Why the Gyokeres transfer saga is not the Diarra ruling’s moment

Viktor Gyokeres has a problem and so far, he has not asked the landmark Diarra ruling[1] to solve it.

For at least the past two transfer windows, the Swedish striker has been the market’s resident “missing piece” – the player who would complete a lucky superclub and turn their competitive dreams into reality.  So to the surprise of no one, Arsenal and Man United have reportedly offered Gyokeres’ club, Sporting of Portugal, €60M for him.[2]

But to this point, Sporting has greeted these attempts with a shrug.  They want €100M, the full value of Gyokeres’ buyout clause.  And they have yet to budge.  As a transfer to one of the Premier League’s “Big Six” might be career-defining, Gyokeres is growing frustrated with his club’s stubbornness.

At this point, Gyokeres’ situation begins to resemble the kind Diarra is supposed to prevent:  The player wants to move, another club wants to sign him, but his current club is blocking the transfer.

So why can’t Gyokeres do what Diarra authorizes?  Why can’t he leave Sporting and begin playing for, say, Arsenal while the legal system determines how much Sporting gets for his contractual breach?

First off, technically, Gyokeres can complete the transfer.  This would not have been the case prior to Diarra.  Then, if he tried to leave without Sporting’s consent, the Portuguese federation would refuse to grant him an international transfer certificate.  An ITC is required for an international transfer.  So refusing it would, effectively, block Gyokeres’ move.  Further, Gyokeres and his new club might owe monetary damages to Sporting, with FIFA having significant discretion to set the amount.

But Diarra struck these rules.  Now, the federation cannot deny Gyokeres an ITC and the monetary sanctions cannot depend on the criteria FIFA previously set.  So even without Sporting’s approval, a transfer could happen.

The problem is that it would likely expose Gyokeres to sporting (small “s”) sanctions – the most onerous being a four-to-six-month ban.  While Diarra forced FIFA to amend portions of its contract rules, the decision left others untouched.  Notable among these is Article 17(3) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.  This requires FIFA to impose a four-month suspension on any player found to have breached his contract without just cause during the “protected period.”[3]  The “protected period” is the contract term’s first three years.        

Gyokeres signed his contract with Sporting in July 2023.  As such, his “protected period” does not expire until July 2026 – next summer.  So leaving unilaterally during the current window would qualify as a breach during the “protected period.”

And since there is no indication Gyokeres has just cause for breaking his contract, an unauthorized move would send him to the stands for at least four months – roughly half of his first season with the new club. Most likely, this is why Gyokeres remains a prisoner of Sporting’s €100M demand.

---

[1]   The Court of Justice for the European Union issued Diarra on October 24, 2024.  It is cited as Case C-650/22, FIFA v. BZ, ECLI:EU:C:2024:824.

[2]   This post acknowledges most sane people believe Man U is missing far more than one piece.  But for the sake of argument, it will include them.

[3]     If it finds aggravated circumstances, FIFA can extend the four-month ban to six.