The Diarra judgment and the overhaul of FIFA’s transfer system
Case law · June 18, 2026
In its judgment of 4 October 2024 (Case C-650/22, FIFA v BZ), the Court of Justice of the European Union examined the compatibility of several provisions of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) with EU law. On a preliminary reference from the Mons Court of Appeal, the Court held that certain of those rules unjustifiably restricted both the free movement of workers and competition. The precise scope of the Court’s answers must be assessed in the light of the full text of the judgment, subject to a case-by-case analysis of the situations concerned.
The dispute arose from the termination by French player Lassana Diarra of his contract with Lokomotiv Moscow. FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber had ordered him to pay substantial compensation. The player argued that the contested rules had prevented him from signing with Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, which made his engagement conditional on the issuance of the international transfer certificate and on the absence of joint and several liability. It was this practical blockage that led the Belgian court to refer questions to the Court, according to the elements reported by commentators on the decision.
The Court focused on three interlocking mechanisms: the compensation due on termination without just cause and its method of calculation, the joint and several liability of the new club for that compensation, and the mechanism blocking or delaying the international transfer certificate. It also noted the presumption of inducement to terminate bearing on the recruiting club. Taken together, these elements were liable to strongly deter the engagement of a player who had ended his contract, creating significant legal and financial uncertainty for clubs that might recruit him.
On free movement (Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the Court considered that these rules constituted an obstacle capable of affecting players’ access to the employment market in other Member States. On competition (Article 101 of the same Treaty), it took the view that they could have the object or effect of restricting competition between clubs. It will fall to the competent bodies to assess, where appropriate, any justifications and their proportionality, such assessment requiring a concrete examination.
Following the judgment, FIFA first adopted interim measures framing the application of Article 17 of the RSTP. It then opened a dialogue with football stakeholders, including player unions and groupings of clubs and leagues. According to the communications reported by the specialised press, revised regulations were approved on 10 June 2026, with an entry into force announced for 1 January 2027. The final content of that text and of the reworked Article 17 must be verified against FIFA’s official publications.
The Belgian dimension of the case deserves particular attention. The preliminary reference comes from the Mons Court of Appeal, the Royal Belgian Football Association (URBSFA) is among the parties, and Sporting du Pays de Charleroi is the club whose engagement had been contemplated. The judgment thus confirms the Belgian anchoring of a dispute of European scope and recalls the role of national courts in reviewing the conformity of private sporting regulations with EU law.
For clubs, players and their advisers, the judgment calls for a reassessment of the drafting of clauses on duration, termination and compensation, as well as of the management of international transfers. Caution remains warranted: the precise scope of the reformed rules, their interaction with national laws and any admissible justifications will have to be assessed case by case, in the light of the final text of the new regulations and their concrete application by sporting bodies and courts.