Hag at Manchester United.

Ben Chilwell – £18.5m

Chilwell has struggled to force himself into Enzo Maresca's side, having failed to impress in recent outings. The 27-year-old left-back, who's valued at £18.5m (€22m) by Transfermarkt, has featured just once for Chelsea this season, appearing off the bench in the Blues' 5-0 win over Barrow in the Carabao Cup third round.

Despite questions marks over his ability to play in a back-four and a heavily possession-based side, Chilwell could be just what Tuchel is looking for if the German operates a back-five with flying wing-backs at Manchester United. While he's previously impressed in that role, he has nursed a couple of hamstring injuries since.

Benoit Badiashile – £25.1m

Badiashile enjoyed an excellent vein of form when he first joined Chelsea from Monaco in January 2023, helping the Blues keep three clean sheets in his first three Premier League games. Then, at the end of the season, he suffered a hamstring injury before picking up a couple of groin issues the following campaign.

The 23-year-old centre-half, who's valued at £25.1m (€30m) by Transfermarkt, ended last term as a key player in Mauricio Pochettino's lineup. But, since Maresca took over, Levi Colwill has been preferred alongside Wesley Fofana and the Cobham graduate hasn't put a foot wrong.

Raheem Sterling – £29.3m

Sterling joined Arsenal on a season-long loan on deadline day in the summer. Despite arriving as a 'marquee signing' and topping the club's wage bill, the 29-year-old winger failed to live up to expectations at Stamford Bridge, scoring just 14 goals in 59 appearances in the Premier League.

It's said that the Gunners don't have an option to buy Sterling at the end of the season, leaving the door wide open for Manchester United to take him off Chelsea's hands. Tuchel could use the England international, who's valued at £29.3m (€35m) by Transfermarkt, in the same way he used Timo Werner.

Trevoh Chalobah – £10.9m

Chalobah also left Chelsea on a season-long loan in the summer, without including an option to buy in his contract. The 25-year-old defender, who's valued at £10.9m (€13m) by Transfermarkt, was controversially omitted from the Blues squad before finally joining Crystal Palace.

While Chalobah wasn't necessarily a regular in Tuchel's side at Stamford Bridge, he was called upon in some big games. So, if the German wants somebody who's ready to slot straight into a back-five at Old Trafford, then the Cobham graduate would be a good option in the summer.

Edited October 7 by Vesper

[Mhsc 876]

34 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Why FIFA ruling may force Chelsea into £34m Raheem Sterling U-turn

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/why-fifa-ruling-may-force-Chelsea-into-34m-raheem-sterling-u-turn/

Raheem Sterling’s move to Arsenal came after he and droves of other first-teamers were forced into the now-infamous ‘bomb squad’, but that option may not be available to Chelsea for much longer.

Sterling was the most high-profile Chelsea player to be ostracised in the hopes that it would force them to move on and bring in much needed revenue and wage savings.

But 13 players in total were made to train with the reserves by Enzo Maresca over a period in the summer, including Romelu Lukaku, Trevor Chalobah, Kepa Arrizabalaga and Armando Broja.

All of those players have now moved away on loan or, in Lukaku’s case, permanently.

And while it attracted huge scrutiny from the media and supporters alike, the bomb squad treatment did prove an effective way of giving Chelsea more PSR wriggle room – at least in the short term.

Deivid Washington, Harvey Vale, Alex Matos and – most notably – £200,000-a-week left-back Ben Chilwell are the only players from the 13-man blacklist to still be on the payroll for 2024-25.

The bombastic recruitment strategy under Todd Boehly and Eghbali, who are at loggerheads in the boardroom, means the club feel this kind of draconian treatment is a necessity to relieve financial strain.

Under the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, Chelsea are allowed to lose no more than £105m over a rolling three-year period, excluding costs such as infrastructure and youth development.

The margins are very tight for Chelsea after spending more than £1.5bn on new signings under the Clearlake-led regime, so saving the bulk of Sterling’s £325,000-a-week salary for the season is significant.

But the method that the club used to persuade the 29-year-old attacker to accept a move to Arsenal has now been challenged at the very highest level.

• READ MORE: Investor who pumped £500m into Chelsea in talks over £6bn-valued takeover in the USA

Ex-Chelsea star successfully FIFA transfer system

Lassana Diarra played 31 times for Chelsea between 2005 and 2007, winning both the League Cup and FA Cup during his time at Stamford Bridge.

