When Punishment Becomes a Privilege Tax

Nothing exposes the Premier League's financial governance as a protection racket for the established elite quite like the current points deduction saga. Everton and Nottingham Forest have been docked a combined eight points for breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), yet the league's biggest spenders face no similar reckoning. This isn't justice; it's a tariff on ambition.

The Anatomy of a Fixed Game

The PSR framework, introduced in 2013, was sold as a mechanism to prevent clubs from over-spending into insolvency. In practice, it has become a ceiling for those trying to break into the top six. Consider that between 2018 and 2023, Manchester City, Chelsea, and Manchester United spent over £2.5bn net on transfers, while Everton and Forest managed a fraction of that. Yet only the latter face sanctions.

  • Everton's losses of £124.5m over three years triggered a 10-point deduction, later reduced to six. Meanwhile, Chelsea's £121m loss in 2022-23 alone was offset by selling a hotel to themselves for £76m — a loophole the league has since closed but did not punish.
  • Nottingham Forest's £34.5m overspend resulted in a four-point penalty. Their crime? Trying to stay in the division after promotion. Meanwhile, clubs like Aston Villa, who spent heavily on players like Morgan Rogers for £117m, face no PSR threat because their revenues are swelled by Champions League participation — itself a function of prior spending.
  • Manchester City face 115 charges for alleged financial breaches stretching back to 2009. The investigation has dragged on for years, with no resolution in sight. In that time, they have won four Premier League titles. The slow-walk is a de facto amnesty.

The Revenue Arms Race Masks the Truth

The league's defence is that PSR applies equally to all. This is a lie. The rules are anchored to revenue, which for the established elite is inflated by Champions League money, global fanbases, and — crucially — commercial deals that often bear the hallmarks of related-party transactions. City's Etihad sponsorship, worth £67.5m a year, remains under scrutiny; Newcastle's PIF-linked deals are similarly opaque. Smaller clubs lack such benefactors.

The result is a two-tier system. The 'Big Six' can absorb losses because their revenues are so high; their allowable losses of £105m over three years are easily covered. For a club like Brentford or Brighton, that limit is the same figure, but their revenues are half as large. The margin for error is non-existent.

Counter-Argument: But the Rules Are Clear

Critics will argue that Everton and Forest knew the rules and broke them. The Premier League's own website boasts that PSR has reduced insolvency risk. They have a point: clubs should not spend what they do not have. But this ignores the structural inequality baked into the system. When Manchester United can post a net debt of £969m and avoid punishment — because their revenue covers it — while Forest are penalised for trying to compete, the rules are not a safety net; they are a caste system.

The league also points to its independent commissions as proof of due process. Yet those commissions have zero jurisdiction over commercial deals or related-party transactions. They can only judge what is submitted. The system is designed to catch the honest over-spender, not the creative accountant.

Verdict: The Prediction

By the end of the 2025-26 season, at least one of the current 'Big Six' will be found to have breached PSR in a way that should have triggered a points deduction. They will avoid it by either selling an intangible asset to a related party or by the case dragging past the statute of limitations. The Premier League's financial regulations will then be quietly revised to close the loophole retroactively, while Everton and Forest will still be fighting relegation. That is not regulation; it is the rich writing rules for the poor.

Filed under: Opinion | LA Premier League Home