Did financial rules just get tougher? | Vital Football

Did financial rules just get tougher?

Spursex

Alert Team

Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules set to be replaced as early as this summer​


Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules are to be replaced as early as this summer; the new system will be aligned with UEFA's squad cost ratio rules; new regulations will not affect the ongoing cases regarding Everton, Nottingham Forest and Manchester City


Monday 11 March 2024 19:28, UK




The Premier League are set to scrap their controversial profitability and sustainability rules as soon as this summer. Sky Sports News' chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol explains what it means


The Premier League's controversial profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) are set to be replaced as early as this summer by a new system of financial regulation.

The new system will be aligned with the squad cost-to-revenue ratio contained within UEFA's Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR).



Those regulations will eventually limit clubs participating in European competitions to only spend 70 per cent of revenue on transfer fees, player wages and so on.


The Premier League has been looking at a model enabling clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of revenue on squad cost, with a sliding scale of penalties in place where clubs exceed that ratio.

However, there is no guarantee that the new financial model will even be signed off at the league's annual general meeting in June.


If approved, the new rules will not affect the ongoing cases regarding Everton, Nottingham Forest and Manchester City, who will all continue to be judged on existing financial models.


A Premier League statement on Monday read: "At a Premier League Shareholders' meeting, clubs agreed to prioritise the swift development and implementation of a new League-wide financial system.


"This will provide certainty for clubs in relation to their future financial plans and will ensure the Premier League is able to retain its existing world-leading investment to all levels of the game.

"Alongside this, Premier League clubs also re-confirmed their commitment to securing a sustainably-funded financial agreement with the EFL, subject to the new financial system being formally approved by clubs.

"The League and clubs also reaffirmed their ongoing and longstanding commitment to the wider game which includes £1.6 billion distributed to all levels of football across the current three-year cycle.

"The Premier League's significant funding contributions cover all EFL clubs and National League clubs, as well as women and girls' football, and the grassroots of the game."

The latest on Everton, Forest and Man City​




Speaking last month, Kaveh Solhekol explains that while Everton will be pleased to see their 10-point deduction reduced, there should be caution with an investigation ongoing over another possible breach of PSR

Last month, Everton had their 10-point deduction for breaching the Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules reduced to six following their appeal hearing.

Everton were sanctioned by an independent commission on November 17 after being found to have exceeded permitted losses by £19.5m over an assessment period ending with the 2021-22 season.

The club appealed the decision with the hearing taking place over three days, which concluded at the start of February.

However, Everton are facing another possible points deduction after they were charged in January with breaching the rules for a second time, along with Nottingham Forest.

Forest should know what punishment they will face by April 15, but could appeal against that decision.

In January, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said a date has been set for Manchester City's hearing over 115 alleged breaches of the league's financial rules, but did not reveal when.

PL meeting ends without new deal for EFL clubs​





Kaveh Solhekol explains why Premier League clubs have failed to secure a funding agreement with EFL clubs and the possible repercussions

Despite the latest developments, no offer of increased funding for the English Football League clubs was forthcoming from Premier League clubs at Monday's shareholders' meeting.

Top-flight sources had expressed hope before the meeting, which could have been decisive after what was described as a 'staging' meeting on February 29.

However, a deal to increase funding to EFL clubs from £340m to £500m a year for six years was not even voted on, with top-flight clubs feeling it is first essential they thrash out a new financial system that will ultimately replace the current profitability and sustainability rules.

The Government has repeatedly said it wants the football authorities to agree a new financial settlement amongst themselves but has warned that one could be imposed upon them by 'backstop' powers set to be given to the new independent regulator.

Would potential new rules only benefit PL's big clubs?​

Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol:

"The financial rules can be changed because the clubs are unhappy with them. Premier League clubs don't want to give more money away to EFL clubs when they don't know what their own financial situations are going to be.

"The clubs have said: 'Hold on, what we want to do is replace PSR with a new financial regulation system. We're going to do that first and once we have that new financial system in place, then we will look again at how much money we pass on to EFL clubs'.

"It's self-interest for the Premier League clubs. All clubs will always look after themselves. They feel the PSR as they exist at the moment are not fit for purpose. Now you could counter that and argue they're rules that they agreed to. They voted for them. So they signed up to them, they came into force and the feeling now is they don't work.

"How the new proposal would work, which is closely aligned to UEFA's financial rules, is that Premier League clubs would only spend up to a maximum of 85 per cent of your revenue on transfers and wages. That sounds like it could be fairer, because at the moment we've got a system where you can't lose more than £105m over a three-year period.

"Now this might sound like a better system, but does it mean that going forward, the bigger clubs are always going to have more money to spend on transfers and wages?