But his legacy in West London and beyond will now be defined by the European Court of Justice case against FIFA that has just won.

In a case which is being described as just as significant as the 1995 Bosman ruling, Diarra’s team have succeeded in the case relating to his exit under a cloud from Lokomotiv Moscow over a decade ago.

They argued FIFA’s rule, which holds the player and the club signing him jointly liable for compensation to his previous club when the player terminates his contract without ‘just cause’, is unlawful.

The ruling is expected to greatly increase ‘player power’ and some experts argue it could change football’s ecosystem forever.

Stefan Borson, a lawyer and former adviser to Man City, has claimed that the ruling may mean that ‘bomb squad’ treatment may be grounds for a player to terminate his deal, specifically namechecking Chelsea in the process.

‘In English law, constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of the employment contract, such as violating the implied duty of trust and confidence.

‘Bomb squad treatment – where players are excluded from training without justification – could, in theory, meet this test.

‘However, FIFA’s Article 14(2) does not definitively address marginalisation as a form of abusive conduct, so players have still needed to navigate this grey area and have been hesitant to seek releases from contracts.

‘The Diarra case could trigger a shift in player transfers. Players in bomb squads, who previously feared retribution for claiming just cause, may now feel more empowered to terminate contracts.

‘The reduction in risks for new clubs could encourage more signings of players isolated by their current teams.

‘While Diarra doesn’t redefine abusive conduct, it opens the door for Bomb Squad players to challenge unfair treatment without a self imposed suspension.’

 

Sterling is under contract until 2027, meaning Chelsea will still owe him two years wages – approximately £34m – after this season is done.

If freezing him out is no longer an option, it would be a major blow to Chelsea and would force them to rethink their strategy in trying to get high-wage players off the books.

• READ MORE: Chelsea poised to make £158m transfer announcement with major PSR impact

The ruling and its impact on Sterling, Chilwell and more

In essence, the ruling may mean that the way Chelsea have treated Sterling in order to try and oust him may – in future – be grounds for the player to terminate his deal and another club to sign him for free.

This would give Chelsea far less leverage in their attempting to rid themselves of the likes of Sterling and Chelsea, damaging their chances of complying with PSR.

They are by no means the only club who might be impacted by the seismic ruling, but their financial situation does mean that they will likely have more anxiety about the Diarra ruling than most.

Unsurprisingly, known Chelsea hater slbsn interprets everything that happens as proof that Chelsea is doomed, after successfully predicting 25 of our last 1 transfer bans.

Guy is obsessed and no matter that he humiliates himself time after time, he just keeps going.

[DH1988 1,273]

Borson is literally obsessed with Chelsea and to date he's been largely wrong everytime he's been on TalkSport about our club, attention seeker.

[Vesper 28,801]

27 minutes ago, Mhsc said:

Unsurprisingly, known Chelsea hater slbsn interprets everything that happens as proof that Chelsea is doomed, after successfully predicting 25 of our last 1 transfer bans.

Guy is obsessed and no matter that he humiliates himself time after time, he just keeps going.

[Vesper 28,801]

Is this the end for football’s entire transfer system or not? (Or something else entirely?)

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5817939/2024/10/05/transfers-football-lassana-diarra/

Something happened in Luxembourg on Friday that will either bring an end to football’s transfer system as we know it, make the stars even richer, jeopardise player development and ruin hundreds of clubs across Europe, or it will make FIFA rewrite a couple of sentences in its rulebook.

As Sliding Doors moments go, that’s a stark choice: jump on board and take a trip to oblivion, or get the next train to where you went yesterday and every day for the last 20 years.

The agent of change in this analogy is the European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ) that some of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players — the set of rules that have defined the transfer system since 2001 — are against European Union (EU) law.

The EU’s highest court was asked to look at the regulations by an appeal court in Belgium that has been trying to settle a row between former player Lassana Diarra, in one corner, and FIFA and the Belgian football federation in the other.

That dispute has dragged on since 2015, but the Belgian court can now apply the ECJ’s guidance to the matter, which should result in some long-awaited compensation for Diarra and a redrafting of at least one article of FIFA’s rules.

