Any club that would like to secure the services of the defensive midfielder is “jointly“required to pay the famous compensation. A mechanism of “codebition” supposed to protect clubs from unilateral breaches of contract. Diarra’s transfer to Sporting de Charleroi will fall through for this reason. The player then turns to the Belgian courts. He believes in fact that FIFA prevented it of “to work” and claims 6 million damages.
The Parisian, supported by FIFPRO, FIFPRO Europe and the UNFP, is resuming his career in Marseille. Not without having to pay 10.5 million euros to Lokomotiv. The saga continues in court, gains momentum and climbs to the European level. The regulation of the status and transfer of players is at the heart of this affair. Is it compatible with European Union competition and free movement law? And can a federation, whatever it may be, put pressure on a complicated issue by refusing to issue the international transfer certificate?
Ultimately, it is the Court of Justice of the European Union which must decide. Last May, Maciej Szpunar, the First Advocate General of the CJEU, issued a 46-page report which ruled in favor of the Diarra clan.
According to Szpunar, “cThese provisions are likely to discourage and dissuade clubs from hiring the player for fear of a financial risk. The sporting sanctions faced by clubs hiring the player can effectively prevent a player from practicing his profession in a club located in another Member State […] In doing so, the RSTJ, by limiting the ability of clubs to recruit players, necessarily affects competition between clubs in the market for the acquisition of professional players. he analyzes.
