FFP Is a Farce: How the Premier League's Own Rules Bankroll the Cartel

The Premier League's financial rules are a con, and everyone knows it

Every points deduction handed down for breaches of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) is theatre—a moral pantomime designed to convince us that football is finally serious about fairness. The truth is darker: PSR doesn't police inequality; it sanctifies it. The system is rigged to protect the status quo, and the recent spate of penalties is mere window-dressing.

From Portsmouth to Everton: a brief history of selective punishment

When Portsmouth went into administration in 2010, they were docked nine points. Everton, by contrast, absorbed two separate deductions last season—totalling eight points—yet still retained their Premier League status. The difference? Portsmouth had no wealthy benefactors to smooth their fall; Everton did, via the 777 Partners saga (which collapsed) and subsequent survival. Punishment is meted out not according to the crime, but according to the club's ability to absorb it.

Consider the 2023-24 season: Nottingham Forest were docked four points for breaching PSR by £34.5m over three years. Chelsea, under Todd Boehly, spent over £1bn in the same period, selling assets (including two hotels to themselves) to balance books. No charge. No deduction. The London club exploited a loophole that the league itself permitted—selling property to sister companies counts as revenue. It's legalised money laundering, and it makes a mockery of the rules.

The argument: PSR is not about fairness; it's about entrenching the elite

PSR, introduced in 2013 as Financial Fair Play's English cousin, was sold as a mechanism to stop clubs spending beyond their means. In practice, it's a cartel protection racket. The rules cap losses at £105m over three seasons, a figure that sounds punitive but is actually a licence to print money for the established top six, whose commercial revenues dwarf the rest. The real victims are ambitious clubs trying to break in.

Everton: £19.5m in deductions over two seasons, yet they still lost £89.1m in 2022-23. Punishment is a cost of doing business for the desperate; it doesn't deter.
Leicester City: Facing a PSR charge for 2022-23, they were relegated with a squad that had won the FA Cup two years prior. Their failure wasn't on the pitch; it was in the boardroom, where they couldn't manufacture revenue like their betters.
Newcastle United: Under Saudi ownership, they've been forced to sell players (Allan Saint-Maximin, Chris Wood) to stay compliant, while Manchester City's 115 charges—including alleged financial misstatements—remain unresolved after five years of investigation.

Steel-manning the system: 'But it prevents another Leeds'

Defenders of PSR argue it prevents financial Armageddon, citing Leeds United's 2004 collapse or Portsmouth's descent. Yet those disasters were caused by reckless borrowing against future income, not by owners pumping in equity. The current rules actually encourage such borrowing: clubs like Everton have used merchant banks to fund transfers, only to be stung when insolvency looms. PSR doesn't stop the rot; it merely ensures the rich can afford to cheat the system with impunity.

Moreover, the Premier League's own data show that since 2013, wage-to-turnover ratios across the league have stabilised—but that's because broadcast revenue has ballooned, not because clubs suddenly became prudent. The league's financial health is a product of media rights inflation, not regulatory virtue. Strip away the billions from Sky and Amazon, and the house of cards would fall regardless of PSR.

Verdict: The system will crumble, and the law will force it

By 2027, the Premier League will abandon PSR in its current form—not out of enlightenment, but fear of legal defeat. Manchester City's ongoing arbitration against the league over associated-party transaction rules is the opening salvo. The European Court of Justice's ruling in the European Super League case (December 2023) already declared that UEFA's prior approval of competitions was unlawful, and it's only a matter of time before a British court applies the same logic to PSR's restraint of trade. When that happens, expect a chaotic free-for-all, but the clubs that survive will be those with the deepest pockets—the same six who've rigged the system from the start. FFP was never about fairness; it was about protecting the gate. The gate is about to be breached.