Resin Papi

The Emiliano Sala case forced football to answer an uncomfortable question: when a player dies before he plays, who pays? We have an answer now. If you want to know, keep reading, I will tell you. For context, on 19th January 2019, Cardiff City agreed a €17 million deal with FC Nantes for Emiliano Sala. The paperwork was signed, the fee was logged into FIFA's Transfer Matching System(TMS)- I have spoken about this before, the Welsh FA submitted the International Transfer Certificate documents, Sala said his goodbyes to his Nantes teammates, boarded a private aircraft leaving Nantes, and never arrived. Two days after Cardiff announced the signing, the plane went down over the English Channel. Sala and pilot David Ibbotson both died. Now, most people remember this as a tragedy. And it is. But what a lot of people do not know is that while two clubs were grieving, they were also fighting each other in court over a question that sounds almost cruel to ask out loud: whose player was Emiliano Sala at the moment he died? Because that question, and nothing else, decided who owed €17 million to whom. Crazy, right? Cardiff's argument was technical. They said the transfer was not fully complete. Their position was that Sala had demanded his signing-on fee paid 100% upfront, the Premier League had ruled that arrangement invalid, and at the time of his death, no renegotiation of those personal terms had taken place. Furthermore, there were no agreed personal terms, no completed transfer and thus no obligation to pay. They also pointed out that his playing registration had not been formally concluded. As you would expect, Nantes said: not so fast. A binding transfer agreement existed between the two clubs. They argued that the deal was processed through TMS and that the Welsh FA had already submitted the ITC documentation to complete the registration. The first instalment of €6 million was already due under the agreed payment schedule. And as far as Nantes were concerned, Sala was Cardiff's player the moment that aircraft left France. FIFA ruled in favour of Nantes in September 2019 and gave Cardiff 45 days to pay the first instalment or face a three-window transfer ban. Cardiff appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In August 2022, CAS upheld the decision, finding the transfer had been completed and that because the conditions set out in the transfer agreement were fulfilled prior to Sala's death, Nantes' claim for the first instalment of €6 million was upheld. And then in 2023, FIFA ordered Cardiff to pay the remaining balance too, which at the time amounted to just over €11 million of the total €17 million fee. Cardiff paid for a player who never kicked a ball for them. Now here is the part I really want you to understand, because this is where it gets instructive for everyone in football. I hope you know that the ruling was not an emotional one. It was a legal one. CAS looked at the contract, identified the exact conditions that defined completion, found that those conditions had been satisfied, and concluded that economic risk had already transferred to Cardiff. The tragedy, as devastating as it was, did not undo what both clubs had agreed on paper. This is how risk works in a football transfer. It does not move all at once. It moves in phases, and the contract determines exactly when each phase triggers. The first phase is the inter-club sale agreement. That document defines the fee, the instalments, the conditions precedent, and the exact moment payment obligations arise. You can think of it like a light switch. Once the defined conditions are met, the switch flips, and economic risk moves to the buying club. In this case, CAS found Cardiff's switch had already flipped. The second phase is the employment contract between the player and the buying club. This is a completely separate legal instrument from the sale agreement between clubs. If a player cannot perform, that does not automatically unravel the inter-club deal. One does not cancel the other. This is a distinction that even experienced people in football get wrong. The Sala case made it very clear. They are not one and the same. They are different. The third phase is the regulatory layer. Under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, international transfers require proper TMS entry and ITC issuance. Cardiff argued the regulatory process was incomplete. CAS disagreed, finding the steps were sufficiently advanced for the obligation to crystallise. Many people assumed frustration of contract would apply here. Frustration is a legal doctrine that says if performance becomes impossible due to circumstances outside both parties' control, the contract falls away. It did not apply, and the reason matters: frustration addresses the player's ability to perform his employment obligations, not the sale agreement between two clubs. Those are two different legal questions, and conflating them is exactly the kind of mistake that costs clubs millions. BTW, this case is still not fully resolved. Cardiff have now taken Nantes to the Nantes Commercial Court claiming over €120 million in compensation, arguing that Sala's death inflicted catastrophic financial and sporting damage on the club, and that the fatal flight was arranged negligently through Nantes' intermediaries. A judgment is expected in later this year. So yes, this dispute has been running for seven years and counting. The lesson for every club, agent, lawyer and layman doing transfer work is this. Completion clauses must be drafted with absolute precision, because the contract will be read literally in a dispute, not charitably. Insurance must attach before risk transfers, not after. Death and incapacity scenarios must be written into the agreement explicitly because general legal doctrines will not save you. And payment triggers must align with regulatory formalities so there is no ambiguity about when the obligation begins. Learn now or Learn the hard way. Cardiff learned all of that the hardest possible way. It’s sad. My name is Ajoje. I am an International Sports Lawyer and FIFA Licensed Agent. I write on the Law and Business of Football- a lot. Repost and Follow me if you want to read more posts like this.

israel_ajoje's tweet photo. The Emiliano Sala case forced football to answer an uncomfortable question: when a player dies before he plays, who pays?

We have an answer now. If you want to know, keep reading, I will tell you.

For context, on 19th January 2019, Cardiff City agreed a €17 million deal with FC Nantes for Emiliano Sala. The paperwork was signed, the fee was logged into FIFA's Transfer Matching System(TMS)- I have spoken about this before, the Welsh FA submitted the International Transfer Certificate documents, Sala said his goodbyes to his Nantes teammates, boarded a private aircraft leaving Nantes, and never arrived.

Two days after Cardiff announced the signing, the plane went down over the English Channel. Sala and pilot David Ibbotson both died.