But is that it? FIFA thinks so but The Athletic has heard from many others who say, no, that train has left the station and nobody knows where it is going.

So, let’s dive through the closing doors and see where we get to. But, before we do, let’s make sure everyone knows where we started.

---

What on earth are we talking about?

Good starting point.

After stints with Chelsea, Arsenal, Portsmouth and Real Madrid, Diarra moved to big-spending Anzhi Makhachkala in 2012. His time in Dagestan ended abruptly when the club ran out of money a year later but he had played well in the Russian league and Lokomotiv Moscow signed him to a four-year deal.

Sadly, after a bright start, the France midfielder fell out with his manager, who dropped him and demanded Diarra take a pay cut. The player declined and the situation deteriorated. By the summer of 2014, he had been sacked for breach of contract and Lokomotiv pursued him via FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber for damages.

Using a rule of thumb developed over the previous decade, FIFA decided Diarra owed his former employer €10.5million (£8.8m, $11.5m) and banned him for 15 months for breaking his contract “without just cause”, its catch-all phrase for messy divorces. Diarra appealed against the verdict but it was confirmed in 2016 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), albeit with a slightly reduced financial hit.

 

Diarra (left) playing for Lokomotiv in 2013 (Sergey Rasulov Jr/Epsilon/Getty Images)

In the meantime, Diarra was offered a job by Belgian side Charleroi in 2015. They got cold feet when they realised that article 17 of FIFA’s transfer regulations — “the consequence of terminating a contract without just cause” — made them “jointly and severally liable” for any compensation owed to Lokomotiv and at risk of sporting sanctions, namely a transfer embargo.

Stuck on the sidelines, Diarra decided to sue FIFA and its local representative, the Belgian FA, for €6million in lost earnings.

Once his ban had expired in 2016, his football career resumed with a move to Marseille, and he would eventually retire in 2019 after stints with Al Jazira in Abu Dhabi and Paris Saint-Germain. His row with the football authorities continued, though, and, with the support of the French players’ union and FIFPRO, the global players’ union, he took it all the way to Luxembourg City, where he won, on Friday morning.

All caught up?

---

Erm… no — what has he won?

Ah, well, it depends on who you believe.

According to his lawyers, Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, Diarra has won “a total victory”, but not just for him.

“All professional players have been affected by these illegal rules (in force since 2001!) and can therefore now seek compensation for their losses,” they said.

“We are convinced that this ‘price to pay’ for violating EU law will — at last — force FIFA to submit to the EU rule of law and speed up the modernisation of governance.”

As a heads-up, Dupont has considerable experience in this area — and we will return to him shortly.

FIFPRO, unsurprisingly, agrees. In a statement issued immediately after the decision was published, the union described it as a “major ruling on the regulation of the labour market in football (and, more generally, in sport) which will change the landscape of professional football”.

Later on Friday, it published a longer statement that expanded on its belief that this was both a big W for Diarra personally but also a class action victory for all players.

“It is clear the ECJ has ruled unequivocally that central parts of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players are incompatible with European Union law,” it said.

“In particular, the ECJ has stated that the calculation of compensation to be paid by a player who terminates a contract ‘without just cause’ — and the liability for the player’s new club to be jointly liable for such compensation — cannot be justified.”

 

Diarra at PSG in 2018 (Thananuwat Srirasant/Getty Images for ICC)

It continued by saying these clauses of article 17 of the regulations “are the foundation of the current transfer system and have discouraged numerous players from terminating their contract unilaterally and pursuing new employment”. Furthermore, it said, the ECJ agreed with the union that players’ careers can be short and “this abusive system” can make them shorter.

It leapt on the more memorable sections of what is a bone-dry, 43-page judgment (currently only available in French and Polish), by pointing out that the court’s judges think the criteria FIFA used for calculating Diarra’s fine, and other sanctions in cases like his, are “sometimes imprecise or discretionary, sometimes lacking any objective link with the employment relationship in question and sometimes disproportionate”.

It then suggested that the only way to remedy this, and the other problems the court highlighted, is for FIFA to talk it through properly with the unions and their members.

“We commend Lassana Diarra for pursuing this challenge which has been so demanding,” it continues.

“FIFPRO is proud to have been able to support him. Lassana Diarra — like Jean-Marc Bosman before him — has ensured that thousands of players worldwide will profit from a new system…”

---

Hold on… Bosman? 

