The Premier League's financial rules are not a safeguard—they're a sanction on the audacious

Points deductions for breaching Profit and Sustainability Rules have turned the Premier League into a theatre of the absurd, where the punishment for overspending is a sporting disadvantage that no amount of fiscal prudence can offset. The league's own governance is now the biggest threat to its competitive integrity.

A brief history of failure

Everton have been docked points twice in two seasons, first ten and then two, for losses spiralling out of control—yet they still somehow survive, another last-gasp equaliser at Bournemouth papering over a structural rot. The Toffees' £400m-plus debt is sustainable only because their stadium, Bramley-Moore Dock, offers a promise of future riches that may never materialise. It's a Ponzi scheme dressed in royal blue livery.

Across Stanley Park, Liverpool—a club with a £600m redevelopment of Anfield—have never once been sanctioned, because their commercial revenue keeps losses within the PSR tolerance. The difference isn't prudence; it's location, brand, and a global fanbase that can be monetised with a new stand. The rules don't level the playing field; they cement the existing hierarchy.

The argument: FFP is class war by other means

The Premier League's PSR regulations, requiring clubs to lose no more than £105m over three years, are a cap on ambition, not a brake on recklessness. Chelsea's £1bn spending spree under Todd Boehly is only possible because they amortise contracts and sell assets like hotels and the women's team. Meanwhile, Nottingham Forest, who tried to compete with a £200m squad overhaul, were docked four points for the sin of daring to dream.

  • Everton: 12 points deducted since 2023, after spending to rebuild a squad that couldn't keep them in the top half—yet their owners continue to extract dividends.
  • Forest: four points for a £150m outlay that, frankly, was necessary after promotion; the punishment nearly relegated them.
  • Manchester City: 115 charges of alleged financial irregularities, and still the league refuses to expedite a case that could shape the sport's future—a damning indictment of a process that protects the powerful.

The message is clear: if you're not a member of the Big Six (or Newcastle's new aristocracy), spend at your peril. The club that tried to break the glass ceiling—Everton, Forest, Aston Villa—have all been slapped down. Villa, who spent £200m to reach the Champions League, are now scrambling to sell players to comply. The punishment for success outside the cartel is a fire sale.

But wouldn't the alternative be worse? The counter-argument

Proponents of the status quo argue that without PSR, clubs would spend themselves into oblivion, following the path of Portsmouth or Bury into bankruptcy. They point to Italy's Serie A, where clubs like Parma and Fiorentina have collapsed under debt, and claim that English football's financial stability—collective revenue £6bn, no club actually dissolved—is proof the rules work.

But this is a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between draconian regulations and anarchy; it's between a rigged system and a fair one. The Premier League could implement UEFA's new squad-cost ratio, which limits spending to 70% of revenue, a rule that would still allow ambitious clubs to invest while preventing the sort of catastrophic overspending that defines Everton's recent history. Or, more radically, a salary cap that ensures the broadcast wealth is shared more evenly, so clubs like Brentford and Bournemouth can compete not just for survival, but for Europe.

The current rules are not about financial health—they're about maintaining the status quo. When Manchester City can spend £300m on players without a peep from the authorities (because their commercial revenue is deemed legitimate, despite the accusations), while Everton are punished for losses that are proportionally smaller, the system is a sham. The league's failure to conclude City's 115 charges after five years isn't justice; it's a tacit admission that they don't want to upset the apple cart.

Verdict: The prediction—Everton will be relegated by financial rules, not football

By 2027, Everton will be playing in the Championship. Their stadium will be a white elephant, their debt will be even more onerous, and their punishment for financial mismanagement will be another deduction—one that will finally tip them over the edge. And when that happens, the Premier League will mourn the loss of a founding member, but they'll do nothing to change the rules. Because the rules aren't designed to save clubs; they're designed to keep the elite in their gilded cages, dining on the scraps of Europe's big-money competitions.

Jonathan Wilson often writes about the cyclical nature of football's power structures. This is the newest cycle: one where the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if it signs a commercial deal with a shell company in Abu Dhabi. The Football League, as ever, will applaud its own foresight.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home