On 10 June 2026, the Bureau of the FIFA Council approved a new regulatory framework for the global football transfer system (RSTP), with effect as from 1 January 2027.

The revised regulatory framework from FIFA has been established through dialogue with the different stakeholders of the game and came as a direct consequence of the so-called Diarra-case.

A short backdrop

In October 2024, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) rendered its ruling in case C-650/22, concerning the football player, Lassana Diarra (the Diarra-case).

In brief CJEU concluded that part of the FIFA transfer rules (Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)), was incompatible with EU law, finding that it restricted players’ free movement and violated EU competition law. More specifically, CJEU found that the following provisions in the FIFA RSTP were incompatible with EU law:

1. Art 17.1, the criteria used to calculate the compensation due to a club, in case the player had breached his employment contract without just cause.
2. Art 17.2, which stated that a new club is automatically jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to a former club, in case the player had terminate their contract without just cause.
3. Art 17.4, which stated that the new club of the player is presumed to have induced a breach of contract, leading to a potential transfer ban on the new club, if the club signed the player during the so-called “protected period”,
4. Annexe 3, a rule allowing the national association of the former club to withhold the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate (“ITC”) while a dispute is pending, (potentially) preventing the player from registering to work for a new club.

Following the landmark ruling of the CJEU, FIFA introduced its interim regulatory framework with effect as from January 2025, with the aim of being compliant with EU law.

In FIFA´s interim regulation, introduced in the FIFA RTSP January 2025 ed. FIFA had amended, inter alia, the following:

1. Art 17.1 state that compensation shall be calculated considering the damage suffered (positive interest principle), the facts and circumstances of each case and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned. 
2. Art 17.2 state the new club should be held jointly and severally liable, if it could be established that the new club induced the player to breach the contract.
3. Art 17.4 was amended in the same line as art 17.2, after which it must be established that the new club in fact induced the player to breach the contract, for sporting sanctions (transfer ban) to be imposed.
4. It is no longer possible for the former national association to reject an ITC request.

FIFA´s interim regulations did represent a fundamental change looking at the possible outcomes in a player v. club dispute, especially with regard to the legal position of the player´s new club (the club whom the player signed a professional contract, after an unilateral termination) and the consequences it would entail for both the player and his former club.

Since the introduction of the interim regulations, FIFA has, in cooperation with player- and club representatives, worked out a new permanent set of regulations, which now, as from January 2027 will apply for disputes between players (coaches) v. clubs.

The revised RSTP implies a significant change to the global transfer system.

Key takeaways from the revised RSTP

• Players shall receive a stake of the transfer fee

For the first time, players will have a stake in the economic value generated by their own transfer. Players who earn USD 150.000 or less per season shall receive minimum 5% of the transfer fee. This fundamental change, which has been included as a new provision, 21bis, is to our understanding reasonable, as it is the players talent and skills, established through years of training, which ultimately set the market value of which the player himself shall receive a share of his own product.

• Exit-mechanism clauses

FIFA has emphasised and encouraged the parties to, from the outset of the contract, agree on the financial compensation payable in the event of breach of contract. Although such clauses have, to some extent, been common also under the previous and current regulations, the wording of the revised provision is expected to cause a significantly larger proportion of exit mechanism clauses. In addition, it will put pressure on Football Associations (FA) which prohibits such clauses as of today, e.g. the Norwegian FA.

In this context FIFA has stated that such clauses do not have to be reciprocal. However, the Football Tribunal (FIFA DRC in this context) may reduce an agreed compensation in case it is considered excessively high. To our understanding, this clarification is in line with established CAS jurisprudence. However, jurisprudence from the FIFA DRC have to some extent differed from CAS jurisprudence, as FIFA previously have emphasised that such clauses should be reciprocal.  As such, this is new.