Now, most people remember this as a tragedy. And it is. But what a lot of people do not know is that while two clubs were grieving, they were also fighting each other in court over a question that sounds almost cruel to ask out loud: whose player was Emiliano Sala at the moment he died? Because that question, and nothing else, decided who owed €17 million to whom.

Crazy, right?

Cardiff's argument was technical. They said the transfer was not fully complete. Their position was that Sala had demanded his signing-on fee paid 100% upfront, the Premier League had ruled that arrangement invalid, and at the time of his death, no renegotiation of those personal terms had taken place.

Furthermore, there were no agreed personal terms, no completed transfer and thus no obligation to pay. They also pointed out that his playing registration had not been formally concluded.

As you would expect, Nantes said: not so fast. A binding transfer agreement existed between the two clubs. They argued that the deal was processed through TMS and that the Welsh FA had already submitted the ITC documentation to complete the registration.

The first instalment of €6 million was already due under the agreed payment schedule. And as far as Nantes were concerned, Sala was Cardiff's player the moment that aircraft left France.

FIFA ruled in favour of Nantes in September 2019 and gave Cardiff 45 days to pay the first instalment or face a three-window transfer ban. Cardiff appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In August 2022, CAS upheld the decision, finding the transfer had been completed and that because the conditions set out in the transfer agreement were fulfilled prior to Sala's death, Nantes' claim for the first instalment of €6 million was upheld.

And then in 2023, FIFA ordered Cardiff to pay the remaining balance too, which at the time amounted to just over €11 million of the total €17 million fee.

Cardiff paid for a player who never kicked a ball for them.

Now here is the part I really want you to understand, because this is where it gets instructive for everyone in football.

I hope you know that the ruling was not an emotional one. It was a legal one. CAS looked at the contract, identified the exact conditions that defined completion, found that those conditions had been satisfied, and concluded that economic risk had already transferred to Cardiff. The tragedy, as devastating as it was, did not undo what both clubs had agreed on paper.

This is how risk works in a football transfer. It does not move all at once. It moves in phases, and the contract determines exactly when each phase triggers.

The first phase is the inter-club sale agreement. That document defines the fee, the instalments, the conditions precedent, and the exact moment payment obligations arise.

You can think of it like a light switch. Once the defined conditions are met, the switch flips, and economic risk moves to the buying club. In this case, CAS found Cardiff's switch had already flipped.

The second phase is the employment contract between the player and the buying club. This is a completely separate legal instrument from the sale agreement between clubs. If a player cannot perform, that does not automatically unravel the inter-club deal. One does not cancel the other.

This is a distinction that even experienced people in football get wrong. The Sala case made it very clear. They are not one and the same. They are different.

The third phase is the regulatory layer. Under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, international transfers require proper TMS entry and ITC issuance. Cardiff argued the regulatory process was incomplete. CAS disagreed, finding the steps were sufficiently advanced for the obligation to crystallise.

Many people assumed frustration of contract would apply here. Frustration is a legal doctrine that says if performance becomes impossible due to circumstances outside both parties' control, the contract falls away.

It did not apply, and the reason matters: frustration addresses the player's ability to perform his employment obligations, not the sale agreement between two clubs. Those are two different legal questions, and conflating them is exactly the kind of mistake that costs clubs millions.

BTW, this case is still not fully resolved. Cardiff have now taken Nantes to the Nantes Commercial Court claiming over €120 million in compensation, arguing that Sala's death inflicted catastrophic financial and sporting damage on the club, and that the fatal flight was arranged negligently through Nantes' intermediaries.

A judgment is expected in later this year. So yes, this dispute has been running for seven years and counting.

The lesson for every club, agent, lawyer and layman doing transfer work is this. Completion clauses must be drafted with absolute precision, because the contract will be read literally in a dispute, not charitably. Insurance must attach before risk transfers, not after.

Death and incapacity scenarios must be written into the agreement explicitly because general legal doctrines will not save you. And payment triggers must align with regulatory formalities so there is no ambiguity about when the obligation begins.

Learn now or Learn the hard way.

Cardiff learned all of that the hardest possible way. It’s sad.

My name is Ajoje. I am an International Sports Lawyer and FIFA Licensed Agent. I write on the Law and Business of Football- a lot. Repost and Follow me if you want to read more posts like this.

214

19K

whopleasee retweeted

cranked.1💎 @ola__dapo

6 months ago

This video has been cracking me up since 😂

424

whopleasee retweeted

cranked.1💎 @ola__dapo

6 months ago

Just a heads up, everyone! 😮‍💨✨🔥 The NMRS showdown will be streamed live on YouTube at ronin.exe01. Don’t miss it

Resin Papi @whopleasee

7 months ago

@Halosznn_ It support or ui/ux

whopleasee retweeted

cranked.1💎 @ola__dapo

7 months ago

The secret = The Square, the Circle, and the Triangle. Think about it: Adobe? A series of triangles. Mastercard? Two circles. Microsoft? Four squares. If you can use the Pen Tool or the Shape Tool, you already have 90% of what you need. The rest is just alignment.

whopleasee retweeted

cranked.1💎 @ola__dapo

7 months ago

Most people think you need to be Leonardo da Vinci to design. Truth is, you just need to understand geometry and systems.

whopleasee retweeted

cranked.1💎 @ola__dapo

7 months ago

Finally back where I belong, but I’m the only one who showed up. Playing the MW2 campaign again is a beautiful dream that ends with a painful wake-up call. I’m smiling because it happened, but crying because it’s over. What I’d give for one more Saturday night in 2009. #MW2