The Premier League's financial rules are not a system of fairness but a charade of selective enforcement

Everton and Nottingham Forest receive points deductions for minor breaches while Manchester City face 115 charges that may never reach a verdict. The game's financial governance is a pantomime designed to preserve the dominance of a select few.

The myth of competitive balance through financial regulation

The Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules were sold as a mechanism to prevent owner-funded excess. Instead, they have become a weapon against clubs without sovereign wealth. Since 2018, Manchester City have spent over £800m on net transfers, yet avoided sanctions through creative accounting—sponsorship deals with linked entities, inflated player sales to sister clubs, and legal threats that force delays.

Everton's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock will increase matchday revenue to £70m annually, yet their £19.5m loss triggered a points deduction. Meanwhile, City's Etihad Campus expansion was funded by Abu Dhabi-linked companies, effectively state aid. The double standard is stark: punish the provincial club for a fraction of the spend while the state-backed giant builds an empire.

The argument: FFP is a tax on ambition, not a tool for discipline

The rules do not prevent reckless spending; they punish those without sovereign backing. Consider three examples:

  • Manchester City's sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways, valued at £67.5m per year, was deemed 'fair market value' by the Premier League despite Etihad being owned by Abu Dhabi's government—the same entity that owns City. No independent valuation has ever been published.
  • Everton's debt of £573m was largely for a new stadium, an infrastructure project that should be exempt from PSR. Instead, the club was charged for interest payments on that debt, while clubs like Chelsea write off hundreds of millions in owner loans without penalty.
  • Nottingham Forest sold Brennan Johnson for £47.5m to comply with PSR, a transfer that could have waited for a higher fee. The profit was pure regulatory arbitrage, not sound business.

The rebuttal: Defenders claim the rules are applied equally—this is nonsense

Apologists argue that City face 115 charges precisely because the system works. Yet those charges relate to alleged breaches from 2009 to 2018, and the Premier League's own chief executive, Richard Masters, admitted the case is 'complicated'. Meanwhile, Everton's two separate breaches were dealt with in under a year. The disparity in speed and severity reveals a regulatory capture by those with resources to litigate indefinitely. The Premier League is structurally unable to punish its wealthiest members without risking a legal crisis that could collapse the entire edifice.

Verdict: Expect City to avoid any significant sanction, while Everton are docked more points next season

By June 2025, the 115 charges will be resolved with a fine and a nominal transfer ban, not a title stripping or relegation. Everton will receive another points deduction—likely six points—for a third breach, while their new stadium fails to attract the investment needed to compete. The Premier League's financial rules will then be quietly reformed to allow greater owner investment, codifying the advantages of state ownership. The system will have proved its true purpose: to protect the elite from genuine competition.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home