The desperation to find a fresh new angle on the Alexander Isak to Liverpool transfer saga can inevitably take some outlets to increasingly pitiful places in search of clicks.
And few outlets do desperate or pitiful quite like the Daily Mirror websitewho want everyone to pretend a probable £150m move might actually cost a fraction of that when Isak takes the ‘nuclear option’ of unilaterally terminating his sodding contract.
They are obviously quoting no-one there but that trick is standard and entirely lamentable fare by now.
What is of far more interest is the idea a) Isak might take such drastic action ‘if Newcastle REFUSE to sanction Liverpool transfer’ when Liverpool themselves have only just made an actual bid for him, and b) Isak might do something basically completely unprecedented across the sport’s history to force this move if Newcastle continue to ‘REFUSE’ to let him join a club which has only just bothered to bid for him.
Because yes, Lassana Diarra successfully argued against certain aspects of FIFA’s transfer laws last year to point out Lokomotiv Moscow probably shouldn’t have been able to block a move to Charleroi after cancelling his contract because it represented a restriction of his freedom of movement and breach of European contract law. And his lawyer believes “the bottom line is that players have the right to terminate without unnecessary fears”.
But that case was ever so slightly different to a player hoping to make a record-shattering Premier League transfer. There is a reason the most high-profile examples of footballers taking advantage of FIFA’s Article 17 on the consequences of terminating a contract without just cause have involved Andy Webster, Tony Sylva and Matuzalem, clubs like Hearts, Wigan and Real Zaragoza, and compensation of only around £11m.
Remember when Wayne Rooney cancelled his Manchester United contract and left after paying them £5m? Those were the days.
In their article on Isak’s ‘nuclear option’, the Mirror themselves only say the Diarra ruling ‘appears to have given players greater leeway’ over these calls, with his agent quoted as saying players are “theoretically” ‘free from the threat of sporting sanctions such as a ban for terminating their deals’.
It doesn’t sound like a watertight legal argument, and indeed that same lawyer concedes “apparently, FIFA is still resisting on this point”, which feels important.
FIFPRO have said amendments to the existing FIFA laws do not “provide legal certainty” to players who are considering unilaterally terminating their contracts. And again, vanishingly few players have ever done it, and certainly none even close to the magnitude of Isak leaving Newcastle and happening to join Liverpool.
It’s utter bollocks, basically. A hypothetical with perhaps a 0.000001% chance of happening because of the potential legal, professional and financial implications Isak and Liverpool would be risking.
MORE ALEXANDER ISAK COVERAGE ON F365
👉 Newcastle ‘better off’ after Alexander Isak swap with Liverpool as ‘talks progressing well’
👉 Isak ‘will not refuse’ Newcastle return as Sesko ‘reservations’ deal Liverpool another blow
👉 Liverpool open ‘talks’ with Newcastle over Isak as ‘progress’ and ‘very positive’ Reds boost revealed
You can tell it’s based on conjecture and supposition rather than reality because the work of PA Chief Sports Reporter Jamie Gardner is pretty much free and available for any reputable outlet to use and yet only the Mirror and The Independent dare to go anywhere near it.
Actually, tell a lie: the Wharfedale Observer, Tribal Football and Daily Post Nigeria have all dived into the weeds too; it’s basically Watergate.
The Independent funnily enough do not refer to it as a ‘nuclear option’ at all, quote marks or otherwise because that is a flourish purely of the Mirror’s own doing. But they do again present the entirely different case involving Diarra and the quotes from lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont which would collapse in on themselves if Isak tried to lean on them in court.
Sure, it’s ‘one option Isak and his representatives might consider’. But if it’s for any longer than a couple of fantasising seconds then the bloke needs new representatives.
