The points deduction is not a punishment—it's a business strategy

When the Premier League docked Everton ten points for breaching profit and sustainability rules, the message was clear: flout the financial limits at your peril. But the real scandal is that the punishment is meted out not to protect sporting integrity, but to preserve the status quo of the super-clubs. It's a selective enforcement that punishes the ambitious, not the reckless.

The precedents that expose the hypocrisy

Consider the case of Manchester City. In 2020, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned a two-year European ban for 'serious breaches' of Financial Fair Play, citing a lack of evidence. Meanwhile, Everton—a club that has spent modestly in comparison—saw its deduction reduced to six on appeal, still a record. The disparity is not about the severity of the offences but the power of the clubs involved. City's legal muscle, funded by Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth, outspent UEFA's investigators. Everton, with a stadium to finance and a squad to rebuild, could not.

More telling is the history of transfer fees and amortisation. A club like Chelsea can sign a player for £100m on a seven-year contract, spreading the cost thin to stay within FFP limits. That is not a loophole—it's a legal fiction. The Premier League's own rules allow this, yet they crack down on clubs that use different, equally legal accounting practices to chase European glory. The system is not about fairness; it's about making the rich untouchable.

The case against the regime

The argument for FFP was simple: stop clubs from spending beyond their means and collapsing like Portsmouth or Leeds United. But the rule has morphed into a tool for the elite to protect their dominance. Here's how:

  • Accumulated losses are capped, but club owners can inject equity—which is why City and Chelsea can spend freely while Nottingham Forest cannot.
  • Revenue thresholds favour clubs with global brands and Champions League history, creating a closed shop for the top six.
  • The punishment for small clubs is a points deduction that can relegate them, while big clubs simply pay fines or avoid sanctions through legal appeals.

The result is a league where the gap between the top and bottom is wider than ever. Since FFP was introduced in 2011, only one club outside the traditional 'big six' has finished in the top four: Leicester City, and they did it before the rules truly bit. The system has not created a more sustainable league; it has created a more predictable one.

The counter-argument unravels

Defenders will say that FFP protects clubs from their own foolishness. But look at the evidence: the very clubs that overspent and faced sanctions—Everton, Birmingham City, Derby County—were often trying to compete, not to be reckless. Derby spent to reach the Premier League, went down, and were punished. Chelsea spend to win the Champions League and are lauded. The difference is not prudence; it's destiny.

Moreover, the regime is enforced inconsistently. The Premier League's own rules allow for 'associated party transactions'—sponsorship deals with related companies—which are a primary way big clubs inflate revenue. Yet these are rarely scrutinised with the same zeal as a lower club's modest overspend. It's a system that legalises the influence of state-backed ownership while condemning the ambition of the middle class.

The prediction

Within three years, a Premier League club will win a title while under investigation for financial breaches, and the punishment will be a fine so small it is a rounding error in their annual accounts. That will be the final proof that the points deduction is not a deterrent but a decorative gesture. The league will then scrap the rule quietly, replaced by a luxury tax that the rich pay without a thought, codifying the very inequality the rules were meant to prevent. Watch for Everton's next accounts, or the next club to try a Leicester-style miracle. The game is rigged, and the scoreboard is a lie.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home