Latest news with #JusticeForPlayers
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Could latest seismic legal challenge leave Fifa wobbling on its perch?
The tectonic tensions in the world of football produced a seismic tremor this week. News emerged from the Netherlands of a class action that promised to seek compensation for players whose careers – the case claimed – had been blighted by Fifa's rules. The scale of the action, undertaken by the group Justice For Players (JFP), is potentially vast: it holds that every active professional player, male or female, since 2002 could claim against Fifa for about 8% of their career earnings. Coming as a consequence of the European court of justice (CJEU) ruling on the Lassana Diarra case last year, the class action is considered exceptional by many in football because it has the potential to hit a governing body hard in the pocket. Should enough players and former players join, and were it to be successful, Fifa could be liable for a sum in the billions. Whether that materialises is another matter. The Guardian has spoken to multiple figures within the game, including those close to the JFP action, who regard the likely outcome being one that ends in negotiation, with the hope of achieving substantial systemic changes. The Diarra judgment found that Fifa rules relating to the authorisation of transfers for players restricted freedom of movement, a key tenet of EU law, and that rules requiring buying clubs to cover the cost of compensation for a player who breaks a contract 'without just cause' are anticompetitive. One aim for the group, therefore, could be a remedy known as 'injunctive relief', whereby a defendant must carry out a certain action, in this case such as making a set of agreed changes to the transfer rules, alongside paying damages. Among the possible solutions is a stipulation that release fees are inserted into all footballers' contracts, as in Spain, although it would be tough to ascertain a universal market value. Another may be that players sign shorter deals, for example for two years with an option, rather than the standard four-plus-one; that would have the effect of reducing transfer fees but could also mean players respond by requesting higher wages. A key actor in the class action has been Dupont-Hissel, a Belgian law firm. One of its partners, Jean-Louis Dupont, represented Jean-Marc Bosman in the historic 1995 case and the firm has been a consistent thorn in the authorities' side, also representing the European Super League's backers in their recent case against Uefa, and the Belgian club RFC Seraing in their successful case against Fifa and Uefa, where they challenged the court of arbitration for sport's role in the game. Fifa faces other issues. Last year European Leagues and Fifpro, the global players' union, announced they had complained to the European Commission over Fifa's alleged lack of consultation over changes to the international match calendar. In a related action, five European player unions, including the Professional Footballers' Association, submitted a claim to the Brussels court of commerce asking for the CJEU to intervene. The legal route has been increasingly embraced by stakeholders who feel there has been a lack of constructive dialogue with the global regulator. Last month the Fifpro leadership travelled to New York expecting to meet Gianni Infantino to discuss player rest breaks before the final of the Club World Cup (a tournament that caused much consternation inside the union). They say they were guided to another meeting while Fifa's president met with union leaders unaligned with Fifpro. Two weeks later the president of Fifpro, Sergio Marchi, criticised what he called the 'autocracy' of Fifa under Infantino and in response Fifa issued a statement accusing Fifpro of 'blackmail' and demanding the union publish its financial reporting in full. If Fifpro did not do so, the statement said, Fifa would 'move forward together with players and those who really want the best for football'. Fifpro gave tentative backing to the JFP claim this week. The number of legal challenges to Fifa is rising, even if there does not appear to be a coordinated effort, and there are those within the game who regard it as the best opportunity for stakeholders to get the global governing body to listen to their concerns. Those with knowledge of the Fifpro legal action say it is conceived of in those terms, with the hope that the EU will seek to bring parties together to address their dispute. Behind it all lies not only an increasing frustration with Infantino's running of Fifa but a desire for reform of the European model of sports governance. Questions raised by the CJEU Super League ruling – over whether a regulator such as Fifa can also be a competition organiser – have not gone away and are an undercurrent in the latest debates. The Justice for Players class action is being led by serious figures, meanwhile, with Dupont and JFP recruiting the former Tottenham technical director and England assistant manager Franco Baldini to the group's board. Baldini's connections within the game remain widespread and he has form, particularly while with Roma, for taking on the status quo. The question is whether this particular challenge is the one that finally sets Fifa wobbling on its perch. Fifa has been approached for comment.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Could latest seismic legal challenge leave Fifa wobbling on its perch?
