Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[andycap]

With the Premier league delaying the results of the hearing it's got city winning the case written all over it. 

[andycap]

They're probably scrambling to find an excuse to why city have passed after so many charges. 

And makesure what they release in public doesn't end up with them getting sued again by city. 😂 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, andycap said:

With the Premier league delaying the results of the hearing it's got city winning the case written all over it. 

It’s not the PL delaying anything.its the 3 man/ woman panel that is taking its time.

 

City fans are viewing the delay as you have but the reason might be the polar opposite.

 

 

[andycap]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

It’s not the PL delaying anything.its the 3 man/ woman panel that is taking its time.

 

City fans are viewing the delay as you have but the reason might be the polar opposite.

 

 

Thought it was done before the end of the season just gone. And we've been waiting for months now for confirmation. 

[Terraloon]

13 minutes ago, andycap said:

Thought it was done before the end of the season just gone. And we've been waiting for months now for confirmation. 

The hearing was concluded weeks ago but as yet the IC have not handed down their judgment 

 

if ther3 is / are any sanctions due to be handed down that won’t be done in the first instance any sanctions will be another panels responsibility 

 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

The hearing was concluded weeks ago but as yet the IC have not handed down their judgment 

 

if ther3 is / are any sanctions due to be handed down that won’t be done in the first instance any sanctions will be another panels responsibility 

 

 

 

Might take at least 18 months to appoint another panel I'm guessing. 

[astraguy]

If this is true,i never realised villa we're that badly run 

[Stifler]

So in 25 years we have lost £105m, the same amount that you are allowed to lose in 3 years under FFP, yet we are still hamstrung by it. It doesn’t make any sense.

[Steve Charlton]

APT hearing this month with outcome by end of year

 

 

Premier League clubs not ready to ditch PSR — they want chance to exploit it

Concerns over fair play prompted calls for reform but, as one club figure says, ‘others benefited from the loopholes — now we want that flexibility’

Martyn Ziegler

 

An unholy mess,” is one Premier League club executive’s view of the competition’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. “More loopholes than a sieve,” is the opinion of another senior club figure. “Not fit for purpose,” a third says.

Given such strident views, it seems strange that the 20 top-flight clubs agreed to continue with PSR for this season — and stranger still that there is a high chance they will stick with it as the default system for the 2026-27 campaign too.

The Premier League’s handbook does not spell out the general principles or aims of PSR, though the clue is in the name — to stop clubs overspending. Its critics, however, would claim that the system also works to maintain the status quo.

PSR was introduced at the start of the 2015-16 season. It set an upper limit on the amount clubs could lose: £105million over a rolling three-year period, though spending on academies, women’s football and stadiums or facilities was exempt from the calculation.

 

It appeared to work well for the first five years. Only in the past three years, with Everton and Nottingham Forest both having points deductions imposed for losing more than the permitted amount over three years, has PSR become a byword for controversy among fans, commentators and some clubs.

 

Clever accountants appear to have found ingenious ways around the rules. Chelsea led the way, first selling two hotels to a sister company and then their women’s team to their parent company, to register paper profits.

The Premier League’s rules do not forbid such practices, unlike the EFL and Uefa. Instead the league relies on establishing that the deals are of fair market value and insists that its diligence around this system means they are not “loopholes”.

Other clubs in danger of breaching the loss limits a year ago realised that convenient “swap” deals with other at-risk clubs could deliver important transfer income to ensure compliance.

 

One of the unintended consequences of PSR is that it is worth much more to a club to sell an academy product for “pure profit” than a player who has not come through the youth system. It also encourages the “warehousing” of players, with some clubs building large squads with the main purpose of earning transfer revenue.

Within the past year Everton and Aston Villa have both sold their women’s teams to related companies which will have helped their PSR figures
 

That partly explains why Premier League clubs decided in February not to bring in two new systems for this season. One is the squad cost rule (SCR), which would limit the amount a club spends on player wages, transfers and agent fees to 85 per cent of their earnings.

The other system is “anchoring”, which would mean the top teams’ spending on player costs is restricted to five times the amount the bottom club receives in TV and prize money. Those alternatives will be operated in shadow form instead for another season, before clubs decide whether to vote on implementing them.

One of the club figures spoken to by The Times was honest about why they chose to keep PSR instead, saying: “Others have benefited from the loopholes — now we want to have that flexibility.”

Another added: “The rules need ripping up and starting again, but there is not the appetite to do so.”
 

The Premier League has tried three times now to bring in rules that close the loopholes around claiming profits from the sale of assets to related companies, but each time has failed to win support from the necessary two thirds of the clubs. It is understood there are no plans to try to do so again.
 

 

Uefa’s rules are much tougher — its SCR limit is 70 per cent this season and its permitted losses are much lower. It will also not allow the sale of assets to related companies to be reported as profits, which partly explains why Chelsea and Villa breached the Uefa rules and have had stringent conditions around spending and transfers imposed.

To this end, laments about PSR restricting Villa’s transfer activity this summer are missing the point — it is Uefa’s conditions that are the greater restriction.

