Alexander Isak's 'nuclear option' if Newcastle REFUSE to sanction Liverpool transfer

Alexander Isak's attempts to leave Newcastle United for Liverpool took a somewhat bizarre turn on Thursday as the player's former club, Real Sociedad, confirmed he is training alone in the Basque country.

The Sweden international has asked Newcastle executives that he be allowed to explore a move away from St James’ Park, is desperate to join Liverpool. He has told Toon bosses that he only wants a move to Anfield, but no offer from the Premier League champions has yet been forthcoming.

Isak has not joined his Newcastle team-mates on their pre-season tour, an injury initially cited by the club before the truth about his keenness to depart was soon made crystal clear. It comes as Liverpool have sold Luis Diaz for £65m, a move which will help finance their push to sign the Newcastle striker.

READ MORE: Top 5 most expensive footballers in history as Chelsea flop Joao Felix joins list

READ MORE: Fresh Liverpool transfer stance on Marc Guehi as Arne Slot eyes cut-price deal

Isak's former club Sociedad confirmed on Thursday he was “working with his trainers” at the club’s Zubieta facility, less than two weeks after he did not travel with Eddie Howe's side for their trip to Asia. The decision to train at his old club rather than his current one will only further heighten speculation around the player's future.

But, as yet, no offer has been submitted by Liverpool to Newcastle, who are keen on a deal worth £150m. The club's Saudi owners are understood to be keen to dig their heels in and extract the maximum value possible for last season's top scorer - who notched in the club's Carabao Cup Final win over Liverpool at Wembley.

But they face something of a balancing act as and when Liverpool come calling. Should Newcastle ultimately price Isak out of a move or simply refuse to listen to offers, then there is potential for Isak and his representatives to go for what has been described as the 'nuclear option' - unilaterally terminating his contract with three years remaining.

Isak initially joined Newcastle in a £63m deal on August 26, 2022, agreeing a six-year deal. He has since not signed a new contract on Tyneside.

A European Court of Justice ruling in favour of former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra last year means players can now terminate their deals “without unnecessary fears”, according to the lawyer who led Diarra’s case. The ruling appears to have given players greater leeway to terminate a contract without just cause. The court found some of FIFA’s transfer rules were contrary to European law because they restricted freedom of movement and were anti-competitive.

Jean-Louis Dupont, who led Diarra’s challenge and who was also at the centre of the landmark Bosman case which granted players free agency at the end of their contracts, believes last year’s ruling lifts the threat of significant sanctions for players who choose to terminate their deals.

Dupont, speaking in general rather than specifically about Isak’s case, told 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.”

Asked whether he thought players would now be free from the threat of sporting sanctions such as a ban for terminating their deals, Dupont added: “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.”

Following the ECJ ruling, FIFA opened a global dialogue on its transfer rules and issued amended, interim rules just before Christmas last year. The world players’ union FIFPRO immediately pushed back on the amendments, saying they did not “provide legal certainty” to players.

FIFPRO issued guidance to players in May stating that following the ruling, a player’s transfer fee or transfer value could no longer be used in the calculation of any compensation due to the club where the player had been contracted, and advised that the compensation paid should be “limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase on the basis of the national law”.

A presumption that a player’s new club had induced the termination of contract was removed in the amended rules issued by FIFA last December. Now, a player’s old club must prove the new club induced the player to break contract.

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.