BREAKING NEWS LIVE : It seems the player’s representatives may well have an ace up their sleeves ‘Article 17’: Newcastle’s Alexander Isak Could Join Liverpool for £50m

The Alexander Isak transfer saga has well and truly been the story of the summer, with the striker pushing for a move to Liverpool and Newcastle United unwilling to sell. The situation has now reached a volatile state with the Swede dropping a damning statement on Tuesday evening (19 August).

The Premier League star accused the club of ‘breaking promises’, and stated that a change was the only way forward: ” The reality is that promises were made and the club has known my position for a long time. To now act as if these issues are only emerging is misleading. When promises are broken and trust is lost, the relationship can’t continue. That’s where things are for me right now – and why change is in the best interests of everyone, not just myself.”

Newcastle, however, hit back with their own firm response, expressing their ‘disappointment’ in the player. They then suggested that the move would not be happening as he ‘under contract’ and ‘the conditions of a sale this summer have not transpired’. The club also denied the idea that any promises had been broken about letting Isak leave.

It’s a wild situation and some, including Wayne Rooney, have questioned Isak’s behaviour. However, a little-known FIFA rule could explain his actions this summer.

What Does Article 17 Mean for Newcastle and Isak

As per ESPN, Article 17 ‘gives Isak leverage over Newcastle’. Journalist Gabriele Marcotti explains that, although he is unsure whether the player’s representatives are aware of the rule and its implications, he suspects they are, as it explains why they have been so aggressive in pushing for an exit.

Despite having three years on his contract, Article 17 means Isak could leave and become a free agent in less than 12 months. The club he joined (likely Liverpool) would still have to pay compensation, but it would potentially be as little as half of the £110m Newcastle turned down.

However, the player cannot invoke the rule within 15 days of the final match of the season. Article 17 can only be used for players with less than three years of their contract, but that drops to just two years if they are 28 or older (Isak is 25).

If this does happen, it is considered a unilateral breach of contract by the player, which means he’s free to sign with any other club as soon as the market reopens on July 1.

The Magpies will get compensation, but it won’t be as big as the reported transfer fees. FIFA’s rules say the compensation would be calculated based on the “damage suffered” by Newcastle according to the “positive interest” principle, taking into account the “individual facts and circumstances of each case.” In short, the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA’s Football Tribunal would take into account factors such as his wages, his residual value on Newcastle’s books, and the cost of signing his replacement.

ESPN’s Marcotti spoke to a sports lawyer who estimated that the fee would be no more than £50-£60m, as FIFA don’t want to be seen to be punitive toward restricting player freedom of movement. To make it even less appealing for Newcastle, a final judgment could take 18 months to 2 years, but under FIFA’s tweaked rules, the player would be free to play for his new club straight away. This means Isak could leave and it could take years before the Magpies get any money to reinvest in a new striker.

Of course, with lawyers and Premier League rules to take into account, beyond just FIFA laws, Isak’s exit under Article 17 wouldn’t necessarily go smoothly, but Newcastle risk being put in a very awkward situation if they don’t sell this summer. With that in mind, the player’s statement and aggressive attitude towards an exit suddenly makes a lot more sense.

Why Does Article 17 Exist

Lassana Diarra warming up for PSG

Article 17 was brought in around 20 years ago by FIFA, who were under pressure from the European Commission who believed the transfer system restricted the freedom of players to change jobs like ordinary people can. The rule was put in place to essentially allow players to walk out on clubs, even if under contract.

Of course, certain criteria had to be fulfilled, and compensation had to be paid. The problem was, while there were a few high-profile cases, the conditions were so restrictive and the amount of compensation to be paid so uncertain that very few successfully invoked Article 17.

But things changed last October when Lassana Diarra legally challenged FIFA rules following a dispute with Lokomotiv Moscow dating back to a decade ago. He won, and FIFA were forced to quickly rewrite their rules, making them more player-friendly, with several significant hurdles removed.

Before, for instance, FIFA could withhold the player’s transfer certificate until the matter was resolved. That’s no longer the case. On top of that, the club trying to buy the Article 17 player (which would be Liveprool and Isak in this case), used to have to prove that they didn’t collude with him to cause the breach of contract. But now, that burden of proof rests with the club that loses the player (Newcastle).

As such, it feels more realistic that Isak could invoke Article 17 and get his move (albeit next summer), as opposed to being forced to see out the remaining three years of his contract. The alternative, of course, is that Newcastle simply cash in now and avoid this legal headache.