Yes, Bosman, another midfielder who did not quite live up to his early promise as a player but confounded all expectations as a labour-rights revolutionary and begetter of new worlds.

In case you are hazy on the details, Bosman found himself in a similar spot to Diarra in 1990 when he was out of favour at RFC Liege. The difference, however, is that he was out of contract and simply wanted to take up a new one just over the French border in Dunkerque. Liege said words to the effect of “OK, but only if they pay us half a million”, as was the custom back then.

Five years later, Bosman was finished as a player but not before he had claimed football’s most famous ECJ ruling — one that meant players were free agents once their contracts had expired, massively increasing their attractiveness to new employers, and bringing down European football’s long-standing restrictions on the number of foreign players clubs could field.

Dupont was his lawyer and that is partly why agents, union officials and some legal experts have been previewing Diarra as “the next Bosman” ever since one of the ECJ’s advocate generals — senior lawyers who help the judges make their decisions — published his non-binding opinion on the case earlier this year. The judges do not have to follow that guidance, but this time they did, almost verbatim.

So, that is why my phone started buzzing with contrasting predictions of what Diarra’s win would mean for the game long before anyone had got past the preamble of the ruling.

---

OK, what might happen next, then?

To answer this, it is perhaps useful to go back to Bosman. When that bombshell ruling was delivered, clubs said the world would end, as the players now had all the power, which meant there was no point having academies, as the brightest talents would leave for nothing, and fans could forget getting attached to anyone, as the best players would swap teams every year.

The verdict came too late to help Bosman. But when the likes of Sol Campbell and Steve McManaman ran down their contracts at Tottenham and Liverpool respectively, in order to secure moves to new clubs, on much higher wages, it looked like the doom-mongers were onto something.

But six years after Bosman, the clubs, aided by FIFA and European football’s governing body UEFA, managed to persuade the European Commission that too much freedom of movement was bad for football and what that industry really needed was contractual “stability”.

The result was the first iteration of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The authorities called it a compromise between the clubs’ need to retain some control of their most valuable assets and every other EU citizen’s right to quit one job and take another, anywhere in the single market. The unions called it “an ambush”.

 

The case of Bosman (centre) changed the transfer system (STF/AFP via Getty Images)

In 2006, however, the pendulum swung towards the players again when a Scottish defender called Andy Webster decided to use a provision in the rules — the right for a player to buy out their contract after a prescribed protected period — to force a move from Hearts to Wigan.

As he was over 28, his protected period was three years and he was in the final year of a five-year deal, so he was OK to move. Unfortunately, nobody had settled on a formula for deciding how much he should pay his old club.

Hearts reckoned Webster, an international, was worth £5million but his lawyers offered them £250,000, a sum equal to what he was owed in wages for the last year of his deal.

Like Diarra, they took it to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which decided Hearts were owed £625,000, a sum based on his future earnings and the club’s legal costs. He appealed against that verdict at CAS and it reduced the compensation by £150,000 but backed the gist of the ruling.

For a year, it looked like Webster had become “the new Bosman” but, in 2007, the pendulum swung back towards “stability” when Brazilian midfielder Matuzalem tried to engineer “a Webster” out of Shakhtar Donetsk to Real Zaragoza.

After the usual visits to the DRC and CAS, football had a new, more club-friendly precedent for deciding the compensation jilted parties were owed by these unilateral contract-breakers, a sum based on the player’s remaining wages and his unamortised transfer fee.

Confused? Don’t worry, it was a bigger number and therefore a larger deterrent.

---

So, the pendulum is about to swing again?

Again, it depends on who you ask.

For FIFA, this is a great big nothingburger.

Its immediate response to the news from the ECJ was to jump on the sentences in the ruling that supported its right to have rules that breach EU rules on freedom of movement and competition because professional sport is not like journalism, law and other humdrum jobs. It has “specificity” and should therefore be exempted from certain principles, providing they are for a “legitimate objective”, such as “ensuring the regularity of interclub football competitions”.

Therefore, FIFA noted, the court still agrees football can justify rules aimed “at maintaining a certain degree of stability in the player rosters of professional football clubs”.

Phew, that should save most of the rulebook, then, right?

