The so-called “Bosman Mark II” Diarra ECJ ruling will have an impact on football but fortune will favour the flexible when it comes to private equity.

Described by many as “Bosman Mark II,” the recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in the Lassana Diarra case has captured the attention of the European footballing community, given its widely heralded potential to reshape the financial dynamics of the sport. While much of the debate has centred on the implications for players, clubs, and contractual power dynamics, relatively less attention has been paid to the potential consequences for club valuations and what it means for the powerhouse that now underlies vast swathes of football’s finances – private capital.

Private equity investment in football has skyrocketed in recent years, particularly across European leagues. Nearly a third of clubs in major competitions like LaLiga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 have private equity or private credit involvement.

Prominent firms such as Ares, CVC Capital, Clearlake, and RedBird have poured billions into football, betting on the sport’s continued growth, which has yielded lucrative sponsorship, ticketing, and media rights.

ECJ ruling opens door

However, the ECJ ruling has opened the door to a subtle yet palpable degree of uncertainty regarding how clubs interact in the transfer market – a crucial revenue stream for many. The ruling could have profound implications for smaller European clubs that rely heavily on nurturing young talent and selling them at a profit.

If transfer fees decline due to increased player mobility or changes in contractual obligations, these clubs may face reduced revenues, complicating their ability to comply with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations and potentially leading to lower valuations. This may also lead to cash-rich clubs that can afford to pay higher player wages circumventing the transfer market and directly dealing with the players.

For private equity investors, this uncertainty muddies the waters and shifts the risk profile of their investments. Firms that have relied on the growth of club revenues through player transfers may need to reassess their strategies in light of this new reality, as the stability of long-term player contracts – historically a safety net for clubs – could also be jeopardised.

If players find it easier to terminate contracts or move freely between clubs, the financial fundamentals and investment theses that private equity firms depend on could be significantly shaken.

Take a breath

Moreover, the ruling may prompt Fifa to reconsider its transfer regulations, potentially leading to changes that impact how clubs operate in the market. If Fifa takes too long to respond or fails to implement effective safeguards, the consequences could extend beyond just the transfer market, further destabilising the financial landscape of European football.

At this point, we should take a breath and acknowledge that the ECJ made it clear that its Diarra ruling is a specific case and that any similar cases in the future would be considered on their stand-alone merits. Therefore, the decision does not permit players to disregard their contracts in search of higher bids, even if they are bound by long-term agreements.

That said, with a legal precedent set and the newfound uncertainty established, private capital firms must be both nimble and proactive in reassessing their investment strategies and positions as new developments unfold. While it remains to be seen how clubs, players, investors, and governing bodies will respond, one thing is certain: fortune will favour the flexible.

Tomasz Stefanowski is a managing director and Harsh Talikoti a senior vice president in Houlihan Lokey’s financial and valuation advisory practice