The Alexander Isak Case: What is Article 17 and how could it change his future?
The future of Newcastle’s star striker, Alexander Isak, has generated great anticipation in the football world. After his club rejected a £110 million offer from Liverpool, the player seems to be pushing to force a transfer. But, what legal implications could influence this move? The answer could lie in Article 17 of FIFA’s regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Although it is not known whether Isak or his representatives are aware of Article 17 and the power it grants them, it is likely that they are. This article could explain the aggressiveness shown so far in their attempts to leave the club.
Situations like this are based on influence. Newcastle has in its favor that Isak has a contract until 2028.
Alofoke Deportes
Article 17, which came into effect 20 years ago, allows players to unilaterally break their contracts under certain conditions, a mechanism created by FIFA under pressure from the European Commission, which considered that the transfer system restricted the freedom of players to change jobs. Diarra’s ruling last October forced FIFA to review its rules.
To begin with, several major obstacles have been removed. Previously, FIFA could withhold the player’s transfer certificate until the matter was resolved. That is no longer the case. Now, the burden of proof falls on the club that loses the player.
Crucially, Isak is well-positioned to take advantage of this and become a free agent in less than 12 months, with his new club only having to pay half of the 110 million that Newcastle rejected.It is uncertain whether Isak and his agent are aware of Article 17, but it could play an important role in determining where he will end up playing and the compensation Newcastle will receive.Article 17 can only be invoked within 15 days after the last match of the season (at the latest by early June 2026) and only by players who have been under full contract for three years at the club (two if they are 28 years old, which Isak is not: he is only 25). Once that happens, it is considered a unilateral breach of contract by Isak, meaning he is free to sign with any other club as soon as the market reopens on July 1st.
Of course, Newcastle would be entitled to compensation. FIFA rules state that compensation would be calculated based on the “damage suffered” by Newcastle in accordance with the principle of “positive interest”, taking into account the “individual facts and circumstances of each case”. In practical terms, that’s a fancy way of saying that the FIFA Football Tribunal’s Dispute Resolution Chamber would take into account a combination of factors, such as the wages Isak would have earned in his last two seasons (around £12.5 million), his residual value in Newcastle’s books (around £20 million), and the cost of signing his replacement.
There is no fixed amount, but a sports lawyer I spoke with believes it would not exceed £50-60 million. He explained that FIFA, after the Diarra ruling, does not want to be seen as punitive towards restricting the freedom of movement of players. Newcastle, of course, could appeal the ruling to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and ask for more compensation. Either way, it’s hard to see them getting close to what they rejected from Liverpool, and there is a risk they will receive less. Much less. FIFPro has sued, European courts are watching, and the direction of travel is entirely towards fewer restrictions, not more.
There is another complication in all of this. The wheels of compensation tribunals grind slowly: a final ruling could take between 18 months and 2 years, but under FIFA’s modified rules, the player would be free to play for his new club immediately. Not paying any transfer fee for two years for someone like Isak might well be worth the uncertainty of not knowing what the compensation will be if you sign him.1:22 McManaman: Guehi should be Liverpool’s priority over Isak. Steve McManaman assesses Liverpool’s transfer plans ahead of the start of the Premier League season.The threat of Article 17 exists in Isak’s case, and only the threat, presumably, is what has emboldened the player and his agents to this point.
From Newcastle’s perspective, the threat of Article 17 only disappears if they transfer Isak to Liverpool (or another club) in the next 12 days or if they manage to get him to sign a new contract with a reasonable release clause. The first seems increasingly unlikely; the second may seem fanciful given the current relationship, but it is potentially the only way out for both parties.
Newcastle gets back its star center forward (perhaps recounting some prodigal son story) and a pre-agreed minimum fee if he wants to leave next summer. It will probably be less than Liverpool’s offer, but more than Article 17 compensation and, crucially, without the uncertainty. (Also, they would receive their money immediately). Isak can play football for a season, a little more money and the security of knowing he can move on for a more manageable fee.
