The Fifa rule that hands Alexander Isak transfer leverage over Newcastle

Independent

a day ago

The ugly Alexander Isak transfer saga continues to drag on, with a now public back and forth between the striker and Newcastle United, as he tries to force through a move to Liverpool.
But there is a little-known Fifa rule on transfers which could play into Isak's hands and provide him some leverage in the dispute.
The Diarra ruling
It all stems from the Lassana Diarra ruling, when the former France midfielder won his case against Fifa at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last year. Diarra was able to prove that Fifa's rules were too restrictive on players who wanted to move clubs, forcing them to overcome obstacles and pay significant costs to switch clubs when they desired but their current club did not.
Essentially, the CJEU concluded that footballers deserved similar rights to any normal worker who might wish to switch jobs, and that Fifa's rules should comply with EU labour and competition laws. An ongoing class-action lawsuit is attempting to win compensation for the many other players who may have lost earnings by Fifa's unlawful rules.
Fifa has since altered its rules in the players' favour, although even these amendments have been criticised by players' union Fifpro for not going far enough to empower players to exit club contracts when they choose.
What does article 17 say?
What Fifa has done is amend article 17 to permit players to unilaterally terminate their contract without reason, so long as they have been under contract for at least three years, or two if they are 28 or older. Isak is 25 and has been under contract at Newcastle for three years, after joining in the summer of 2022.
Under Fifa's new rules, Isak would be permitted to invoke Article 17 next summer – it must be invoked within 15 days of the end of the season. Once the transfer window opens, Isak would then be free to join whichever club he chooses.
How much money would Newcastle receive?
Newcastle would be entitled to compensation, which would need to be agreed between the clubs. If it couldn't be agreed then the case could be referred to Fifa's Dispute Resolution Chamber, or even the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
But Newcastle would be unlikely to receive anything close to the kind of figure that Liverpool have already offered, at around £110m, and which the hierarchy at St James' Park rejected.
What happens next?
There is no evidence that Isak's representatives have threatened Newcastle with invoking article 17 next summer, but all parties will likely be aware that it is another element to the saga, one that gives Isak an escape route.
Isak has set out his stall, perhaps controversially, to burn his bridges with St James' Park in a bid to get his move over the line. Liverpool have already made a significant offer, and must now decide whether to come back with one more at an even higher level. And Newcastle must consider whether Isak really can be integrated back into Eddie Howe's squad, or whether taking the money is the best course of action for all involved.