Given that nine English clubs have qualified for European competitions this season and are therefore subject to Uefa’s rules, it may seem easy enough to persuade another five to back the use of a lighter version of these regulations in the Premier League, but so far that support has not been there.

As for anchoring, a tool that would aid those Premier League clubs who do not benefit from Champions League and Club World Cup money, that system looks doomed.

Clubs including Manchester United and Manchester City are dead against it, while the Professional Footballers’ Association has already threatened legal action — on the basis that it could lead to restrictions on player earnings — should attempts be made to bring in the system.
 

The impending arrival of the independent football regulator may also prompt proposals for another type of financial regulation for the top flight, with clubs being urged by the Premier League to agree a “liquidity” measure (in essence a guarantee of £12.5million to avoid any future financial crisis).

Casting its shadow on all these regulations is the latest legal action being brought by City against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. These are a vital part of PSR — and indeed SCR — and neither system can work properly without them.

Unlike PSR, the Premier League’s handbook does explain the principle behind APT rules, stating that the system aims to promote “fairness among clubs, so that clubs are not able to derive an unfair advantage over domestic competitors by increasing revenues or reducing costs via arrangements with entities linked to a club’s ownership”.

The arbitration hearing on the latest APT challenge is due to start this month, with an outcome by the end of the year. If City win and the APT rules collapse altogether, it will mean they and other state-connected clubs can secure any commercial deals they want with related entities, no matter if they are of fair market value or not.

And should that be the case, PSR or SCR would become essentially meaningless and English football will have to grapple again with the question about whether having state-connected ownership, such as exists at City and Newcastle United, is a healthy thing for the world’s most popular domestic league.

 

[gbandit]

“They want chance to exploit it.” Sums it all up there in that one sentence. People are only interested in regulations that serve them rather than serve to make things fairer for everyone. Football is an extension of society after all and we all know that most people care about the individual 

[JT24]

4 minutes ago, Steve Charlton said:

APT hearing this month with outcome by end of year

 

 

Premier League clubs not ready to ditch PSR — they want chance to exploit it

Concerns over fair play prompted calls for reform but, as one club figure says, ‘others benefited from the loopholes — now we want that flexibility’

Martyn Ziegler

 

An unholy mess,” is one Premier League club executive’s view of the competition’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. “More loopholes than a sieve,” is the opinion of another senior club figure. “Not fit for purpose,” a third says.

Given such strident views, it seems strange that the 20 top-flight clubs agreed to continue with PSR for this season — and stranger still that there is a high chance they will stick with it as the default system for the 2026-27 campaign too.

The Premier League’s handbook does not spell out the general principles or aims of PSR, though the clue is in the name — to stop clubs overspending. Its critics, however, would claim that the system also works to maintain the status quo.

PSR was introduced at the start of the 2015-16 season. It set an upper limit on the amount clubs could lose: £105million over a rolling three-year period, though spending on academies, women’s football and stadiums or facilities was exempt from the calculation.

 

It appeared to work well for the first five years. Only in the past three years, with Everton and Nottingham Forest both having points deductions imposed for losing more than the permitted amount over three years, has PSR become a byword for controversy among fans, commentators and some clubs.

 

Clever accountants appear to have found ingenious ways around the rules. Chelsea led the way, first selling two hotels to a sister company and then their women’s team to their parent company, to register paper profits.

The Premier League’s rules do not forbid such practices, unlike the EFL and Uefa. Instead the league relies on establishing that the deals are of fair market value and insists that its diligence around this system means they are not “loopholes”.

Other clubs in danger of breaching the loss limits a year ago realised that convenient “swap” deals with other at-risk clubs could deliver important transfer income to ensure compliance.

 

One of the unintended consequences of PSR is that it is worth much more to a club to sell an academy product for “pure profit” than a player who has not come through the youth system. It also encourages the “warehousing” of players, with some clubs building large squads with the main purpose of earning transfer revenue.

Within the past year Everton and Aston Villa have both sold their women’s teams to related companies which will have helped their PSR figures
 

That partly explains why Premier League clubs decided in February not to bring in two new systems for this season. One is the squad cost rule (SCR), which would limit the amount a club spends on player wages, transfers and agent fees to 85 per cent of their earnings.

The other system is “anchoring”, which would mean the top teams’ spending on player costs is restricted to five times the amount the bottom club receives in TV and prize money. Those alternatives will be operated in shadow form instead for another season, before clubs decide whether to vote on implementing them.

One of the club figures spoken to by The Times was honest about why they chose to keep PSR instead, saying: “Others have benefited from the loopholes — now we want to have that flexibility.”

Another added: “The rules need ripping up and starting again, but there is not the appetite to do so.”
 

The Premier League has tried three times now to bring in rules that close the loopholes around claiming profits from the sale of assets to related companies, but each time has failed to win support from the necessary two thirds of the clubs. It is understood there are no plans to try to do so again.
 

 

Uefa’s rules are much tougher — its SCR limit is 70 per cent this season and its permitted losses are much lower. It will also not allow the sale of assets to related companies to be reported as profits, which partly explains why Chelsea and Villa breached the Uefa rules and have had stringent conditions around spending and transfers imposed.

