A sports lawyer has revealed whether Alexander Isak could terminate his own Newcastle contract in order to join Liverpool.
Isak released an explosive statement to Instagram on Tuesday night, accusing Newcastle of breaking promises made towards him over his future.
He added that 'the relationship can't continue' between himself and the Magpies, before publicly declaring that he wants to leave the club.
The third party involved in the summer-long transfer saga has been Liverpool, who saw a £110 million bid for Isak rejected earlier this summer.
Advert
Newcastle are believed to be holding out for at least £150 million, with the Daily Mail's Craig Hope reporting that the striker is effectively 'on strike' as speculation continues.
Isak did not play any part in Newcastle's 0-0 draw against Aston Villa and is currently training away from the first team.
That has led to speculation over whether the Swede, who reportedly earns £120,000-per-week at St James' Park, is in breach of contract due to his continuing absence from matches.
The major issue for Isak is that he is under contract at Newcastle for a further three years, until the summer of 2028.
In theory, the Magpies could simply choose not to pick him until January if he does not seal a transfer this summer.
There are also various legal avenues that could come into play for the club should a move not proceed, with the Magpies able to fine Isak two weeks' basic wage as a first offence, and then four weeks' wages every time thereafter, for 'an offence which does not meet the threshold for dismissal', solicitor Gareth Farrelly told Sky News.
But what can Isak do in such a scenario?
SPORTbible spoke to Max Shephard, a barrister specialising in sports law who has experience in football-related disputes, about whether the Newcastle striker can unilaterally terminate his contract with the club.
Are you able to provide clarity on the stipulation in FIFA's laws around unilateral termination of contracts and if this is something players could realistically start to consider?
Shephard: "The relevant FIFA Regulations regarding unilateral termination of contract are found within the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players at Articles 14 to 17.
"Under FIFA’s Regulations a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the season unless there is “just cause” such as the club failing to pay the player or committing a serious breach of contract.
"The rules are designed to protect both sides and in practice it is very risky for a player to unilaterally terminate unless there is good evidence showing just cause."
What would that mean in monetary terms for someone like Isak if he chose to pursue that option to force a move?
"If a player terminates without just cause, Article 17 states that compensation is payable to the club. That compensation can cover wages but may also factor in the player’s market value, the cost of a replacement, and other financial losses suffered by the club.
"Panels have interpreted this quite broadly and the sums involved can be substantial. On top of that, the player could be liable for legal costs if the matter goes to a tribunal.
"For someone of Isak’s profile, the financial repercussions would be severe if he was found to be in breach."
Would Newcastle be powerless to prevent this from happening or would there be a way in which they can guard against it?
"If a player refuses to train or play, the club can take disciplinary steps such as imposing fines or suspensions. In extreme cases, termination of the contract is possible for misconduct. In practice, clubs rarely use that option for valuable players and in this case it seems unlikely.
"From a legal standpoint, the club holds most of the leverage, but the commercial reality is more nuanced.
"Keeping an unhappy player can have a ripple effect on the team, and in practice can cost the club a lot of money."
Topics: Newcastle United, Alexander Isak, Football, Premier League
Ryan Smart