The Premier League’s financial rules are not a mechanism for fair competition—they are a protection racket for the established elite.

When Everton were deducted ten points in November 2023 for breaching Profit and Sustainability Rules, the football world gasped. When Nottingham Forest suffered a four-point reduction in March 2024, the outrage was real. Yet as the scale of the deductions suggests—tiny compared to the millions thrown around—the real story is not about punishment. It is about who gets to break the rules and who does not.

Historical context: the PSR regime was designed by the elite, for the elite.

The Financial Fair Play framework, introduced by UEFA in 2009 and adopted by the Premier League as Profit and Sustainability Rules in 2013, was sold as a tool to prevent clubs from overspending into insolvency. In reality, it has become a straitjacket for ambitious owners while allowing the traditional giants—Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool—to continue their spending sprees through inflated commercial deals and creative accounting.

Consider this: since 2013, Manchester City have posted total revenues exceeding £6 billion, with a significant portion coming from Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors—transactions that many rivals argue are not at arm’s length. Their case for 115 alleged breaches of financial rules drags on, while Everton and Forest face immediate punishment for comparatively minor transgressions. The system is rigged.

The argument: FFP punishes ambition and protects the cartel.

The logic of PSR is straightforward: clubs cannot lose more than £105 million over three seasons (or £35m per year if in the Championship). This cap sounds reasonable until you realise that a club with a £500m revenue base can absorb losses far more easily than a club with £150m in revenue. The result is a cap on the upward mobility of smaller clubs.

  • Everton's ten-point deduction came after they posted losses of £371m over three years—partly due to stadium costs that will benefit the club long-term. Yet Chelsea, who lost £243m over the same period, escaped unscathed because they sold two hotels to themselves for £76m to book a profit.
  • Nottingham Forest's four-point penalty was for exceeding the threshold by £34.5m—a sum smaller than what Manchester United paid for Antony. But Forest had just returned to the Premier League and needed to invest to stay up; their punishment all but guaranteed relegation and further financial damage.
  • Leicester City were hit with a charge for breaching PSR after promotion, but the same rules allowed them to spend big in 2021/22 on players like Patson Daka and Boubakary Soumaré—only to face a PSR issue when their TV revenue dropped post-relegation. The rules create a chasm between those who can afford to gamble and those who cannot.

Counter-argument and rebuttal: the defenders claim FFP saves clubs from themselves. They miss the point.

Proponents of PSR argue that without these rules, clubs would chase glory into bankruptcy, citing the examples of Portsmouth (2010) or Rangers (2012). They have a point: financial sustainability matters. But the current system does not prevent insolvency; it preserves hierarchy. The 2002-2003 total wage bill across the Premier League was £744m. By 2022-23, it had ballooned to £4.1 billion. Meanwhile, the gap in revenue between the top and bottom clubs has widened, not narrowed. PSR has not curbed spending—it has merely redirected the excesses to the top, who use loopholes while the rest get punished.

Chelsea’s use of amortisation tricks—spreading transfer fees over eight-year contracts—was tacitly allowed until regulators blinked last summer. Manchester City’s reliance on Abu Dhabi sponsorship deals was questioned but never penalised. The rules are applied selectively, based on who you are. The real scandal is not that Everton overspent; it is that the system pre-ordained that they would be punished for trying to compete.

Verdict / Predition: within two years, at least one club will successfully challenge PSR in court, forcing a fundamental overhaul of the rules.

Leicester City are already fighting their PSR charge in a legal battle that could set precedent. With more clubs (including Everton and Forest) feeling aggrieved, the pressure is mounting. The Premier League’s own regulators are reviewing the rules, but the inertia is immense. My prediction: a club currently outside the traditional ‘big six’ will win a legal case that exposes PSR as anti-competitive under UK competition law, leading to a scrapping of the current system by 2026. The protection racket is about to be raided.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home