To this end, laments about PSR restricting Villa’s transfer activity this summer are missing the point — it is Uefa’s conditions that are the greater restriction.

Given that nine English clubs have qualified for European competitions this season and are therefore subject to Uefa’s rules, it may seem easy enough to persuade another five to back the use of a lighter version of these regulations in the Premier League, but so far that support has not been there.

As for anchoring, a tool that would aid those Premier League clubs who do not benefit from Champions League and Club World Cup money, that system looks doomed.

Clubs including Manchester United and Manchester City are dead against it, while the Professional Footballers’ Association has already threatened legal action — on the basis that it could lead to restrictions on player earnings — should attempts be made to bring in the system.
 

The impending arrival of the independent football regulator may also prompt proposals for another type of financial regulation for the top flight, with clubs being urged by the Premier League to agree a “liquidity” measure (in essence a guarantee of £12.5million to avoid any future financial crisis).

Casting its shadow on all these regulations is the latest legal action being brought by City against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules. These are a vital part of PSR — and indeed SCR — and neither system can work properly without them.

Unlike PSR, the Premier League’s handbook does explain the principle behind APT rules, stating that the system aims to promote “fairness among clubs, so that clubs are not able to derive an unfair advantage over domestic competitors by increasing revenues or reducing costs via arrangements with entities linked to a club’s ownership”.

The arbitration hearing on the latest APT challenge is due to start this month, with an outcome by the end of the year. If City win and the APT rules collapse altogether, it will mean they and other state-connected clubs can secure any commercial deals they want with related entities, no matter if they are of fair market value or not.

And should that be the case, PSR or SCR would become essentially meaningless and English football will have to grapple again with the question about whether having state-connected ownership, such as exists at City and Newcastle United, is a healthy thing for the world’s most popular domestic league.

 

Was reading and waiting to see how they’d shoehorn Newcastle into this. There it is, right at the end. 
 

Never misses an opportunity does Martyn Ziegler. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, JT24 said:

Was reading and waiting to see how they’d shoehorn Newcastle into this. There it is, right at the end. 
 

Never misses an opportunity does Martyn Ziegler. 

Funniest thing is, it's keep being mentioned that related party deals can solely be exploited by state owned clubs, when in fact it could be exploited by anyone. 

[JT24]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Funniest thing is, it's keep being mentioned that related party deals can solely be exploited by state owned clubs, when in fact it could be exploited by anyone. 

Chelsea doing whatever they want, whenever they want… 

 

The establishment: “but what if Newcastle think about doing that?”

[Whitley mag]

5 minutes ago, JT24 said:

Was reading and waiting to see how they’d shoehorn Newcastle into this. There it is, right at the end. 
 

Never misses an opportunity does Martyn Ziegler. 

He hates the Arabs.

[gbandit]

2 minutes ago, JT24 said:

Chelsea doing whatever they want, whenever they want… 

 

The establishment: “but what if Newcastle think about doing that?”

Perfect meme material this 

[Dr.Spaceman]

3 hours ago, astraguy said:

If this is true,i never realised villa we're that badly run 

 

Profit / loss based on what? I'm guessing transfer fees, which isn't even half the story when it comes to football club's finances.

[macphisto]

This is where I have my doubts about PIF and their ambitions. Not sure how true “More loopholes than a sieve,” is but apart from the Greek goalkeeper, we should have exploited at least one loophole. 

[gbandit]

8 minutes ago, macphisto said:

This is where I have my doubts about PIF and their ambitions. Not sure how true “More loopholes than a sieve,” is but apart from the Greek goalkeeper, we should have exploited at least one loophole. 

The one time we’ve exploited a loophole and it was our worst bit of business during the PIF era. Classic 

[Solitude20]

20 minutes ago, macphisto said:

This is where I have my doubts about PIF and their ambitions. Not sure how true “More loopholes than a sieve,” is but apart from the Greek goalkeeper, we should have exploited at least one loophole. 

Here comes the role of Hopkinson. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, gbandit said:

“They want chance to exploit it.” Sums it all up there in that one sentence. People are only interested in regulations that serve them rather than serve to make things fairer for everyone. Football is an extension of society after all and we all know that most people care about the individual 

 

 

Exactly. It's the very heart of capitalism, so to try and put fake shackles on the Premier League when it's being run along those lines has always stunk of hypocrisy. But you can't blame the big clubs for trying, that's the whole point of building a cartel. 

[Nucasol]

3 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

He hates the Arabs.

Doesn’t try to hide it. Probably has a signed Netanyahu poster in his office.

[Rosenrot]

Man City seem to have settled their APT rules dispute with the premier league and have accepted that the current rules are binding and valid. I wonder what they have got in return (if anything). 
 

[Pearljam10]

 

[Stifler]

Man City’s case against the Premier League with the new FFP rules has been settled out of court, and Man City have admitted that the new rules are legal and valid.

[Rosenrot]

Delete

 

 

Edited September 8, 2025 by Rosenrot