The tectonic tensions in the world of football produced a seismic tremor this week. News emerged from the Netherlands of a class action that promised to seek compensation for players whose careers – the case claimed – had been blighted by Fifa's rules. The scale of the action, undertaken by the group Justice For Players (JFP), is potentially vast: it holds that every active professional player, male or female, since 2002 could claim against Fifa for about 8% of their career earnings. Coming as a consequence of the European court of justice (CJEU) ruling on the Lassana Diarra case last year, the class action is considered exceptional by many in football because it has the potential to hit a governing body hard in the pocket. Should enough players and former players join, and were it to be successful, Fifa could be liable for a sum in the billions. Whether that materialises is another matter. The Guardian has spoken to multiple figures within the game, including those close to the JFP action, who regard the likely outcome being one that ends in negotiation, with the hope of achieving substantial systemic changes. The Diarra judgment found that Fifa rules relating to the authorisation of transfers for players restricted freedom of movement, a key tenet of EU law, and that rules requiring buying clubs to cover the cost of compensation for a player who breaks a contract 'without just cause' are anticompetitive. One aim for the group, therefore, could be a remedy known as 'injunctive relief', whereby a defendant must carry out a certain action, in this case such as making a set of agreed changes to the transfer rules, alongside paying damages. Among the possible solutions is a stipulation that release fees are inserted into all footballers' contracts, as in Spain, although it would be tough to ascertain a universal market value. Another may be that players sign shorter deals, for example for two years with an option, rather than the standard four-plus-one; that would have the effect of reducing transfer fees but could also mean players respond by requesting higher wages. A key actor in the class action has been Dupont-Hissel, a Belgian law firm. One of its partners, Jean-Louis Dupont, represented Jean-Marc Bosman in the historic 1995 case and the firm has been a consistent thorn in the authorities' side, also representing the European Super League's backers in their recent case against Uefa, and the Belgian club RFC Seraing in their successful case against Fifa and Uefa, where they challenged the court of arbitration for sport's role in the game. Fifa faces other issues. Last year European Leagues and Fifpro, the global players' union, announced they had complained to the European Commission over Fifa's alleged lack of consultation over changes to the international match calendar. In a related action, five European player unions, including the Professional Footballers' Association, submitted a claim to the Brussels court of commerce asking for the CJEU to intervene. The legal route has been increasingly embraced by stakeholders who feel there has been a lack of constructive dialogue with the global regulator. Last month the Fifpro leadership travelled to New York expecting to meet Gianni Infantino to discuss player rest breaks before the final of the Club World Cup (a tournament that caused much consternation inside the union). They say they were guided to another meeting while Fifa's president met with union leaders unaligned with Fifpro. Two weeks later the president of Fifpro, Sergio Marchi, criticised what he called the 'autocracy' of Fifa under Infantino and in response Fifa issued a statement accusing Fifpro of 'blackmail' and demanding the union publish its financial reporting in full. If Fifpro did not do so, the statement said, Fifa would 'move forward together with players and those who really want the best for football'. Fifpro gave tentative backing to the JFP claim this week. The number of legal challenges to Fifa is rising, even if there does not appear to be a coordinated effort, and there are those within the game who regard it as the best opportunity for stakeholders to get the global governing body to listen to their concerns. Those with knowledge of the Fifpro legal action say it is conceived of in those terms, with the hope that the EU will seek to bring parties together to address their dispute. Behind it all lies not only an increasing frustration with Infantino's running of Fifa but a desire for reform of the European model of sports governance. Questions raised by the CJEU Super League ruling – over whether a regulator such as Fifa can also be a competition organiser – have not gone away and are an undercurrent in the latest debates. The Justice for Players class action is being led by serious figures, meanwhile, with Dupont and JFP recruiting the former Tottenham technical director and England assistant manager Franco Baldini to the group's board. Baldini's connections within the game remain widespread and he has form, particularly while with Roma, for taking on the status quo. The question is whether this particular challenge is the one that finally sets Fifa wobbling on its perch. Fifa has been approached for comment.
