Share
1st August 2025
02:37pm BST
The ongoing Alexander Isak transfer saga continues to provide twists and turns as Arne Slot's Liverpool launched their first official bid on Friday afternoon, which was rejected by Newcastle United.
It it understood that the club will return with an improved second offer, with Slot very keen to bolster his ranks with one of the Premier League's most prolific goalscorers.
The Newcastle stance is clear: they do not want to sell. They will only sell their star-striker should they have a replacement signed up and in the building.
The 25-year-old Swedish international is currently training alone at his former club Real Sociedad, after informing the Magpies of his intention to leave the North East this summer.
It is understood that Newcastle are aware of Isak's whereabouts, with previous reports stating he is recovering from a "minor thigh injury", which prevented him from travelling with his teammates to the pre-season tour in Singapore.
Regarding Isak going AWOL, it dates back to the case of Lassana Diarra originally stemming from 2014, where FIFA rules forced the player to pay €10.5m compensation to Lokomotiv Moscow and blocked his move to Charleroi via a transfer certificate denial.
In 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled parts of FIFA's Article 17 in disagreement with EU law on free movement and competition, resultantly invalidating compensation of transfer fees, new-club liability, and blocks of ITC.
Article 17 of FIFA's RSTP governs the consequence for terminating a player contract without a 'just cause.'
After a "protected period" (2-3years), a player now has the power end a contract by paying compensation, which is calculated through factors such as remaining salary and the transfer fee.
The game-changing Diarra ruling found parts violate EU free movement, with restrictions being eased and putting power into the player's hands like Isak in this case, in order to leverage it for better terms or moves.
While Article 17 doesn't necessarily give Isak permission to go AWOL, it certainly protects him in future if he decides to escalate this absence into a full blown termination of contract.
While there is a slim chance of this happening, Isak's ability to go AWOL and act in this manner would have been far less likely before the Diarra case.
FIFA is reportedly in the process of reforming this rule.
