1A little-known transfer rule could play into the hands of Alexander Isak and provide him with some much-needed leverage as he attempts to force through a move to Liverpool.
The transfer saga of the summer took another bitter turn on Tuesday night, when Isak released a public statement claiming Newcastle had broken promises to him amid links of a British-record transfer to Liverpool.
Isak, who is under contract at St James’ Park until 2028, wrote: “Promises were made and the club has known my position for a long time. To now act as if these issues are only emerging is misleading. When promises are broken and trust is lost, the relationship can’t continue.”
In response, Newcastle stated that they were “disappointed” with Isak and denied that any club official had told the striker he could leave this summer. They added that the club has “been clear that the conditions of a sale this summer have not transpired”.
Despite their firm stance, however, the Magpies could become powerless as a result of Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players, which was recently tweaked as a result of a case involving former Real Madrid midfielder Lassana Diarra.
Diarra ruling could have implications on Isak future
In short, Diarra forced FIFA to act after he was able to prove that the rules were too restrictive on players who wanted to move clubs.
Diarra triggered his own departure at Russian side Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014, but after a dispute, he was unable to attain an international transfer certificate and was forced to become a free agent, with sections of the FIFA regulations preventing him from taking up a new contract offer in Belgium.
“At the age of 29, at the peak of his career, the Frenchman spent a year without a club,” says FIFPRO’s official website.
“According to Diarra, the regulations unfairly interrupted and negatively impacted his career. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in Diarra’s favour in the sense that the judges confirmed that the FIFA rules are contrary to EU laws, forcing FIFA to adapt their regulations.”
Under previous rules, a player who terminated their own deal without a “just cause” had to pay compensation for breach of contract, and his new club would also be joint liable for the cash.
Now, Article 17 has been amended to permit players to unilaterally terminate their contract without reason, so long as they have been under contract for at least three years, or two if they are 28 or older. Isak, meanwhile, is 25 and has been under contract at Newcastle for three years.
Transfer rule means Isak would be permitted to invoke Article 17 next summer
Yes, that is correct, but it must be invoked within 15 days of the final game of the season, which will be early June 2026. As noted by ESPN, 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.
FIFA’s rules state Newcastle would be entitled to compensation, which would need to be agreed between both clubs, but it would be unlikely to be anywhere near the £110 million offer from Liverpool that was rejected earlier this month.
There is no evidence that Isak’s representatives have threatened Newcastle with invoking Article 17 next summer, but it could offer Isak a potential escape route if he stays with the Magpies beyond the current window.