“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,” a FIFA spokesperson said, referring specifically to two of Diarra’s main objections: the joint liability of the new club in a dispute like his, and the withholding of the International Transfer Certificate, which players need for a cross-border deal, until compensation has been paid.

FIFA’s chief legal and compliance officer Emilio Garcia Silvero doubled down on this “Am I bothered?” take with a later statement that said: “Today’s decision does not change the core principles of the transfer system at all.”

And he might be right. After all, it is now up to the Belgian court to apply the ECJ ruling to the Diarra case, which could clarify things slightly and certainly provide some time for the dust to settle.

 

(Kirill Kudryavstev/AFP via Getty Images)

It is also possible to read the ECJ ruling and imagine a scenario in which FIFA places all liability for breaching contracts “without just cause” on the player but puts in place a less onerous and more transparent formula for working out how much compensation should be paid.

And if FIFA wanted to increase its chances of gaining union support, it could also broaden the list of reasons why a player might have cause to break a contract. At present, it thinks the only justifications for a player to breach are not getting paid for months on end or the outbreak of war.

But there are plenty of people who have now read the ruling and do not believe FIFA is going to get away with a few tweaks.

As mentioned, FIFPRO and its member players’ associations are convinced the entire transfer regime is up for grabs and FIFA will now have to enter into the types of collective bargaining agreements that are central to professional sport in North America.

As David Terrier, the president of FIFPRO Europe, puts it: “The regulation of a labour market is either through national laws or collective agreements between social partners.”

Ian Giles, head of antitrust and competition for Europe, Middle East and Africa at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, is on the same page as the unions when it comes to the potential ramifications of the ruling.

“The decision essentially says the current system is too restrictive and so will have to change,” he explained.

“In terms of free movement, the ECJ recognises there may be a justification on public interest grounds to maintain the stability of playing squads, but considers the current rules go beyond what is necessary.

“It’s a similar story regarding the competition law rules. The ECJ has deemed the relevant transfer rules to amount to a ‘by object’ restriction — a serious restriction similar to a ‘no-poach’ agreement. Concerns about labour market restrictions, including ‘no-poach’ agreements, are a particular area of focus for competition authorities globally.

“Under competition law, it’s possible for otherwise restrictive agreements to be exempt — and therefore not problematic — if they lead to certain overriding benefits, but it’s generally difficult for ‘by object’ restrictions to meet the specific requirements for exemption.”

Giles’ point about the ECJ saying article 17 of the regulations is a “by object” restriction has been noted by other experts, as it means the court is effectively saying it is a restriction, end of story, and there can be no justification for it, no matter how noble the objective.

In terms of what this might mean for the industry, Giles can only speculate like the rest of us.

“It’s entirely possible this means players will feel they can now break contracts and sign on with new clubs, without the selling club being able to hold them or demand significant transfer fees,” he said.

“This will likely result in reduced transfer fees and more economic power for players, but over time things will have to stabilise to allow clubs to remain economically viable. Smaller clubs who rely on transfer fees for talent they have developed may well be the losers in this context.

“The key question now for FIFA will be how they how can adapt its transfer rules so that they are less restrictive and therefore compatible with EU law, while seeking to maintain the stability of playing squads. It will also be interesting to see whether more players start to breach their contracts in the meantime, emboldened by the ECJ’s judgment.

“Something else to keep an eye on is whether we could see other players bring damages claims, alleging they’ve suffered harm as a result of FIFA’s transfer rules, with damages claims for breaches of competition law generally on the rise in the UK and Europe.”

---

Right, has anyone else chipped in?

Yes! Not that they have shed much light on where we are heading, although they have confirmed where loyalties lie.

European Leagues, the organisation that represents the interests of domestic leagues across the continent, took a player-friendly stance by saying the decision confirmed that “FIFA must comply with national laws, European Union laws or national collective bargaining”.

It added that it stood for contractual stability but only when it is “safeguarded by national laws and collective bargaining agreements negotiated and agreed by professional leagues and players’ unions at domestic level”.

The European Club Association (ECA), however, adopted an “if ain’t broke (for us), why fix it” approach.

“Whilst the judgement raises certain concerns, the ECA observes that the provisions analysed by (the court) relate to specific aspects of the FIFA RSTP, with the football player transfer system being built on the back of the entire regulatory framework set out in the (regulations) which, by and large, remains valid,” it said.

