The English Football Thread

[nyikolajevics 2,700]

22 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Liverpool fans up to their usual standard racially abusing Semenyo.

It was literally one person..

[Fulham Broadway 17,319]

48 minutes ago, nyikolajevics said:

It was literally one person..

There will be a minutes silence for him at Newcastle

[YorkshireBlue 3,277]

32 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

There will be a minutes silence for him at Newcastle

Did jota get a minutes silence? Or should I say did the Lamborghini get a minutes silence 

[Laylabelle 9,535]

20 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Look better than Liverpool  -0-4 

But not better than us

Mmmmm

[Vesper 30,190]

nil 1 Arse

[TheHulk 2,459]

Gyorekes looked like fucking shit.

[NikkiCFC 8,324]

My every Chelsea favorite player end up in Arsenal. Jorginho, Havertz, Kepa...

Edited Sunday at 17:22 by NikkiCFC

[Fulham Broadway 17,319]

6 hours ago, Laylabelle said:

Mmmmm

Early days...

[ahmedou 191]

 

[Vesper 30,190]

Leeds United are the first Championship title holders to win their opening game back in the Premier League for SEVENTEEN years

 

✅ 2025: Leeds 1-0 Everton 
⏸️ 2024: Leicester 1-1 Spurs
❌ 2023: Burnley 0-3 Man City
⏸️ 2022: Fulham 2-2 Liverpool
❌ 2021: Norwich 0-3 Liverpool
❌ 2020: Liverpool 4-3 Leeds
❌ 2019: Liverpool 4-1 Norwich
⏸️ 2018: Wolves 2-2 Everton
❌ 2017: Newcastle 0-2 Spurs
❌ 2016: Burnley 0-1 Swansea
❌ 2015: Bournemouth 0-1 Villa
⏸️ 2014: Leicester 2-2 Everton
❌ 2013: West Ham 2-0 Cardiff
⏸️ 2012: Reading 1-1 Stoke City
❌ 2011: QPR 0-4 Bolton
❌ 2010: Man Utd 3-0 Newcastle
❌ 2009: Wolves 0-2 West Ham
❌ 2008: Arsenal 1-0 West Brom
✅ 2007: Sunderland 1-0 Spurs

[NikkiCFC 8,324]

 

[Vesper 30,190]

55 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

 

 

The little-known FIFA rule that gives Isak all the leverage over Newcastle

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/46010345/fifa-rule-article-17-isak-leverage-newcastle-liverpool-transfers

 

You have probably heard of the Alexander Isak saga. Newcastle's standout forward has been holding out -- presumably in order to force a move -- after his club turned down a £110 million transfer bid from Liverpool. You may be less familiar with the Lassana Diarra verdict and the interim changes to something called Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players. But maybe you should be familiar with them, because the fact is they potentially loom very large in the Isak case and could determine his future.

Quick disclaimer: I have no idea if Isak or his representatives have knowledge of Article 17 and the power it gives them. But I suspect they do, because it helps explain why, thus far, they have been so aggressive in trying to engineer a move out of the club.

Situations like this are about leverage. In Newcastle's favor is the fact that Isak is under contract until 2028, which means if he's going to transfer to another club, they get to negotiate a fee (and apparently £110m isn't enough). Once the transfer window shuts on Sept. 1, Isak will have little choice: either play for Newcastle or sit out for four months, which is never a good option for a player, especially with a World Cup in the U.S., Mexico and Canada next summer.

In Isak's favor is the fact that while they can make him stay, train and even play, an unhappy player will generally be less productive. (The less productive he is, the more his transfer value will diminish.) Of course, if Isak's productivity diminishes, so too will the wages he can command and the clubs he can attract. So as leverage goes, it's kinda meh.

Enter Article 17. It took effect 20 years ago when FIFA, under pressure from the European Commission who believed the transfer system restricted the freedom of players to change jobs like ordinary people can, came up with a mechanism to allow them to effectively walk out on clubs. They had to fulfill certain criteria, and a certain amount of compensation had to be paid. The problem was, while there were a few high profile cases, the conditions were so restrictive and the amount of compensation to be paid so uncertain that very few successfully invoked Article 17.

Last October's Diarra judgment forced FIFA to rewrite their rules in double-quick time. The current statutes are still too restrictive according to FIFPro, the world players' union, but they're definitely more player-friendly than the previous ones.

For a start, several significant hurdles have been removed. Previously, FIFA could withhold the player's transfer certificate until the matter was resolved. No more. The club who signed an Article 17 player had to prove they didn't collude with him to cause the breach of contract. That's gone, too. Now, the burden of proof rests with the club that loses the player.

Crucially, Isak is well-positioned to take advantage of this and become a free agent in less than 12 months with whatever new club he signs for having to pay as little as half of the £110m Newcastle turned down.

It's not known if Isak and his agent are aware of Article 17, but it could play a major role in determining where he ends up playing and how much compensation Newcastle ultimately receive. 

Article 17 can only be invoked within 15 days of the final match of the season (early June 2026, at the latest) and only by players who have had a full three years under contract at the club (two if they're 28, which Isak isn't: He's only 25). Once that happens, it is considered a unilateral breach of contract by Isak, which means he's free to sign with any other club as soon as the market reopens on July 1.

Of course, Newcastle would be entitled to compensation. FIFA's rules say the compensation would be calculated based on the "damage suffered" by Newcastle according to the "positive interest" principle, taking into account the "individual facts and circumstances of each case." In practical terms, that's a fancy way of saying that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA's Football Tribunal would take into account a combination of factors, such as the wages Isak would have earned in his final two seasons (around £12.5m), his residual value on Newcastle's books (around £20m) and the cost of signing his replacement (finger in the wind).

There's no fixed amount, but one sports lawyer I spoke to reckons it wouldn't be more than £50-60m. He explained that FIFA, following the Diarra judgment, don't want to be seen to be punitive toward restricting player freedom of movement. Newcastle, of course, would then be able to appeal the judgment to the Court of Arbitration of sport and ask for more compensation. Either way, it's hard to see them getting near what they turned down from Liverpool, and there's the risk that they'll get less. Way less. FIFPro have sued, the European Courts are watching and the direction of travel is entirely toward fewer restrictions, not more.

There's another wrinkle in all this. The wheels of compensation tribunals grind slowly: a final judgment could take 18 months to 2 years, but under FIFA's tweaked rules, the player would be free to play for his new club straight away. Paying no transfer fee at all for two years for someone like Isak could well be worth the uncertainty of not knowing what the compensation will be if you sign him.

Some disagree that it would be quite this straightforward. Alex Clarke, a sports lawyer, points out that Premier League rules would still apply and they would make this sort of unilateral termination very difficult. But that only opens up another can of legal worms -- especially if Isak were to leave England for, say, Spain or Germany. You wouldn't back the Premier League in a legal squabble with FIFA over an international transfer.

The point here, in any event, is that the threat of Article 17 exists in the Isak case, and the threat alone, presumably, is what has emboldened the player and his agents to this point.

From Newcastle's perspective, the threat of Article 17 only goes away if they transfer Isak to Liverpool (or another club) in the next 12 days or if they get him to sign a new contract with a reasonable release clause. The former looks increasingly unlikely; the latter may seem fanciful given the current relationship, but it's potentially the only way out for both parties.

Newcastle get their star center forward back (maybe spinning some prodigal son tale) and a pre-agreed minimum fee if he does want to leave next summer. It will likely be less than the Liverpool bid, but more than the Article 17 compensation and, crucially, without the uncertainty. (Plus they would get their money straight away.) Isak gets to actually play football for a season, a little more money and the security of knowing he can move on for a more manageable fee.