Alexander Isak’s Transfer Dilemma: FIFA Rule Offers Leverage

Newcastle United’s forward, Alexander Isak, finds himself at the center of a complex transfer situation following the club’s rejection of a £110 million offer from Liverpool. Isak has reportedly been holding out for a move, leveraging a little-known FIFA rule, specifically Article 17, which could significantly impact his future in football.

The background of this case extends beyond the current transfer window. Article 17, a provision in FIFA’s Regulations on the Transfer and Status of Players, allows players to unilaterally terminate their contracts under specific conditions. This provision gained renewed attention following the Lassana Diarra verdict, which prompted FIFA to make interim changes aimed at enhancing player mobility.

Given that Isak is under contract with Newcastle until 2028, the club is within its rights to demand a high transfer fee. However, if the transfer window closes on September 1 without a resolution, Isak faces the prospect of either playing for Newcastle or remaining inactive for four months. This scenario is particularly concerning for Isak, with the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaching.

While Newcastle can retain Isak, an unhappy player may not perform at his best, potentially diminishing his market value. The dynamics of this situation underscore the importance of leverage in negotiations. If Isak’s performance declines, it could impact not only his future wages but also the clubs interested in signing him.

Article 17 was introduced two decades ago in response to pressures from the European Commission, aimed at facilitating player transfers similar to job changes in other professions. Over the years, the requirements to invoke this article were deemed too restrictive, resulting in limited successful cases. However, the recent Diarra ruling required FIFA to amend its regulations, making them more favorable for players seeking transfers.

Now, several barriers have been removed. Previously, clubs could withhold a player’s transfer certificate until disputes were resolved. This restriction has been lifted, shifting the burden of proof to the club losing the player. Isak stands to benefit from these changes, potentially allowing him to become a free agent within a year, with a new club needing to pay significantly less than the rejected Liverpool bid.

The opportunity to invoke Article 17 only arises within 15 days after a player’s final match of the season. For Isak, this means he could assert this right by early June 2026, having met the contract requirement of three full years at Newcastle. If he pursues this route, it would be classified as a unilateral breach of contract, allowing him to sign with another club as soon as the transfer market reopens on July 1.

Should Isak take this path, Newcastle would be entitled to compensation, calculated based on the “damage suffered” by the club. This includes considering Isak’s potential wages over the remaining two seasons and his residual value, which could be around £20 million. Estimates suggest that compensation could range from £50 million to £60 million, though this figure would likely be lower than the original offer from Liverpool.

While Newcastle retains the right to appeal any compensation decision through the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it remains uncertain whether they would secure a payout comparable to the rejected bid. The evolving landscape of player mobility, influenced by FIFPro’s ongoing legal actions and scrutiny from European courts, suggests a trend toward fewer restrictions.

The situation grows more intricate for Newcastle. If Isak does not transfer to Liverpool or another club before the deadline, their options may narrow. One potential solution could be to negotiate a new contract that includes a reasonable release clause, although this seems unlikely given the current tensions between Isak and the club. Such an arrangement could benefit both parties: Newcastle would regain a key player while securing a pre-agreed fee for any future transfer.

As the transfer window approaches its close, the prospect of Article 17 looms large over Isak’s situation, empowering both him and his representatives. The impending deadline adds urgency, making it crucial for Newcastle to act decisively, either by facilitating a transfer or by reaching a contractual agreement that satisfies both player and club. The outcome of this saga could have lasting implications not only for Isak’s career but also for Newcastle’s ambitions moving forward.