The Myth of a Level Playing Field

The Premier League's profit and sustainability rules were sold as a great leveller. In practice, they have become a cudgel for the elite and a noose for the rest. Two clubs have been docked points this season; neither finished in the top half. The 115 charges against Manchester City gather dust while smaller clubs see their seasons sabotaged.

Everton and Forest: The Warning Labels

Everton's first deduction—10 points, later reduced to six—was for losses of £124.5m over three years. Nottingham Forest lost £67.8m over four years and received a four-point penalty. Both clubs overspent, yes. But consider the context: Everton are building a new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, a £500m project that will transform their revenue. Forest gambled after promotion to stay up. The rules punish ambition when it comes without a safety net.

Contrast with Chelsea's £1bn spending spree under Todd Boehly. The club amortised contracts over eight years to circumvent FFP. UEFA closed the loophole; the Premier League didn't. Chelsea face no points deduction. Meanwhile, Manchester City's 115 charges—alleged financial misrepresentations spanning nine years—remain unresolved after years of investigation. The Premier League's own chief executive, Richard Masters, admitted the case is a 'long way off'. How long? Long enough for City to win more titles.

The Ownership Advantage: State Wealth vs. Self-Sufficiency

Three ways the system favours the established:

  • Revenue disparity: Manchester United's commercial revenue—£302m in 2022-23—dwarfs Everton's £48m. FFP allows losses of £105m over three years, but that cap is relative. A club with £500m turnover can absorb £105m losses; a club with £150m cannot. The rules tie spending to income, entrenching the gap.
  • Infrastructure loophole: Spending on stadiums, youth academies, and women's teams is excluded from FFP calculations. So a club like Everton, building a new ground, must find operational savings elsewhere. Meanwhile, Manchester City's state-backed owners can pour money into infrastructure without penalty—the Etihad Campus is a £200m asset that excludes from FFP.
  • Litigation budget: City's legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, costs millions. Forest and Everton had far less resource. The complexity of FFP means clubs with deep pockets can argue interpretations; those without must accept punishment.

The Counter-Argument: Rules Must Be Enforced

Supporters of the current system argue that rules are rules. Everton and Forest broke them; they must be punished. The Premier League cannot be seen to tolerate overspending. Fair enough. But selective enforcement is worse than no enforcement at all. When City's case is heard—if it ever is—the potential penalties dwarf anything seen so far. Yet the league allows years to pass while smaller clubs are punished within months.

There is also the question of the rules themselves. FFP was designed to prevent clubs from going bust. But it is now used to protect the status quo. The richest clubs generate more revenue, therefore they can spend more. The mechanism no longer encourages competitiveness; it enforces hierarchy. The European Super League was blocked, but financial super-league already exists.

Verdict: The Deduction Era Will Backfire

By 2027, at least one 'Big Six' club will face a points deduction for breaching the same rules—and the system will be overhauled within a year. The Premier League cannot maintain two sets of justice. Either the rules apply evenly to all, or they will be replaced by a luxury tax model, allowing the rich to buy their way out. The current charade is unsustainable. Clubs like Everton and Forest are canaries in the coal mine; the mine owners will not heed the warning until they themselves choke.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home