14 billion for football players: The transfer market is booming like never before. But a court ruling calls the system into question

On Monday, at the end of the summer transfer window, the market heated up once again. Swedish striker Alexander Isak transferred to Liverpool FC for almost 150 million euros.

Isak's move was a fitting culmination of a remarkable transfer year in which over 14 billion euros flowed worldwide, including the winter and summer periods combined. According to an analysis by the CIES Football Observatory, this is 14 percent more than in the previous record year of 2023. It thus sets a unique, historic record.

A new year, a new record. It's business as usual in the football industry, which has long since left the difficult years of the coronavirus behind it. Billions are flowing again like a mountain stream in spring, when the snow melts at altitude. In this case, the source is the Premier League , which, thanks to increasingly hefty television contracts, now treats its competitors like subcontractors.

So, everything's business as usual, or rather, everything's even bigger than ever before. Yet the current transfer system is currently under fire, and its future is at stake. And there are legal experts who say it will soon undergo fundamental changes.

Lassana Diarra was barely mentioned during the last hectic transfer months. The Frenchman was ignored like the uninvited guest who somehow managed to get in. But perhaps his name will one day go down in football history like John Bosman's , for forcing on the football ecosystem what it doesn't like at all: change.

Diarra only made headlines briefly. In August, his lawyers announced that the former French professional footballer was demanding €65 million in damages from FIFA. Just a few days earlier, the organization "Justice for Players" had announced that it was launching a class-action lawsuit against FIFA, the German Football Association (DFB), and other European national associations.

The announcements are the result of a ruling by the European Court of Justice last October. And they represent a power struggle between players' unions and the football establishment that will keep the industry on edge for some time to come.

Diarra had a distinguished career, cleaning up Real Madrid's midfield and playing 34 times for France. In 2014, he signed with Lokomotiv Moscow. He became embroiled in a dispute that continues to this day.

The Frenchman unilaterally terminated his contract in Moscow and was later fined €10 million by FIFA. This set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led the European Court of Justice to question the very foundations of FIFA's international transfer system. Its regulations stipulate that footballers and their new clubs must pay compensation if they prematurely terminate a contract without good reason. It also provides for further sanctions in such cases, such as match bans for the footballers and transfer bans for the receiving clubs.

The European Court of Justice ruled that parts of FIFA's regulations violated EU law and that, in their current form, they primarily served to protect the clubs' financial interests. According to long-time observers, the court's ruling was exceptionally clear.

Antoine Duval, a researcher at the Asser Institute in the Netherlands and a renowned sports law expert, is one of the French experts who has offered the most pointed views on the Diarra ruling. He is convinced that it will have a "transformative impact."

Duval says that the transfer market in its current form only exists because FIFA rules create risks for players and clubs – the risk of having to pay high compensation payments or being subjected to match or transfer bans. "Clubs and players want to avoid these risks, which is why they seek a mutual agreement, and why transfer fees are paid," Duval says.

Since the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Diarra case, these risks no longer exist for Duval in the same way as before. "From a strictly legal perspective, in my opinion, the clubs have spent billions on hot air, on a pipe dream, since the ruling, and in doing so, they have taken huge risks," he says.

The reason: If a footballer were to unilaterally terminate his contract, Duval argues that, due to the EU ruling, it would be "highly unlikely" that FIFA would impose the same sanctions and compensation payments as in the past. This would expose FIFA to the risk of further damages, in addition to those already threatened due to Diarra's lawsuit and that of Justice for Players.

The Dutch organization wants to encourage footballers to join the class-action lawsuit. It argues that up to 100,000 players have suffered income losses due to FIFA's unlawful regulations. Justice for Players is being advised by an old acquaintance, Jean-Louis Dupont, who once secured the Bosman ruling and thus became a scourge of the football industry. His law firm is now also representing Diarra.

Dupont's partner, Martin Hissel, Diarra's lawyer, is surprised that last year's ruling hasn't yet impacted the players' behavior. Hissel emphasizes differences with the Bosman ruling. Back then, it was clear that footballers could leave for free after their contracts expired. Now, it's about ongoing employment relationships, which means players have to take action, terminate their contracts—and thus take legal risks.

Legally, the FIFA transfer system has been on shaky ground since the Diarra ruling. Behind the scenes, players' unions are wrangling with FIFA and other stakeholders, such as the European Club Association (ECA), over a new set of rules; the damages claims must also be viewed against this backdrop. The players' union Fifpro envisions a system that more clearly regulates when and at what price a footballer can terminate their contract. This should put an end to price gouging in the transfer market.

Meanwhile, FIFA and the clubs are playing for time. When contacted, the world governing body only stated that discussions about future transfer rules are ongoing. Since the ruling, FIFA and the clubs have taken the position that, while adjustments are necessary due to the Diarra case, the system can largely continue as before. This is also due to the well-oiled transfer machine that reliably distributes the money. If it stops working, there will be many losers. The only question is how long it will continue to do so.