In a landmark decision that could reshape the landscape of professional football, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in October 2024 that key aspects of FIFA’s long-standing transfer regulations violate European Union law. The verdict, delivered in favor of former Arsenal, Chelsea, and Real Madrid midfielder Lassana Diarra, has been hailed as a major step forward for players’ freedom of movement and employment rights.
The case stems from Diarra’s fallout with Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014, which left him unable to sign with a new club in Belgium due to FIFA’s rules at the time. The regulations not only froze his career at its peak but also forced him into a year-long hiatus from football. Diarra, supported by FIFPRO, FIFPRO Europe, and the French player union UNFP, challenged FIFA’s system on the grounds that it unfairly penalized players who terminated their contracts, while allowing clubs far more leeway.
FIFA’s prior framework imposed harsh consequences on players who ended contracts without “just cause.” These included unpredictable financial compensation, potential bans from competition, and automatic liability placed on the player’s next club—deterring many from exercising their rights. In contrast, clubs could unilaterally terminate deals with comparatively few consequences, creating an unbalanced and inequitable system that saw players rarely end contracts, while clubs did so frequently. According to FIFPRO Europe, around 95% of employment disputes handled by FIFA involved clubs breaching contracts—not players.
The ECJ ruling found that this imbalance infringed upon EU labor laws. Most notably, it declared that factors such as transfer fees agreed between clubs—long used to determine compensation owed when a player terminated a contract—had no legal basis in employment relationships. Now, compensation must relate only to the remaining value of the player’s contract and be consistent with national labor law.
Further, the court ruled that a player’s former club can no longer block the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate, which previously restricted a player’s ability to register with a new team. The automatic assumption that a new club had induced a contract breach was also dismissed; now, actual proof is required. As a result, it has become easier for players to find new opportunities after leaving a club.
This case has drawn parallels to the historic Bosman ruling of 1995, which transformed football transfers by allowing out-of-contract players to move freely between clubs within the EU. Like Bosman, Diarra’s legal battle was rooted in the principle of freedom of movement for workers, reinforcing that footballers are entitled to the same labor protections as any other employees in the European Union.
Despite the ECJ ruling, FIFPRO Europe contends that FIFA’s interim adjustments to the transfer system introduced in December 2024 do not meet the court’s standards. They argue that FIFA, as a non-democratic body not accountable to governments or workers, lacks legitimacy to unilaterally impose labor-related rules. FIFPRO is calling for a new, collectively bargained transfer system that genuinely reflects the voices of players and clubs alike.
David Terrier, president of FIFPRO Europe, emphasized that while the ECJ ruling marks a critical victory, the battle for fair regulation continues. He highlighted that, with major transfer windows looming, many players are eager to understand their rights under the revised legal landscape. However, until FIFA engages in meaningful negotiations and implements reforms in line with the court’s directive, the uncertainty will persist.
For now, players considering early contract termination are advised to seek guidance from their national unions or from FIFPRO Europe. While the judgment has undoubtedly shifted the balance of power in favor of players, the fight for a fully fair and transparent transfer system is still far from over.