BBC News
6 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Legal case a 'seismic confrontation' between players and Fifa
"A seismic legal confrontation between players and Fifa."The view of former Fulham midfielder-turned-lawyer Udo Onwere when asked to assess the significance of the compensation claim launched against Fifa this week on behalf of current and former professional footballers over transfer Monday, Dutch foundation Justice for Players (JFP) said it had started a class action lawsuit against the sport's world governing body, along with the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and argues that 100,000 footballers playing in Europe since 2002 could have lost income as a result of "unlawful" Fifa regulations, and that "preliminary analysis" shows that damages could amount to several billion case is the result of last year's ruling by the highest European court that Fifa regulations over some football transfers broke EU October, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) found in favour of former Chelsea and Arsenal midfielder Lassana Diarra after he argued some of the rules restricted his freedom of movement and breached competition law, and sued Fifa."This class action could rewrite the rules governing player mobility across the global football industry" says Onwere, who is now a partner at law firm Bray and Krais."What distinguishes this case from previous skirmishes with the governing body is its sheer scale and complexity... The outcome of this litigation could usher in a new era of transfer regulations and governance - one where contractual stability is balanced with player autonomy."It could prove to be as transformational as the landmark 1995 Bosman ruling."Such a comparison is notable, because JFP is being advised by Diarra's Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, who also won the landmark 1995 case at the CJEU on behalf of ex-player Jean-Marc ruling dramatically changed the sport, meaning footballers could choose to run down their contracts and move clubs on a free transfer, with teams no longer able to demand compensation for out-of-contract years on, some now believe this latest case could result in players being able to terminate their own contracts, without paying compensation, before those deals come to an Sport has been told that Fifa has until the start of September to respond to the threat of legal action. Background Last year, the CJEU said that, by refusing to provide Diarra with an international transfer certificate (ITC) for a proposed move to Belgian club Charleroi in 2015 after he was found to have breached his contract with Lokomotiv Moscow (for which he was ordered to pay £8.4m to the Russian club and suspended), Fifa showed that its rules "impede the free movement of professional footballers wishing to develop their activity by going to work for a new club".Diarra's lawyers contested the Fifa rule which makes a club wishing to sign a player jointly liable for compensation to a player's old club, and at risk of sporting sanctions, in cases where the player's previous contract was terminated without just also challenged a rule which allows the national association of a player's former club to withhold an ITC where there was a dispute, which they said also hindered the court ruled that Fifa should not be able to use the ITC system to prevent players who have breached a contract from moving and working where they the time Fifa said it had been "continuously improving" the transfer system "for the benefit of players, clubs, leagues and member associations, to ensure that players can train, be developed and have stability, while safeguarding the integrity of competitions by implementing a robust regulatory framework for the international transfer system".It then adapted its transfer regulations on an interim basis, but accepted they could be open to challenge. JFP claims that affected professional footballers have earned approximately 8% less over the course of their career as a result of Fifa's rules, and its litigation could mean players can terminate their own contracts. 'A huge hit' Lucia Melcherts, the chair of JFP, said: "All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful Fifa regulations. In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily. The same should be true in football, particularly as the average career span of a professional footballer according to a FIFPro study is only eight years long.""FIFA will find it difficult to put forward a robust defence to these claims in the face of a clear decision by the CJEU in the Diarra case that there was anti-competitive behaviour over several years", says Daniel Gore, an arbitration lawyer at Withers."The anticipated floodgate of claims has commenced, and Fifa's finances could take a huge hit at a time they are flying high after the expanded Club World Cup this year and World Cup in 2026."In a statement, the European division of global players' union Fifpro, which backed Diarra's case, said the action "represents the anticipated practical response" to the CJEU ruling, "effectively centralising advocacy for affected players' interests that have broad implications for the football industry".It said it would "thoroughly assess" the foundation's move, adding it "will always support fair compensation for affected players whose rights were breached, while driving meaningful reform towards inclusive governance structures in international football."This approach aims to shield past, current and future generations of players from unilateral and arbitrary decision-making processes that undermine or harm fundamental workers' rights and fair competition."Fifa has been approached for comment.
