Isak thinks his connection with Newcastle “can’t continue” despite Liverpool’s persistent interest.
A little-known transfer rule could help Alexander Isak gain some much-needed leverage as he attempts to force a move to Liverpool.
The summer transfer crisis took another unpleasant turn on Tuesday night, when Isak issued a public statement saying Newcastle had broken promises to him amid reports of a British record deal to Liverpool.
Isak, who is under contract at St James’ Park until 2028, wrote: “Promises were made, and the club has been aware of my situation for a long time.” It is disingenuous to appear as if these difficulties are only just surfacing. “When promises are broken and trust is lost, the relationship cannot continue.”
In reaction, Newcastle declared that they were “disappointed” with Isak and disputed that any club official had told him he might leave in the summer. They also stated that the club has “been clear that the conditions of a sale this summer have not transpired”.
Despite their hard stance, the Magpies may lose influence as a result of Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players, which was recently amended following a dispute involving former Real Madrid midfielder Lassana Diarra.
Diarra’s verdict could have ramifications for Isak’s future.
In brief, Diarra forced FIFA to act after demonstrating that the rules were overly restrictive for players who wished to change teams.
Diarra prompted his own departure from Russian club Lokomotiv Moscow in 2014, but due to a disagreement, he was unable to get an international transfer certificate and was forced to become a free agent, with FIFA laws barring him from accepting 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,” according to the official FIFPRO website.
“According to Diarra, the regulations unfairly disrupted and harmed his career. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) found in Diarra’s favor, confirming that FIFA rules violate EU laws and compelling FIFA to change their regulations.
Previously, a player who canceled their own contract without “just cause” was required to pay compensation for breach of contract, and his new club was also held jointly accountable for the funds.
Article 17 has been revised to allow players to unilaterally cancel their contract for any reason, as long as they have been under contract for at least three years, or two if they are 28 or older. Isak, 25, has been with Newcastle for three years.
According to the transfer rule, Isak could invoke Article 17 next summer.
Yes, it is correct; however, it must be activated within 15 days of the season’s final game, which will be early June 2026. According to ESPN, once that happens, Isak has committed a unilateral breach of contract, which means he can join with any other team as soon as the market reopens on July 1.
According to FIFA rules, Newcastle is entitled to compensation, which must be agreed upon by both clubs, but it is unlikely to be anywhere near Liverpool’s £110 million offer, which was rejected earlier this month.
There is no proof that Isak’s representation have threatened Newcastle with Article 17 next summer, but it might provide Isak with a potential exit strategy if he stays with the Magpies beyond the current window.
xz
