In a legal challenge that could reshape the football industry’s labour framework, over 100,000 current and former professional footballers have filed a class-action lawsuit targeting the legality of FIFA’s transfer system.
The plaintiffs, represented by the newly-formed group Justice for Players (JfP), are not only seeking financial compensation but also structural reform. At the heart of the case lies Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players — a rule long criticised for its disproportionate impact on footballers’ freedom of employment.
But this is not just a legal technicality. It’s a systemic reckoning.
The Origins: Diarra vs. FIFA
The roots of this movement can be traced back to Lassana Diarra, a former French international whose collapsed move to Belgian club Charleroi in 2015 set off a chain reaction. When Diarra’s contract with Lokomotiv Moscow was terminated after a salary dispute, he was ordered by FIFA to pay over €10 million in compensation and banned for 15 months.
The problem? Any club seeking to sign him — in this case, Charleroi — would have been held jointly liable under Article 17, disincentivising them from completing the deal. The result: a player left in limbo, with no club, no income, and no legal way back.
Fast forward nearly a decade, and Diarra’s persistence culminated in a landmark October 2024 ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which found FIFA’s transfer rules to be in violation of EU competition law and the freedom of movement for workers. It was a watershed moment — one that JfP is now leveraging in their Europe-wide class action.
What Is Article 17 — And Why It Matters
Article 17 states that a player who unilaterally terminates a contract without “just cause” must compensate the original club. The new club becomes jointly and severally liable for this payment. While this provision was designed to deter contractual instability, critics argue it has created a chilling effect on player mobility.
Key issues at stake:
- Players are financially penalised for seeking better or fairer working conditions
- Clubs hesitate to sign free agents for fear of retroactive penalties
- FIFA’s framework operates as a de facto restraint of trade, disproportionately impacting lower-income or less powerful players
The new lawsuit includes players from across the EU and UK, spanning both men’s and women’s football, and seeks billions in compensation for lost earnings dating back to 2002.
Financial Muscle and Legal Firepower
JfP is not a fringe movement. The case is being spearheaded by Dupont-Hissel, the same firm that represented Diarra, and is financially backed by Deminor, one of Europe’s top legal finance firms. Players are not required to pay to join the suit — removing the biggest barrier to legal action in professional sport.
Lucia Melcherts, Chair of JfP, summed it up:
“In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily. The same should be true in football.”
This is more than a fairness debate. It’s a challenge to FIFA’s concentration of power, its self-regulatory position, and its ability to act as rule-maker, judge, and enforcer without external accountability.
The Bigger Picture: Another Bosman?
The JfP case evokes memories of Jean-Marc Bosman’s landmark case in 1995, which led to the abolition of transfer fees for out-of-contract players and the introduction of the “Bosman ruling”. That case transformed football’s commercial and competitive landscape — particularly in the EU.
This new case could go even further.
By questioning the legality of transfer rules under EU law, JfP is pushing for:
- A new model of contractual freedom
- Legal clarity on worker rights in sport
- More equitable labour practices across football’s global ecosystem
With footballers’ average careers lasting only eight years, the cost of restrictive employment policies is not theoretical — it’s measurable, personal, and urgent.
Implications for Clubs, Agents, and Federations
Should the courts side with JfP, the implications will be profound:
- Clubs may lose compensation leverage over departing players
- Agents could be empowered, opening up a freer, more dynamic transfer market
- National federations that aligned with FIFA’s transfer enforcement could face their own regulatory challenges
- FIFA’s role as a labour regulator may require third-party oversight
It also raises uncomfortable questions for elite institutions: If a system found unlawful in the EU remains in place globally, how sustainable — or ethical — is its continued enforcement?
Partner With Us
Want to feature your brand, business, or service on 365247 — Whether you’re looking to sponsor, collaborate, or build presence within our ecosystem, we’d love to explore it with you.
Submit your Interest Here
IMAGE: Shutterstock
