You have probably heard of the Alexander Isak saga. Newcastle’s standout forward has been holding out — presumably in order to force a move — after his club turned down a £110 million transfer bid from Liverpool. You may be less familiar with the Lassana Diarra verdict and the interim changes to something called Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players. But maybe you should be across them, because the fact is they potentially loom very large in the Isak case and could determine his future.
Quick disclaimer: I have no idea if Isak or his representatives have knowledge of Article 17 and the power it gives them. But I suspect they do because it helps explain why, thus far, they have been so aggressive in trying to engineer a move out of the club.
Situations like this are about leverage. In Newcastle’s favour is the fact that Isak is under contract until 2028, which means if he’s going to transfer to another club, they get to negotiate a fee (and apparently, £110m isn’t enough). Once the transfer window shuts on Sept. 1, Isak will have little choice: either play for Newcastle or sit it out for four months, which is never a good option for a player, especially with a World Cup in the U.S., Mexico and Canada next summer.
– The best tifos of the Premier League weekend
– Reaction: Arsenal beat Man United in clash of depth, errors
– Liverpool overcome emotional night to beat Bournemouth
In Isak’s favour is the fact that while they can make him stay, train and even play, an unhappy player will generally be less productive. (The less productive he is, the more his transfer value will diminish.) Of course, if Isak’s productivity diminishes, so too will the wages he can command and the clubs he can attract. So as leverage goes, it’s kinda meh.
Enter Article 17. It took effect 20 years ago when FIFA, under pressure from the European Commission who believed the transfer system restricted the freedom of players to change jobs like ordinary people can, came up with a mechanism to allow them to effectively walk out on clubs. They had to fulfil certain criteria, and a certain amount of compensation had to be paid. The problem was, while there were a few high profile cases, the conditions were so restrictive and the amount of compensation to be paid so uncertain that very few successfully invoked Article 17.
Last October’s Diarra judgement forced FIFA to rewrite their rules in double-quick time. The current statutes are still too restrictive according to FIFPro, the world players’ union, but they’re a darn sight more player-friendly than the previous ones.
For a start, several significant hurdles have been removed. Previously, FIFA could withhold the player’s transfer certificate until the matter was resolved. No more. The club who signed an Article 17 player had to prove they didn’t collude with him to cause the breach of contract. That’s gone too. Now, the burden of proof rests with the club that loses the player.
Crucially, Isak is well-positioned to take advantage of this and become a free agent in less than 12 months’ time with whatever new club he signs for having to pay as little as half of the £110m Newcastle turned down.
Article 17 can only be invoked within 15 days of the final match of the season (early June 2026, at the latest) and only by players who have had a full three years under contract at the club (two if they’re 28, which Isak isn’t: he’s only 25). Once that happens, it is considered a unilateral breach of contract by Isak, which means he’s free to sign with any other club as soon as the market reopens on July 1.
Of course, Newcastle would be entitled to compensation. FIFA’s rules say the compensation would be calculated based on the “damage suffered” by Newcastle according to the “positive interest” principle, taking into account the “individual facts and circumstances of each case.” In practical terms, that’s a fancy way of saying that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA’s Football Tribunal would take into account a combination of factors such as the wages Isak would have earned in his final two seasons (around £12.5m), his residual value on Newcastle’s books (around £20m) and the cost of signing his replacement (finger in the wind).
There’s no fixed amount, but one sports lawyer I spoke to reckons it wouldn’t be more than £50-60m. He explained that FIFA, following the Diarra judgement, don’t want to be seen to be punitive towards restricting player freedom of movement. Newcastle, of course, would then be able to appeal the judgement to the Court of Arbitration of sport and ask for more compensation. Either way, it’s hard to see them getting near what they turned down from Liverpool, and there’s the risk that they’ll get less. Way less. FIFPro have sued, the European Courts are watching, and the direction of travel is entirely towards fewer restrictions, not more.
There’s another wrinkle in all this. The wheels of compensation tribunals grind slowly: a final judgement could take 18 months to 2 years, but under FIFA’s tweaked rules, the player would be free to play for his new club straight away. Paying no transfer fee at all for two years for someone like Isak could well be worth the uncertainty of not knowing what the compensation will be if you sign him.
1:22
McManaman: Guéhi should be the priority for Liverpool over Isak
Steve McManaman assesses Liverpool’s transfer plans ahead of the start of the Premier League season.
Some disagree that it would be quite this straight-forward. Alex Clarke, a sports lawyer, points out that Premier League rules would still apply and they would make this sort of unilateral termination very difficult. But that only opens up another can of legal worms — especially if Isak were to leave England for, say, Spain or Germany. You wouldn’t back the Premier League in a legal squabble with FIFA over an international transfer.
The point here, in any event, is that the threat of Article 17 exists in the Isak case and the threat alone, presumably, is what has emboldened the player and his agents to this point.
From Newcastle’s perspective, the threat of Article 17 only goes away if they transfer Isak to Liverpool (or another club) in the next 12 days or if they get him to sign a new contract with a reasonable release clause. The former looks increasingly unlikely, the latter may seem fanciful given the current relationship, but it’s potentially the only way out for both parties.
Newcastle get their star center-forward back (maybe spinning some prodigal son tale) and a pre-agreed minimum fee if he does want to leave next summer. It will likely be less than the Liverpool bid, but more than the Article 17 compensation and, crucially, without the uncertainty. (Plus they would get their money straight away.) Isak gets to actually play football for a season, a little more money and the security of knowing he can move on for a more manageable fee.
