The point is not the points

The Premier League's financial fair play regime has finally found its teeth. Everton, Nottingham Forest, and now Leicester City have all been docked points for breaching profitability and sustainability rules. But the system isn't working as intended. It's not a tool for competitive balance; it's a rich man's insurance policy.

History: from austerity to Abu Dhabi

When FFP was introduced in 2011, the stated aim was to stop clubs from spending beyond their means—a noble goal after Portsmouth's administration. But the real shift came when Roman Abramovich's Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour's Manchester City transformed the league with petrodollars. The rules were framed as protecting clubs from themselves, yet they've systematically entrenched the status quo.

Since then, the Premier League has seen a widening chasm between the top six and the rest. A decade ago, a mid-table club could dream of a title challenge; today, a Leicester City title run feels like a historical anomaly. The financial gap is not a natural market outcome—it's engineered by rules that cap spending based on revenue, rewarding existing mega-clubs and punishing ambition.

The case against FFP: protecting the cartel

Let's be clear: points deductions do nothing to address the core inequities. They punish clubs for trying to compete, not for financial recklessness. Everton's overspending was a desperate bid to stay relevant; Forest's was a promotion gamble. Meanwhile, Manchester City's 115 alleged breaches—including manipulation of sponsorship deals—remain mired in legal limbo.

  • Manchester City's case drags on, with no points deduction in sight, while smaller clubs face swift punishment.
  • Leveraged buyouts, like the Glazers' debt-ridden takeover of Manchester United, load clubs with interest payments that undermine competitiveness, yet they're exempt from FFP scrutiny.
  • State-owned clubs like City and Newcastle can inflate sponsorship revenues to satisfy FFP, turning the rules into a mere paperwork exercise.

The system is not about fairness; it's about protecting the cartel of established giants. The recent history is instructive: when the Premier League tried to block the Saudi-backed takeover of Newcastle, it cried foul about 'sporting integrity'. But now the league is happy to take Saudi money through broadcasting deals and sponsorship.

Counter-argument: the need for rules

One could argue that without FFP, clubs would spend themselves into oblivion. Portsmouth, Leeds, and Rangers all suffered financial collapses in the pre-FFP era. There's a moral hazard: owners might gamble with future revenues to chase glory, and fans would suffer when the music stops.

But this is a straw man. The existing rules don't prevent insolvency—they merely shift the risk. Clubs still overspend, just in ways that are easier to hide. The difference is that while smaller clubs get a slap on the wrist, the big clubs use accounting loopholes to avoid punishment entirely. The Premier League's own review of Everton's first breach highlighted the complexity, but the league still lacks the will to go after the real culprits.

Verdict: predict the collapse

My prediction: by 2026, a member of the 'Big Six' will be charged with an FFP breach and will receive a suspended points deduction at most. In contrast, at least two smaller clubs will be relegated due to points deductions, while the big clubs' transfer records will remain unthreatened. This asymmetry will finally spark a fan-led review that the Premier League will ignore until a new 'Super League' threat emerges. Mark my words: the system is not here to save football—it's here to save the few.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home