FFP and PSR were never about fairness — they are a cartel enforcement mechanism dressed up as governance.

The Premier League's profit and sustainability rules have produced a points deduction for Everton, a charge sheet for Manchester City, and a transfer-market straitjacket for Aston Villa. They have not produced competitive balance. The top six’s revenue advantage is now codified into law.

The historical context: from financial doping to financial gatekeeping

When Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003, Uefa had no meaningful financial controls. Chelsea spent £111m on players in Abramovich’s first season, nearly £100m more than any other club. Manchester City followed a similar path after the Abu Dhabi takeover in 2008. Their rise was fuelled by owner equity, not commercial revenue.

Uefa introduced financial fair play in 2011. The Premier League followed with PSR in 2013. The timing is instructive. The rules arrived not when clubs were going bust, but when newly rich owners threatened the established order. Portsmouth had already collapsed in 2010 — a genuine case of financial mismanagement — but FFP was not designed to prevent another Portsmouth. It was designed to prevent another Chelsea.

The argument: PSR protects revenue, not solvency

The current PSR regime allows clubs to lose £105m over three years. That sounds generous until you realise the biggest clubs generate annual revenues that dwarf the limit. Manchester City’s revenue in 2023 was £712m; Everton’s was £172m. The allowed loss is a flat figure, but the capacity to absorb it is not. A club with £700m revenue can spend £500m on wages and still comply. A club with £200m revenue cannot.

Points deductions have become the enforcement tool of choice because they are visible and punitive. Everton were docked ten points (later reduced to six) for breaching PSR. Nottingham Forest were docked four. These are clubs without the legal firepower of Manchester City, whose 115 charges remain unresolved after years of investigation. The system does not treat all breaches equally.

  • Everton’s deduction punished a club already constrained by a stadium financing deal that PSR made harder to service, not a club that was doping its way to titles.
  • Aston Villa’s summer sales of Douglas Luiz and Moussa Diaby were forced by PSR, not by football logic, undermining Unai Emery’s project after a fourth-place finish.
  • Newcastle’s stalled growth is the clearest evidence: the richest owners in world football cannot spend their way past the rules because their commercial revenue is capped by related-party rules that the big six helped write.

The rules also punish ambition in the transfer market. Clubs like Brighton and Brentford have thrived by selling players for profit, but that model is only viable if someone else can buy. PSR limits the buyers. The result is a deflated market for mid-tier talent and inflated prices for the elite, who can still afford them.

The counter-argument: financial controls prevent another Leeds

The strongest defence of PSR is that it prevents clubs from gambling their existence on promotion or European qualification. Leeds United’s collapse in 2004 is the cautionary tale: they borrowed against future Champions League revenue and nearly went out of business. Portsmouth, too, spent beyond their means and were liquidated.

But PSR does not prevent reckless spending; it prevents ambitious spending. Leeds’s problem was not that they spent too much relative to their revenue, but that they spent future revenue they never received. A solvency test — requiring owners to guarantee losses with equity — would address that. Instead, PSR measures losses against revenue, which entrenches the revenue hierarchy.

If the Premier League genuinely wanted financial sustainability, it would allow owner investment as long as it is equity, not debt. It would cap wages as a percentage of revenue for all clubs. It would distribute broadcast revenue more equally. It does none of these things. Instead, it polices the balance sheet in a way that benefits the clubs with the biggest balance sheets.

Verdict: a specific prediction

Manchester City will avoid a points deduction on the 115 charges. The legal and political cost of punishing the league’s most successful club is too high, and the charges will be settled with a fine and a transfer restriction that City can absorb. Meanwhile, at least one more mid-table club will be docked points for PSR before the end of next season. The rules will remain, the cartel will hold, and the phrase ‘financial fair play’ will continue to mean exactly what the big six want it to mean.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home