16 hours ago
24
Alexander Isak's quest to swap Newcastle United for Liverpool took an unexpected twist on Thursday when his previous club, Real Sociedad, revealed he's training solo in the Basque region.
The Swedish forward has expressed to Newcastle's board his desire to seek a move away from St James' Park, with his heart set on Liverpool. He's made it clear to the Toon hierarchy that Anfield is his preferred destination, although the Reds have yet to table a formal offer.
Isak was notably absent from Newcastle's pre-season tour, with an injury initially blamed by the club before his eagerness to leave became apparent. This development coincides with Liverpool's sale of Luis Diaz, a transaction that could bolster its funds to pursue the Newcastle frontman.
Sociedad confirmed on Thursday that Isak was "working with his trainers" at their Zubieta training ground, just a fortnight after he skipped Eddie Howe's squad's journey to Asia. Opting to train at his former stomping ground rather than with his current team will undoubtedly fuel further rumours about his future.
However, Liverpool has not yet made a bid for Isak, whom Newcastle value at close to $200 million. The Magpies' Saudi owners are reportedly determined to stand firm and secure the highest price for their leading scorer from last season, who scored in the club's Carabao Cup Final victory over Liverpool at Wembley.
Newcastle might find itself in a tricky situation if Liverpool decides to make a move for Isak. If the Magpies set his price too high or flat-out refuse to entertain offers, there's talk that Isak and his camp could consider what's been termed the 'nuclear option' – ending his contract unilaterally with three years left on it.
Isak made his way to Newcastle in a hefty transfer in August 2022, penning a six-year agreement. Since then, he hasn't put pen to paper on a new deal at St James' Park.
A landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice last year, favouring ex-Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra, has seemingly empowered players to cut short their contracts "without unnecessary fears", as stated by the solicitor who represented Diarra. This decision seems to have granted players more freedom to walk away from a contract without a valid reason.
The court determined that certain FIFA transfer regulations were at odds with European law, as they hindered free movement and were anti-competitive.
Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who spearheaded Diarra's case and was also pivotal in the seminal Bosman ruling which allowed players to become free agents after their contracts expired, is of the opinion that the recent verdict removes the risk of harsh penalties for players opting to terminate their agreements early.
Dupont, discussing the broader implications rather than Isak's specific situation, informed the PA news agency: "In its Diarra judgement, the court ruled that players have a right to termination without just cause and that it is for the ex-employer to establish the existence and the quantum of damages, knowing that losing the opportunity to transfer the player is NOT a damage.
"According to the court, such termination cannot entail disciplinary sanctions (when effected in between seasons). FIFA has, imperfectly, amended its rules to abide by the court ruling. But the bottom line is that players have the right to terminate without unnecessary fears."
When questioned if he believed players were now safe from the risk of sporting sanctions like bans for ending their contracts, Dupont responded: "Yes. If not, the right to terminate, as granted by the court, would just be theoretical. But, apparently, FIFA is still resisting on this point."
After the ECJ's decision, FIFA initiated a worldwide discussion on its transfer regulations and released revised, provisional rules just before Christmas last year. The global players' union FIFPRO immediately contested the changes, claiming they failed to "provide legal certainty" for players.
In May, FIFPRO released advice to footballers in light of a new ruling, indicating that a player's transfer fee or market value should no longer factor into the calculation of compensation owed to their former club. They suggested that any such compensation should be "limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase on the basis of the national law".
The assumption that a player's new club was responsible for encouraging them to terminate their contract has been discarded in the revised regulations published by FIFA last December. Now, it is up to the player's previous club to demonstrate that the new club enticed the player to break their contract.
English (US) ·