“More importantly, the ECJ did recognise the legitimacy of rules aiming at protecting the integrity and stability of competitions and the stability of squads, and rules which aim to support such legitimate objectives, including among others, the existence of registration windows, the principle that compensation is payable by anyone who breaches an employment contract and the imposition of sporting sanctions on parties that breach those contracts.”

As a champion of clubs large and small, the ECA noted that the transfer system “affords medium and smaller-sized clubs the means to continue to compete at high levels of football, especially those who are able to develop and train players successfully”.

Whether that is actually true or not is the subject of a much bigger and long-running debate. But it is certainly an attractive idea and sometimes that can be enough.

---

What do football’s transfer movers think?

My colleague Dan Sheldon spoke to Rafaela Pimenta, a football agent who represents Erling Haaland, Matthijs de Ligt, Noussair Mazraoui and other top stars. She told The Athletic: “If you talk to agents, they are over-excited because, finally, the players are going to get heard. How many times are we still going to see them crying after having their careers destroyed because they are being denied a transfer?”

She made it clear, though, that the focus now should be on conversations between football’s various stakeholders to define what the new rules should be.

 

Pimenta is a significant figure in the game (Andrea Staccioli/Insidefoto/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“For players, this can be a landmark and I hope players will use it wisely,” she said. “This is not an excuse for them to do whatever they want; it is a reason to stand up for their rights.

“I think what the challenge here is to make sure their voices are used responsibly. And by that I mean let’s talk and have this discussion, let’s lead the process and understand what clubs need, what players need and what is the compromise.

GO DEEPER

Moving Haaland, Raiola's faux pas and taking on FIFA: An interview with Rafaela Pimenta

“If there is no balance and one side, either the players or the clubs have all the power, then it will go wrong again.

“I understand clubs need to have assets, but they need to understand that players are human beings and sometimes things don’t go according to plan and they cannot become the asset that stays there parked on a corner.”

---

That is probably enough excitement for one day. We shall be back with more analysis when the pendulum swings again.

[Vesper 28,801]

Aston Villa’s Jhon Duran signs new contract until 2030

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5824791/2024/10/07/jhon-duran-aston-villa-contract/

---

Aston Villa striker Jhon Duran has signed a new contract with the club until 2030.

The 20-year-old has been in strong form in the opening stages of the 2024-25 season, scoring six goals across all competitions, despite just one of his 10 appearances for Unai Emery’s side coming as a starter.

Duran has primarily been deployed as a second-half substitute for regular lone starting striker Ollie Watkins. Duran has frequently replaced Watkins, although the two played together in the closing stages of Sunday’s 0-0 home draw with Manchester United.

The Colombia international has scored Premier League goals against West Ham United, Leicester City, Everton and Wolverhampton Wanderers, while he also netted from long range in Villa’s 1-0 win at home to Bayern Munich in the Champions League.

Duran attracted interest from Chelsea and West Ham United during the summer and was investigated by Villa after appearing the cross his arms to make the ‘irons’ gesture relating to the latter club.

Duran joined Villa from Major League Soccer side Chicago Fire in January 2023 and played 37 times in the 2023-24 season, scoring eight goals. His previous deal was due to expire in 2028.

He made one appearance for Colombia at this summer’s Copa America as his side reached the final, in which they were defeated by Argentina. Duran’s only time on the pitch was a 13-minute cameo against Costa Rica in a group-stage victory.

GO DEEPER

Understanding Aston Villa's Jhon Duran - 'Nothing he was given was free'

Duran’s contract reward for remarkable turnaround

Analysis from Villa correspondent Jacob Tanswell

Duran’s new extension reflects a remarkable turnaround in feeling and relationship between the player, his representatives and Villa.

Team-mates and Duran himself were of the impression he would leave in the summer, with the Colombia striker wanting to push through a move, wanting to be a regular starter.

However, after resolution talks towards the end of the window — where Villa outlined his importance and Emery planned to increase his minutes, it marked the turning of the page. His importance and ability has been demonstrated this season but comes as little surprise to Villa, who believe he can become one of the world’s best forwards.

“If there is a club that really thinks Jhon Duran can become one of the top strikers in the world, then that one club is Aston Villa and that one manager is Unai Emery,” said Monchi, president of football operations in a wide-ranging interview. “There are no fewer than 40 clubs who want Duran — everyone wants him.”

