Alexander Isak’s desire to move from Newcastle United to Liverpool has ignited a tense standoff. A little-known FIFA regulation, stemming from the Lassana Diarra case, could empower Isak to unilaterally terminate his contract next summer.
The Alexander Isak transfer standoff shows no signs of slowing down, with the striker locked in a tense tug-of-war with Newcastle United as he attempts to force through a move to Liverpool. What has now become a public clash between player and club may soon take on a new dimension, thanks to a little-known FIFA regulation that could hand Isak fresh power.
The rule in question traces back to the Lassana Diarra case, which reached the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last year. Diarra successfully argued that FIFA’s previous transfer restrictions placed unfair burdens on footballers, forcing them into financial and legal hurdles when trying to change clubs against their current employer’s wishes. The CJEU sided with the French midfielder, noting that footballers deserved the same employment freedoms as any other worker under EU labor laws.
The ruling opened the door to significant reforms. FIFA was forced to rewrite its player transfer rules, although many argue the changes still fall short. FIFPro, the global players’ union, has openly criticized FIFA for not going far enough to protect players’ basic rights. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit is ongoing, with players seeking compensation for lost earnings caused by the old rules.
Revised Article 17 Could Empower Isak Next Summer
At the center of the current row is Article 17, now revised to allow players to unilaterally terminate their contracts without cause—provided certain conditions are met. Any player under 28 must have been at a club for at least three years; those aged 28 and above require two.
Isak, just 25, ticks that first box. Having signed for Newcastle in the summer of 2022, he will complete three years at the club by the end of this season. That means next summer, he could invoke Article 17—giving him the right to walk away from St James’ Park as long as he notifies the club within 15 days of the season ending. Once the transfer window opens, he would be free to sign with Liverpool—or any club he chooses.
Newcastle would still be owed financial compensation, but crucially this fee would be set through negotiation or arbitration, not the open market. If the two clubs fail to agree, the case could be handed to FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber or escalated to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). However, experts believe Newcastle would receive far less under Article 17 than the £110m Liverpool have reportedly already bid—and which the Magpies rejected.
Tensions Rise as Newcastle Face Risk of Losing Isak for Less
So far, there is no suggestion that Isak or his representatives are actively threatening this route. Yet the very existence of Article 17 places quiet pressure on Newcastle: either sell Isak now for a huge sum or risk losing him for significantly less in a year’s time.
Meanwhile, the striker appears to be digging in his heels. He has refused to return to training and, in doing so, may have burned bridges with the Newcastle faithful. For Eddie Howe, the dilemma looms large: try to reintegrate a player seemingly desperate to leave, or bow to reality and cash in while Liverpool remain at the table.
One thing is clear: this saga is no longer just about football. With law, labour rights, and financial leverage now intertwined, Isak’s transfer battle could set a precedent that reshapes how Europe’s top clubs handle player power in the years ahead.