• Calculation of compensation in case of breach

Calculating of compensation in case of breach of contact has now been significantly changed (art. 17, RSTP). All criteria’s which were to be taken into consideration according to the previous RSTP, of which most of them were considered unlawful by the CJEU, are now gone, including the consideration for the law of the country concerned. This element was clearly accepted by the CJEU and included in the interim RSTP (currently applicable). Thus, expected to be included in the permanent RSTP. Without knowing the reasoning for such exclusion, we presume that FIFA want to continue what is stressed inter alia in the FIFA Commentary, 2023 ed., where it is pointed out:

“This overarching approach is to ensure equal treatment of all parties involved in a dispute before the international bodies charged with resolving disputes in football, regardless of the member associations or countries in which they operate, and the nationalities of the entities and individual involved. This fundament principle helps to ensure comprehensible, clearly traceable jurisprudence, which also serves to improve legal security and certainty. The diversity of national laws represents a potential obstacle to the legitimate aims of equal treatment and consistency; the establishment of general principles that take precedence over national laws is an adequate and justified solution”.

FIFA now state that, unless otherwise agreed in a CBA, compensation shall be calculated taking into account the damage suffered. Thus, the positive interest principle, which is the core element in the current applicable interim RSTP, have been replaced. This choice of wording is not accidental. By including the damage suffered principle, the injured part, claiming compensation must, to a greater extent provide evidence of the exact and quantifiable harm caused as a direct consequence of the breach of contract.

In this context, the revised RSTP state that if a club is the injured party, the damage shall take into account the value of the service of the player, lost transfer fee/transfer value, replacement costs and any other damage caused. Thus, based on the damage suffered principle, the club must demonstrate the actual loss incurred.

If the player is the injured part, the revised RSTP no longer take into consideration any remuneration the player receives from his new employer, which is in accordance with the Diarra-ruling. The player shall, as a minimum, be awarded the residual value of the contract, and minimum what the player can demonstrate is the damage caused by the breach.

Art 17 additionally state that the injured party may be awarded a penalty payment in case of abusive conduct.

• Jointly and several liability

With the previous RSTP the players new club were automatically held jointly and severally liable with the player for any compensation due to the former club. This provision was on one hand a safety net for the player who were deemed responsible for payment of compensation. On the other hand, the provision made it difficult for the player to find new employment, as any club which did its due diligence would be reluctant to employ a player whose former contract was unilaterally terminated. The provision was considered as unlawful by the CJEU.

FIFA now establish that the new club shall be held jointly and severally liable with the player if it can be established that the new club induced the player to breach the contract and that such presumption can without further ado be made if the new club sign an employment contract with the player within 45 days of the breach of contract.

The revised provision will make it considerably easier for players to find new employment. However, there are some potential negative consequences. First, the player will always have an interest in the new club being held jointly and severally liable and therefore do whatever he can to provide evidence that the new club did induce him to breach. This may create an unpleasant situation for the player in his new working environment.  Second, if the new club is not held jointly and severally liable, the financial consequences for the player may be dramatic, and in some cases, catastrophic, without having the possibility to pay compensation to the former club – and is such a solution beneficial for clubs? Clubs are fully aware that they are more likely to receive their full compensation if they can claim such from the new club vis-à-vis the player.

• Sporting sanctions

FIFA has introduced changes related to the imposition on sporting sanctions on clubs, which is linked with the basis for joint and severally liability. Thus, if it can be established that the new club induced the player to breach and such breach took place during the so-called “protected period”, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the new club.

**

In addition to the above-mentioned key takeaways, under the revised RSTP, clubs who engaged in training a player under the age of 18 may, subject to certain conditions, enter into contracts of up to five years (vs. current three years). Further, under the revised FDC, the Disciplinary Committee of FIFA will be competent to enforce decisions issued under National Dispute Resolution Chambers (NDRC), if such decision is not enforced by the relevant FA within 60 days. Lastly, the revised RSTP will further streamline the international transfer process, protecting the players from irreparable harm.

Summary

With the 2027 edition of FIFA RSTP, FIFA, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and representatives from clubs and players, has introduced a new transfer system, which takes into account the main issues by CJEU in the Diarra case. The new FIFA RSTP will make it necessary for football associations to amend their regulations and standardized contracts. Further, clubs and players must take into account the revised regulations when entering into an employment relationship.