GO DEEPER

Duran can be one of the best strikers in the world - Martinez

[ZAPHOD2319 4,477]

 

[Fernando 6,458]

19 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

Seems like Joe Shields is the hot scout at this moment. 

Everything he says we will listen and try to buy. Crazy what a good call on Palmer can do for ones reputation. 

[Vesper 28,801]

https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost475

The 475th CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post presents the 100 clubs worldwide whose footballers under contract have the highest aggregate transfer value (including players on loan to other teams). With a squad featuring many young stars bound by long-term contracts, Real Madrid clearly leads the way with the highest aggregate transfer value ever recorded for a football club: €1.728 billion.

Manchester City ranks second, with an 'owned-players' valuation of €1.471 billion. Another English club, Chelsea FC, is third: €1.388 billion. Despite recent results that have not always lived up to expectations, the Londoners have a squad that is both rich in numbers and young talented players tied by long-term contracts. In terms of the average value of players owned, Real Madrid are in first place, followed by three English clubs (Manchester City, Arsenal and Liverpool).

The estimates were calculated on the basis of a statistical model developed exclusively by the CIES Football Observatory, using a methodology explained in this peer-reviewed paper recently published in the International Journal of Financial Studies. The estimated transfer values of the best-valued player by club in over 60 leagues worldwide are available free of charge in this online tool.

Estimated transfer values of players owned (€ Million)

Top 100 per club - 01/10/2024 - Number of players - Average transfer value per player - % of the highest transfer value

 

[Vesper 28,801]

every team with an average player valuation of 15m euros and up

we are 9th, Real Madrid's average (€50.8m) is basically double ours (€25.7m)

in order:

[Vesper 28,801]

only Boca Juniors (62) have more players under contract than we do (54)

these are all the teams with 40 or more players under contract

[Vesper 28,801]

Lewa is tracking to a massive season at the age of 36

[Vesper 28,801]

Player Comparison: Liam Delap vs. Nicolas Jackson

https://fbref.com/en/stathead/player_comparison.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=dd897ee7&p1yrfrom=2024-2025&player_id2=9c36ed83&p2yrfrom=2024-2025

[Vesper 28,801]

Stats show perfectly what Chelsea team is missing to become title winning level

https://Chelsea.news/2024/10/stats-show-perfectly-what-Chelsea-team-is-missing-to-become-title-winning-level/

It’s a refrain you hear a lot at the moment about Chelsea. Despite their good start to the season, there’s still something missing when comparing the Blues to the top teams in the league, and the Chelsea teams of the past which won titles.

A ruthless goalscoring number 9 is often mentioned, despite Nicolas Jackson’s improvements over the last year. A top goalkeeper is another thing that often comes up, despite Robert Sanchez’s great showing at the weekend.

But one thing that’s been talked about for a long time is the need for a really dominant centre back. Levi Colwill, Wesley Fofana and even Tosin Adarabioyo all have their qualities, but none display the sort of hyper-alpha, John Terry style domination of their own box that takes a good defence and makes it great.

Some of this is intangible – just the “aura” and the leadership that top defenders have. But you can also measure it to some extent in terms of their “duel success.”

Chelsea still lack final defensive piece

We’ve had some really pretty easy fixtures compared to most of the top teams, yet we’ve got nobody in the top 5, as you can see above. Players like Virgil Van Dijk and William Saliba are exactly who you think of when you talk about these sorts of defenders, and they’re on the list despite having played harder games.

Of course you can still be a great defender and not make this list, and you can have a great defence and not have a player on this list. James Tarkovski is on the list and Everton have conceded the joint second most goals in the league.

But we still think it should be a stat that the club look into very closely next time they look to buy someone for the back line.

[Vesper 28,801]

Chelsea could be interested in another striker addition in January, who is currently smashing it in the Bundesliga.

https://www.footballfancast.com/Chelsea-want-to-sign-jackson-upgrade-marmoush-outscoring-harry-kane/

snip

According to reports from CaughtOffside, Chelsea are among the interested clubs in Frankfurt forward, Omar Marmoush.

The fee it would cost is believed to be around €40m (£33.5m) according to the reports. The 25-year-old has scored nine goals in nine appearances for the German outfit, also providing four assists in 747 minutes played.

