
The options available to Alexander Isak as he trains at former club amid transfer speculation
His former club Real Sociedad confirmed on Thursday he was 'working with his trainers' at their Zubieta facility, with the striker having reportedly told Newcastle he is keen to explore a move away from the club.
The Sweden international has been heavily linked with Liverpool and did not not travel with the rest of the Newcastle squad earlier this month for their pre-season tour of Asia.
Newcastle have been approached for comment.
The decision to train at his old club rather than his current one will heighten speculation that Isak sees his future away from Newcastle.
No offer has been submitted by Liverpool as yet to Newcastle, who would almost certainly be looking for a British record transfer fee for the player.
Should Newcastle price Isak out of a move or simply refuse to listen to offers, one option Isak and his representatives might consider would be to unilaterally terminate his contract with three years remaining.
A European Court of Justice ruling in favour of former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra last year means players can now terminate their deals 'without unnecessary fears', according to the lawyer who led Diarra's case.
The ruling appears to have given players greater leeway to terminate a contract without just cause.
The court found some of FIFA's transfer rules were contrary to European law because they restricted freedom of movement and were anti-competitive.
Jean-Louis Dupont, who led Diarra's challenge and who was also at the centre of the landmark Bosman case which granted players free agency at the end of their contracts, believes last year's ruling lifts the threat of significant sanctions for players who choose to terminate their deals.
Dupont, speaking in general rather than specifically about Isak's case, told the PA news agency: 'In its Diarra judgement, the court ruled that players have a right to termination without just cause and that it is for the ex-employer to establish the existence and the quantum of damages, knowing that losing the opportunity to transfer the player is NOT a damage.
'According to the court, such termination cannot entail disciplinary sanctions (when effected in between seasons).
'FIFA has, imperfectly, amended its rules to abide by the court ruling. But the bottom line is that players have the right to terminate without unnecessary fears.'
Asked whether he thought players would now be free from the threat of sporting sanctions such as a ban for terminating their deals, Dupont added: 'Yes. If not, the right to terminate, as granted by the court, would just be theoretical. But, apparently, FIFA is still resisting on this point.'
Following the ECJ ruling, FIFA opened a global dialogue on its transfer rules and issued amended, interim rules just before Christmas last year.
The world players' union FIFPRO immediately pushed back on the amendments, saying they did not 'provide legal certainty' to players.
FIFPRO issued guidance to players in May stating that following the ruling, a player's transfer fee or transfer value could no longer be used in the calculation of any compensation due to the club where the player had been contracted, and advised that the compensation paid should be 'limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase on the basis of the national law'.
A presumption that a player's new club had induced the termination of contract was removed in the amended rules issued by FIFA last December. Now, a player's old club must prove the new club induced the player to break contract.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Evening Standard
25 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Hugo Ekitike: Striker reveals why he joined Liverpool FC after promising Anfield debut
Slot plumped for a much stronger side in the second game, and his first-choice players, including five new signings, were put through their paces by a stubborn La Liga outfit, who came back from a goal down twice on an emotional afternoon at Anfield, with Liverpool playing at home for the first time since the tragic death of forward Diogo Jota, who was commemorated before and during both games.


Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Newcastle launch improved bid for RB Leipzig's Benjamin Sesko
Newcastle have raised their bid for RB Leipzig striker Benjamin Sesko. Manchester United had still to submit a formal offer for the Slovenia international as of Monday afternoon. Newcastle's first bid was worth an initial €75m (£65.5m) with a further €5m (£4.3m) in add-ons but the Tyneside club are now guaranteeing the Bundesliga club at least €80m. United opted to prioritise a move for Sesko over Aston Villa's Ollie Watkins but the 22-year-old's price tag is creeping up now Newcastle have increased their initial offer. Newcastle co-owner Jamie Reuben is said to have held positive talks with Leipzig on Monday. Sesko is thought to be waiting to see what United do before making a final decision on his future. However, Leipzig are reported to be unwilling to sell Sesko below their stated expectations on a fee. On Sunday, Omar Berrada, the United chief executive, said the club's director of football Jason Wilcox and his recruitment team were working 'around the clock' to make further additions to the squad. United wanted to sign Liam Delap at the start of the season but the striker turned them down in order to join Chelsea from Ipswich for £30m. 'We have a team back home led by Jason – the recruitment team – that is working around the clock to ensure that we continue to find opportunities to strengthen our squad. There are lots of late calls and early morning meetings to make sure that we stay on top of it.' Newcastle's move for Sesko comes amid continuing uncertainty over the future of Alexander Isak. The Sweden striker has signalled his desire to leave St James' Park. Liverpool had a £110m bid for Isak rejected last Friday.


Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Crystal Palace DELETE all information about Conference League from their website just hours after draw - ahead of CAS battle with Nottingham Forest to be reinstated into Europa League
Crystal Palace have distanced themselves from the UEFA Conference League – just hours after being drawn in the competition's play-off round. On Monday afternoon, Palace's official website briefly published an article detailing their potential opponents in Europe. Monday's draw paired the Eagles with either Norwegian side Fredrikstad or Danish club Midtjylland, with the first leg scheduled for August 21 at Selhurst Park and the return fixture a week later on August 28. But by Monday evening, that article had been deleted. The original link now returns a 404 error, reading: 'The page you're looking for has either been moved, deleted or simply doesn't exist.' In addition, no European dates are listed on the club's online fixture schedule. The removal of the content underlines Palace's resistance to playing in the Conference League, with the club still fighting to overturn their controversial demotion from the Europa League. Palace have taken UEFA to the Court of Arbitration for Sport after being bumped down a tier due to multi-club ownership rules. The club were removed from the Europa League because American businessman John Textor — through his Eagle Football Holdings group — held a 43.9 per cent stake in Palace while also owning 77 per cent of French side Lyon. But Palace have since deleted any mention of the Conference League draw from their website Both clubs had qualified for the Europa League, and UEFA rules prohibit two teams under the same ownership or influence from competing in the same European competition. With that in mind, UEFA chose to keep Lyon in the tournament and demoted Palace to the Conference League. Lyon were deemed the 'priority club' due to Textor's majority control, and because UEFA's MCO rules state that the club with the higher domestic league finish retains its place. Lyon had finished sixth in Ligue 1, while Palace were 12th in the Premier League — even though Palace qualified via the FA Cup. Palace argue that UEFA's application of the MCO regulations contradicts its own competition rules, and have taken their case to CAS, where a hearing will take place on Friday, with a verdict expected next Monday. Palace say Textor had no controlling interest in the club, with only 25 per cent voting rights, and that the issue has since been resolved — with New York Jets owner Woody Johnson signing a legally binding agreement to buy the shares, pending Premier League approval. Speaking to Reuters last month Textor said: 'Honestly, I am stunned. We did everything possible to separate from the club, as UEFA would ask, with a sale process that began before the deadline, and a sale that will occur well before the draw. Now we have sold out of a club that I love, to help Palace fans continue this dream year, only to have another off-the-pitch decision lay waste to an historic sporting victory.' Club chairman Steve Parish also hit out at the ruling, calling it 'a terrible injustice.' He told Sky Sports: 'Everyone knows we're not part of a multi-club set-up. We're caught up in a rule that wasn't put there for us. This is a ludicrous decision. We will ask the appeal court to listen to our argument.' Palace also believe they were treated more harshly than Nottingham Forest, who were granted extra time to adjust their ownership structure to avoid a potential conflict with Olympiacos, also owned by Evangelos Marinakis. In the end, Olympiacos qualified for the Champions League, meaning no clash with Forest ever materialised. Forest, who initially qualified for the Conference League, have been promoted to the Europa League, subject to Palace's appeal outcome. Mail Sport understands Forest will send legal representatives to the CAS hearing to defend their place in the competition. The case is part of a broader crackdown by UEFA on multi-club ownership. Previously, clubs like Manchester City and Girona, and Manchester United and Nice, were allowed to compete in Europe by placing one club in a blind trust, preventing any operational crossover. But UEFA has signalled this will no longer be a viable long-term solution. UEFA quietly moved the compliance deadline forward from June 1 to March 1 for the 2024–25 season — and Palace argue that they were caught out by this change, having only reached the fifth round of the FA Cup by the March deadline and still being uncertain of European qualification.