"Because if you're only allowed to spend a limit of 85 per cent of your revenue on players and wages, if your revenue is £700m, you'll be able to spend £595m on players and wages. But if your revenue is only £100m, you'll only be able to spend £85m on players and wages. So I'm sure that will be something Premier League clubs will look at."







PSR explained: What limits clubs spending more?

In the simplest terms, when every Premier League team tots up their annual accounts, they can have made a loss no greater than £105m across the previous three seasons.

Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.

The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club.
 
I’ve got to say , I don’t understand it at all
.
There are too many loopholes ,.
Allowing The Chavs to get away with what they have done and penalising Everton for spending Fifteen Million too much is just ludicrous to me .
Allowing , so far , City to flaunt the rules to the alleged levels that have got them to where they are , and allowing them continue to become the juggernaut that they are , is criminal .
Every multi billion corporation is corrupt at some level , but FiFA , UEFA and the PL
take the biscuit .
Even the PL/ FA allowing the shambles of the PGMOL to continue is shameful .
 
This system is so damn broke. I know it would never work...but at least things are regulated more tightly in our major leagues here....much more parity it seems....

Hell the Dallas Cowboys, one of the wealthiest sports franchises' in the world are not running wild in the NFL and haven't for A LONG TIME!!!! (unfortunately they are the team I follow....ughh)

Hell the Kansas City Chiefs...another one of my favorite teams....are a downright juggernaut the last few seasons and they are more of a small market team.

Not sure what the right answer is...but parity in our league to seriously win the title really doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Anyone know if there's any truth in the rumour there's no points deductions in the new regulations?

Fining a club like City just seems completely pointless to me.

Fines are lame and toothless. A legitimate points deduction has teeth and appropriate in my opinion.

If they back out of the point deduction game...then Everton royally got hosed and should be PISSED!!!
 
Anyone know if there's any truth in the rumour there's no points deductions in the new regulations?

Fining a club like City just seems completely pointless to me.
As Far as I know, the new rules will also closely follow the sorts of sanctions that UEFA can and do impose:

The Appeals Chamber makes its final decisions in the presence of at least three of its members, who have attended the deliberations, and by simple majority. The Appeals Chamber may take the following final decisions: to dismiss the case, uphold, amend or overturn the First Chamber’s decision, to accept or reject the club's admission to the UEFA club competition; to impose disciplinary measures.

"Disciplinary measures include among others the following: a warning; a reprimand; a fine; deduction of points; withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition; prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions; restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions, including a financial limit on the overall aggregate cost of players registered on the A-list for the purposes of UEFA club competitions; disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions; withdrawal of a title or award.

So, I would assume we'd also adopt their approach to penalties, in which case, deduction of points will still be an option.
 
As Far as I know, the new rules will also closely follow the sorts of sanctions that UEFA can and do impose:

The Appeals Chamber makes its final decisions in the presence of at least three of its members, who have attended the deliberations, and by simple majority. The Appeals Chamber may take the following final decisions: to dismiss the case, uphold, amend or overturn the First Chamber’s decision, to accept or reject the club's admission to the UEFA club competition; to impose disciplinary measures.

"Disciplinary measures include among others the following: a warning; a reprimand; a fine; deduction of points; withholding of revenues from a UEFA competition; prohibition on registering new players in UEFA competitions; restriction on the number of players that a club may register for participation in UEFA competitions, including a financial limit on the overall aggregate cost of players registered on the A-list for the purposes of UEFA club competitions; disqualification from competitions in progress and/or exclusion from future competitions; withdrawal of a title or award.

So, I would assume we'd also adopt their approach to penalties, in which case, deduction of points will still be an option.
yeah, so will go from first port of call under PSR to "an option" moving forward.

Everton and Forest will be fuming
 
Glad to see these teams starting to get punished. I disagree with the rules, but if they are the rules then we all have to play by them. But would love to see how they decide 4 points. Why not 3? Why not 5? Would 6 be completely crazy? Nonsense how none of this is seemingly defined anywhere. Surely anyone with a brain when creating these rules created guidelines for how big a fine or how many points that equates to? It's just arbitrary hence why Everton's was reduced
 
Glad to see these teams starting to get punished. I disagree with the rules, but if they are the rules then we all have to play by them. But would love to see how they decide 4 points. Why not 3? Why not 5? Would 6 be completely crazy? Nonsense how none of this is seemingly defined anywhere. Surely anyone with a brain when creating these rules created guidelines for how big a fine or how many points that equates to? It's just arbitrary hence why Everton's was reduced
plus the elephant in the room - honestly reporting that you breached the PSR rules = points deduction

Fraudulently inventing sponsors to cover any shortfall and presenting yourselves as sustainable as a result = protracted legal battles that will get tied up for years, meanwhile you can avoid any points deductions and feasibly even win silverware should you so please.