A Brazilian player who has transferred from South Africa to the Spanish Second Division may destroy the entire international transfer system

There are no shining expressions on Twitter, no crew on the training ground, and no exciting revelations on social media. In fact, almost no media has reported on his transfer.

European clubs spent nearly £8 billion in total to bring in players in the summer transfer window. Compared with the drama where Isaac and Visa broke up with the club and wanted to transfer, Brazilian player Lucas Ribero's transfer from South African champion Mamelodi Sunset to Spanish League Two team Leon Sports team is similar, but no one pays attention to it.

Few people think that in terms of global influence, Ribero's transfer may be the most important transfer since Dunkirk's failure to introduce Jean-Mark Boseman in 1990. In 1995, the Boseman transfer dispute case was finally ruled, and the player whose contract expired has the right to transfer for free, and this ruling is the famous "Boseman Act". Now, Ribero may be the one who destroys the Boseman Act transfer system.

The 26-year-old Brazilian told the media that although his contract with Mamelodi Sunset has expired for three years, he has terminated the contract on August 1. On August 31, he signed a one-year contract with Leon Sports, a newly promoted Spanish Second Division team. On September 11, Ribero and his new team applied to FIFA to issue the international transfer certificate required for cross-border transfers, and the certificate was approved the next day.

In this way, Ribero became the first player to use Las Diarra to win the lawsuit in the European Court of Justice last year. Diyala's victory opened the door for the players to tear up contracts and transfer to a club with a larger budget and a more complete project. Now, just someone needs to open the door and let them walk in. Why is the ruling in the

Diala case significant?

The 40-year-old Las Diarra has a long and successful career, playing for Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain, and has made 34 appearances for the French national team. He retired in 2019.

However, in 2014, Diyala was fired for violating the contract of the Moscow Locomotive, and the Russian club sued him in the FIFA Arbitration Tribunal for compensation for huge losses.

FIFA Arbitral Tribunal ruled that Diyala breached the contract "without legitimate reason", so it was required to compensate Moscow Locomotive 10.5 million euros, and also banned Diyala for 15 months. Diyala appealed to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport, but received only a small reduction in the amount of compensation.

Meanwhile, Belgian club Charleroy tried to sign Diyala, but immediately gave up when they realized that the Locomotive Moscow would also sue them. According to FIFA's regulations on player identity and transfer, Diyala's situation complies with Article 17. In addition, the Charleroy Club may also face sports sanctions such as transfer bans, and relevant regulations also prohibit relevant member associations from issuing the international transfer license required to register for Charleroy Diyala. In 2015, Diyala finally returned to the Marseille team, but began to file legal lawsuits against FIFA and the Belgian Football Association, demanding compensation of 6 million euros in lost revenue.

The dispute began in a Belgian court and was finally appealed to the European Court of Justice, which announced the verdict in October 2024: Diyala is correct and FIFA's rules violate EU law.

Article 17 is obviously too beneficial to the club because it makes the player's termination risk very high, but the club's termination risk is relatively small.

Look at Diyala's example, he was ordered to pay compensation, and the calculation of the compensation was based on a vague estimate of the cost required for Moscow Locomotive to replace Diyala, without evaluating whether the sack of Diyala was saved. FIFA should know that Russian clubs can replace Diyala with a youth training player, and the cost of hiring is only a small part of Diyala's salary. If so, should Moscow Locomotive pay Diyala compensation?

On the other hand, clubs often violate contracts and only need to pay the full salary they still owe the players, but also the players have the energy and resources to submit the case to FIFA.

But Article 17 goes further in trying to limit the so-called "player power." Its default position is that any club that attempts to sign the player assists and abets the player to escape and therefore bears joint and several liability. Therefore, the Chaleroy Club is facing threats. Five judges from the European Court of Justice said FIFA's rules were unreasonable, opaque, and obviously discriminatory.

What happened next?

A lot...and then there was no news.

FIFA acknowledged the ruling and issued revised player identity and transfer provisional regulations before the transfer window in January this year. FIFA also said a comprehensive consultation process is being initiated, which is still underway.

In fact, FIFA has just issued another draft amendment to the provisional provisions. However, several lawyers who spoke on condition of anonymity believe there are still some problems in the amendment.

"The provisional provisions are better than the original provisions, and the draft provisions are better than the provisions," said a lawyer, "but they still do not fully comply with the ruling of the European Court." The International Federation of Professional Football Players supported Diyala's lawsuit, and they were pleased with the ruling of the European Court and immediately announced their desire to negotiate with FIFA to formulate a new set of rules. The federation warns that players who wish to get rid of their contracts should consult the football association of their country before that.

In August this year, the Amsterdam-based "Player Justice" group sued FIFA and the Football Association of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Dutch in the Dutch District Court. The group claims that more than 100,000 players lost about 8% of their potential revenue due to FIFA's corruption rules.

Meanwhile, Diyala is seeking compensation from her own through the Belgian court.

But football is never that simple, isn't it? Unfortunately, FIFA and the International Federation of Professional Football Players are not the best partners, as the latter's European division has joined forces with the National League organizers to complain to the European Commission that FIFA has failed to conduct sufficient consultations on the international competition schedule, citing concerns about the players' workload. Meanwhile, FIFA clearly believes that the International Federation of Professional Football Players does not represent every football player on the planet, and therefore it is not necessarily the right institution to discuss labor-management agreements.

Therefore, we need to be patient and wait for FIFA to decide exactly how much should Ribero pay Mamelodi Sunset. By then either everyone would say, “Oh, that sounds reasonable”; or this compensation ruling provided the fuse to detonate the current transfer system.