Italian employment attorney Michele La Francesca believes Atalanta forward Ademora Lookman can end his contract with “Just Clause.”
La Francesco explained in a Twitter thread that the alleged agreement on a summer transfer between Lookman and Atalanta violates employment laws if it includes non-competitive clauses.
It’s certainly no secret that Ademola Lookman wants to join Inter Milan.
Additionally, the Atalanta forward was an open hit with his current club, which is said to break his promise to him.
Lookman had already asked to leave Atalanta last summer. Paris Saint-Germain had made the offer.
La Diar was guarding Lookman, but they did so with an agreement that they would allow players to leave this summer.
Lookman: Hogià scritto, the club’s efforts to meet the needs of the people. It’s a very simple matter. Tuttavia, Se Fosse Come Come Sostenuto Dal Club, Questo Accordo sarebbe nullopoiché (segue) https://t.co/9pzjulhonv
– Michele La Francesca (@miklafranc) August 10, 2025
Now, Lookman wants to set off for Inter. However, Atalanta has already rejected two bids from Nerazzuri.
Atalanta CEO Luca Percassi openly says that La Dea doesn’t want to sell Lookman to the Serie A team. This was part of last summer’s contract.
However, Italian employment lawyers have a different perspective on this situation.
An Italian employment lawyer argues that “Ademola Lookman can justify the Atalanta contract.”
Italian employment attorney Michela La Francesca explained that “the agreement on transfers between the club and the player is uncontroversial, and the parties acknowledge it.”
“Atalanta claims it is only effective for overseas relocations,” he continues.
“But, as it argues, this contract will be void, because it constitutes a non-competitive clause, which constitutes a non-competitive clause prohibited by legislative decree number 36/21, Article 26 of paragraph 6.”
La Francesca states that the article “a contract cannot contain non-competitive clauses; or a clause that limits the professional freedom of athletes for the period after the end of the contract itself.”
“In the course of the relationship, it cannot be integrated with such provisions either.”
“That being said, it is unlikely that the parties have been aware of the rules and have entered into a virtually invalid agreement with INO,” writes La Francesca.
“Therefore, the player’s version (where the party has reached a contract to transfer at a fixed fee) is more reasonable.”
“From this perspective, calling section 14 of the FIFA Rules (which allows it to be released in “Just Cause” considering club unfair conduct) is a viable option,” writes La Francesca.
