The Diarra Effect: “Justice for Players” and class action against FIFA

SÉRVULO PUBLICATIONS 19 Aug 2025

Last October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a groundbreaking decision in the Lassana Diarra case, ruling that several provisions of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players ("RSTP") were incompatible with European Union law.

In summary, the context of the case is as follows:

• Lassana Diarra, a French football player, entered into a sports employment contract with FC Lokomotiv Moscow.
• After one year, the club terminated the contract due to alleged breaches and filed a claim for compensation with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ("DRC") under Article 17 of the RSTP[1] . The DRC agreed to hear the club's claim.
• After the termination, the player received an offer from Royal Charleroi, conditional on (i) Diarra being able to register and play for the club's first team in all competitions organised by FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian Football Association, and (ii) no compensation being payable by Royal Charleroi to Lokomotiv Moscow.
• The player was unable to secure these conditions, given the rules laid down in the RSTP.
• Consequently, the player brought an action against FIFA and the Belgian Football Association before the Belgian courts in 2015, arguing that Article 17 of the RSTP was contrary to European Union law, specifically the principle of free movement of workers.
• The Belgian courts upheld the action and FIFA appealed that decision to the Court of Justice.

In October 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment, finding that Article 17(1) of the RSTP violated the aforementioned principle of free movement of workers, laid down in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), in so far as, by providing for the joint and several liability of the new club for the payment of compensation owed by the player to the previous club in the event of termination of the contract without just cause, such a provision may discourage or deter clubs from signing the player for fear of exposure to financial risk.

The Court of Justice also concluded that this rule unjustifiably restricted the principle of free competition imposed by European Union law (Article 101 TFEU), by limiting the recruitment of players in this situation and placing them at a disadvantage compared to other players.

Following the Court of Justice's decision, FIFA initiated a global dialogue on Article 17 of the RSTP and suspended all disciplinary proceedings related to the application of that provision.

In December 2024, FIFA provisionally adapted its transfer regulations with immediate effect for the January transfer window. The main provisional changes were as follows:

• The compensation to be paid by the player to his previous club in the event of termination without just cause must be calculated taking into account the damage suffered, considering the individual circumstances of each case and in accordance with the law of the country concerned (the previous rule provided that compensation should be calculated taking into account the law of the country concerned, the specificity of the sport and any other objective criteria);
• The player's new club, in the event of termination without just cause, shall only assume such liability if it is proven that it induced the breach of contract (the original rule provided that the new club was automatically liable);
• The application of sporting sanctions to the new club depends on the previous club proving that the new club induced the breach of contract (previously, it was assumed that the new club had induced the breach);
• The national association of the previous club cannot refuse to issue the International Transfer Certificate (the original rule provided that the national association of the previous club could withhold the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate if there was a dispute over the termination of the contract). 

The Court of Justice's decision in the Diarra case thus paved the way for a profound restructuring of the transfer system in professional football.

Motivated by this decision, the Dutch foundation "Justice for Players" launched a class action in August 2025 against FIFA and several national football associations (the Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark), on behalf of former and current male and female professional football players who have played for football clubs in EU Member States and the United Kingdom since 2002. The grounds of the action is that the rules on international transfers are contrary to European law, which has led, on average, to losses of around 8% of income over the career of professional male and female football players since 2002.

The action will be decided by the District Court of Midden-Nederland and the potential pool of injured parties amounts to 100,000 athletes in the European Union and the United Kingdom, resulting in a total amount of compensation in the order of several billion euros.

Under Dutch law, all players who have suffered damage and reside in the Netherlands are automatically included in this class action and must submit a declaration of exclusion if they do not wish to be included (opt-out system). Players who do not reside in the Netherlands but who have played or been transferred from, to or between European clubs between 2002 and the present date may join this class action (opt-in system).

The filing of this class action lawsuit represents a milestone in the legal evolution of professional football, placing FIFA under direct scrutiny and pressuring it to carry out a structural reform of the international transfer system.

Miguel Santos Almeida | msa@servulo.com

Maria Novo Baptista | mnb@servulo.com