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Sport
- Daily Mail
FIFA hit by 'major class-action lawsuit' by players' group who are seeking BILLIONS in compensation over transfer rules after EU law breach last year
A group of current and former footballers are reportedly set to take legal action against FIFA over the world football governing body's current transfer rules. The Justice for Players group (JfP) is believed to have launched a class-action lawsuit, seeking billions in compensation for individuals who have played in the United Kingdom or the European Union and have potentially missed out on earnings due to the current transfer regulations in place. The Dutch-based group's lawsuit is also against the football associations within France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands. They are said to have until September to respond. JfP have claimed that up to 100,000 footballers from the men's and the women's game are involved in the case, which is being heard in the Dutch district court of Midden Nederland due to laws within the country being propitious to the size of the class action. The FA in England are not said to be involved in the lawsuit, but they are believed to have been sent a copy of the letter. The suit has the potential to lead to radical change in the sport, and could lead to players having the ability to terminate their own contracts. JfP's claim follows the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling that some of FIFA's rules on player transfers are illegal in accordance with European Union legislation, during the Lassana Diarra case back in October 2024. The former Chelsea and Real Madrid star was involved in a decade-long legal battle with the governing body, after he was ordered to pay 10.5 million euros (£8.8million) for a breach of contract with former side Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014. FIFA also suspended Diarra for 15 months, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding their claims, which in turn blocked a move to Belgian club Charleroi. This led to a countersuit from the former French international. Diarra won the case with the CJEU, with the EU's highest court claiming the transfer rules in place, which pertain to the freedom of movement between football clubs across borders, are contrary to European Union law on competition and freedom of movement. The JfP, which has Franco Baldini, who was England assistant manager under Fabio Capello, on its board, are being advised by Diarra's lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont. Baldini said: 'As a former professional footballer, agent and someone who has worked in football in various managerial capacities, I have had first-hand experience of how much control and power FIFA has over the players. 'So I am very proud to be part of Justice For Players and to be part of something that could help change the existing system and make football more inclusive and more sustainable.' Belgian lawyer Dupont is famous for the landmark Jean-Marc Bosman case, which changed regulations in 1995, allowing players in the EU to move clubs for free upon the expiration of their contract.'
The Guardian
04-08-2025
- Sport
- The Guardian
Fifa facing multibillion-pound compensation claim from players
Fifa is facing a multibillion-pound claim for compensation from a group of current and former players after last year's ruling by the European court of justice (CJEU) that its transfer rules are unlawful. The Justice for Players foundation, a Dutch group that has the former England assistant manager Franco Baldini on its board, has served notice of its intention to file a class action against Fifa and the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. Justice for Players is seeking compensation on behalf of players who have lost income because of Fifa's transfer rules since 2002. It says the legal case will involve about 100,000 players. The claim will be filed in the district court of Midden Nederland, with the Netherlands chosen as the jurisdiction because Dutch law permits claims from anyone who has worked within the European Union and the United Kingdom. The Football Association is understood to have been sent a copy of the letter before action. Although not named as a defendant, it could be added later. Fifa and the five domestic FAs have been given until September to respond. The compensation claim is the result of the CJEU judgment last October in the case brought by former Chelsea and France midfielder Lassana Diarra, who sued Fifa after the world governing body refused to issue him with an international transfer certificate (ITC) to join the Belgian club Charleroi in 2016 after he was found to have breached his contract with Lokomotiv Moscow two years earlier. Fifa fined Diarra €10.5m and suspended him from football for 15 months for breaching his contract, in a ruling upheld on appeal at the court of arbitration for sport. After blocking his registration at Charleroi, Fifa was then hit with a counterclaim from Diarra, with the CJEU ruling that its transfer regulations were unlawful. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion The CJEU found that the Fifa regulations on the status and transfer of players infringed EU competition law and the right to free movement of workers. Fifa has amended its transfer regulations, although the new rules have not been accepted by the international players' union, Fifpro. The Justice for Players foundation is understood to have been set up this year with the intention of bringing a mass legal action. Diarra's lawyer, Jean-Louis Dupont, who won the landmark case at the CJEU on behalf of Jean-Marc Bosman that established the principle of free movement for players out of contract, in 1995, is advising Justice for Players. The legal letter sent to Fifa makes reference to the class action being a multibillion claim. This figure is understood to be based on independent analysis from economists at Compass Lexecon, who have estimated that players would have earned about 8% more over their careers since 2002 had Fifa's transfer regulations not been unlawfully restrictive. The CJEU judgment ruled that Fifa's regulations restricted free movement by establishing unlawful criteria for determining compensation to be paid by a player who breaks their contract, allowing the national federation of the former club to withhold a player's ITC, making the player's new club liable for the compensation to be paid to the former club and allowing Fifa to impose disciplinary sanctions on the player and their new club. Fifa has been contacted for comment.