The Egyptian has been labelled a "late bloomer" and "electric" by Sky Sports' Dougie Critchley, praising his versatility as a forward who can play as a striker, a number ten, or even from the left.

Marmoush has now made 50 appearances in all competitions for Frankfurt since joining the club in 2023, scoring 26 goals and providing 12 assists in 3,892 minutes played. The 25-year-old has also played for Wolfsburg, St Pauli (on loan), and Stuttgart (on loan), having come through the Wadi Degla academy, and Egyptian second-division team.

Frankfurt's number seven has been showing his ability to impact games, with some lovely 1v1 finishes, lovely ball manipulation in the box to create half a yard for himself, and blistering pace on the break to help get his side forward, creating for both himself, but also his teammates.

 

Marmoush is now outscoring Harry Kane in the Bundesliga this season, and if Chelsea went after him, where would that leave the in-form Jackson?

Marmoush vs Jackson comparison

The first thing to compare is the two player profiles here. Jackson is 22-years-old, has a 6 foot 1 frame, is a very wirey runner, and was developed in the academy as a left-winger, and therefore possesses some winger-like traits, such as his dribbling.

Comparatively, Marmoush is 25-years-old, is 6 foot, and as mentioned earlier, is considered something of a late bloomer.

FBref's "similar players" feature actually notes that Jackson is one of Marmoush's top most similar players which tells you their styles aren't too dissimilar, both liking to run the channels, use their pace and power in transition, and can manipulate the ball in tight spaces.

 

You can see from these metrics, even though Jackson is having a strong start to the season, Marmoush is on another level right now, scoring over a goal per 90 with 1.08, also assisting 0.72 goals per 90, whilst actually generating fewer xG than Jackson.

Expected Goals (xG) is a metric designed to measure the probability of a shot resulting in a goal.

His shot volume is high, taking 4.46 per 90, and getting 1.93 of these on target, but this does affect his goals/shot ratio slightly, as he scores at a rate of 0.19, which is 0.02 fewer than Jackson's 0.21 goals/shot ratio.

But Marmoush isn't just a clinical box finisher, he also has 5.97 shot-creating actions per 90, showing that ball manipulation ability we mentioned earlier, and how he can use it to create shots for himself, but also for others. This is matched by his 3.89 progressive carries and 2.36 progressive passes, which allow him to drive his team forward, something Jackson does very well too.

The dynamic of having both Jackson and Marmoush competing for that striker spot would be very interesting for Chelsea, maybe even pushing each other to get even better, or even playing so well, that you could play one of them from the left-wing, and transform the Chelsea attacking unit.

Edited October 10 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,801]

Journalist tips Chelsea to sell £35m player and sign his replacement in the January transfer window

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/journalist-tips-Chelsea-to-sell-35m-player-and-sign-his-replacement-in-the-january-transfer-window/

Chelsea ensured they were busy over the summer in order to give the best possible backing to their new manager.

Enzo Maresca was gifted a host of new players, however so far only Jadon Sancho has nailed down a regular starting role in the Premier League.

With the money they spent on new players over the summer, it could be believed that they would be in for a quiet January transfer window.However, there are a number of players who have really struggled to break into the starting side that could be surplus to requirements when the opportunity arises again.

This has been the case for Benoit Badiashile so far, with the Frenchman failing to impress when sporadically featuring this season.

Benoit Badiashile predicted to leave Chelsea

There was interest in signing him back in the summer, however the Blues were unable to find a deal that would see him leave.

Journalist Graeme Bailey has exclusively predicted to The Chelsea Chronicle that they will sell the Frenchman in January, whilst also completing a deal to bring his replacement in at the same time.

He said: “When the January window comes I think they’ll be active, I do. I think we might see a left-sided centre-back come in, and Badiashile will go.

“I wouldn’t rule out a right-back, they’ll see what’s available. If we don’t see Reece James before January, I think that’s more likely.”

Levi Colwill performing really well

Badiashile has found it very difficult to displace Levi Colwill from the starting side this season, with the England international taking his game to a new level.

It is fair to say that this has come in tangent with him being played in his more natural position, rather than the left-back role that Mauricio Pochettino was keen to play him in.

After joining the club for £35m, injuries and recent poor form seem to have spelt the end for the Frenchman at Stamford Bridge.