The FFP Farce: Why Points Deductions Are a Rich Man's Insurance Policy

The Premier League's financial rules are not a deterrent; they're a subsidy for the elite

The Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) are marketed as a great leveller, a mechanism to prevent financial doping and preserve competitive balance. In practice, they've become a rich man's insurance policy—a system that punishes ambition from below while entrenching the cartel at the top. The recent points deductions for Everton and Nottingham Forest weren't justice; they were a demonstration of power.

A brief history of financial regulation in English football

The roots of this farce lie in the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations introduced by UEFA in 2011, and their domestic offspring, the Premier League's own PSR. The idea was simple: clubs must break even, with losses capped at £105m over three seasons. But the rules are riddled with loopholes that favour the established elite. Related-party transactions, such as Manchester City's sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi entities, are scrutinised but rarely punished. Meanwhile, clubs with genuine ambition—like Everton, who spent to compete without the backing of a nation-state—are hammered.

The Premier League's points deductions have been applied with a bluntness that beggars belief. Everton, for instance, were docked 10 points (later reduced to 6) for a single breach, while Manchester City faced 115 charges that took over four years to even reach a hearing. The asymmetry is glaring: small clubs are punished swiftly, while the big fish get legal teams and delay tactics. This isn't regulation; it's a velvet rope.

The argument: PSR is a rich man's insurance policy

The case is simple: PSR protects the status quo by making it nearly impossible for smaller clubs to break into the top six. The rules don't promote financial sustainability; they force clubs to rely on owner funding or wealthy benefactors, which only the richest can sustain. The result is a league where the same four or five clubs dominate year after year, and newcomers are systematically penalised for attempting to buy their way into the elite.

Everton's £500m stadium project, funded by owner Farhad Moshiri, was used as mitigation for their breach—but it also increased their losses, creating a catch-22.
Nottingham Forest, promoted in 2022, spent over £200m on 30 players to survive, only to be deducted points for exceeding loss limits—while the established clubs spent more with impunity.
Leicester City's 2023-24 season was spent under a transfer embargo because of PSR, yet they were one of the few clubs to make a profit in the previous year.

The rules are not about fairness; they're about maintaining the hierarchy. The Premier League's own data shows that clubs with the highest revenue—City, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea—spend the most on wages and transfers, yet they rarely face sanctions because their revenue bases are so vast. A points deduction for Manchester City would be a rounding error; for Burnley, it's a death sentence.

Counter-argument: The need for financial controls

Of course, defenders of PSR will argue that without some form of regulation, clubs would overspend and go bust, as Leeds and Portsmouth did in the 2000s. They point to the collapse of Bury in 2019 as a warning. But this is a straw man. The real issue isn't spending per se; it's reckless spending by owners who don't put their own money at risk. PSR doesn't punish recklessness—it punishes ambition. A club like Aston Villa, which posted a £190m loss in 2022-23, was allowed to continue because they'd sold players cleverly. Meanwhile, Sheffield United—who spent £50m in the Championship—were deducted points for a lesser breach.

Moreover, the rules are applied inconsistently. The Premier League has appeared lenient with the 'big six' when they've breached UEFA's FFP, as with Chelsea's £200m spending spree under Todd Boehly. The Blues were merely fined, not docked points. That's because Chelsea's revenue, boosted by inflated sponsorship deals from related companies, masks their losses. It's a sham.

The ultimate insult is the treatment of fan-owned or community clubs. Brentford and Brighton, lauded for their data-driven models, have stayed within PSR, but they can't compete for the highest trophies because they can't afford the elite players. Their success is constrained, not enabled, by the rules.

Verdict: The next big scandal will break the system

Here's my prediction: within the next two seasons, a 'big six' club will face a points deduction for a PSR breach, and the Premier League will quietly change the rules to avoid a repeat. The reason is simple—the pressure is building. Manchester City's 115 charges are still unresolved, and if they're found guilty, the league would face the absurdity of relegating the champions. More likely, they'll get a fine, and the rules will be rewritten to allow more owner injection, effectively legalising what City have been doing all along.

This will be the final proof that PSR is a farce. The rich will be protected, and the poor will continue to be punished. The Premier League will lurch on, selling its broadcast rights for ever-increasing sums, while the actual product becomes more predictable and less competitive. The only winners are the accountants and lawyers who profit from the legal uncertainty.

Mark my words: by 2027, a club like Everton will have been relegated despite outspending their rivals, while Manchester City will have won their sixth consecutive title, financed by sponsorships that make a mockery of every rule the Premier League claims to enforce. That's not regulation; that's a rigged game.