The Premier League are poised to scrap their profit and sustainability rules in favour of a model of financial regulation that more closely mirror UEFA’s current squad-to-cost ratio approach contained within their financial sustainability regulations.
A Premier League statement following the latest shareholders’ meeting said:
“At a Premier League Shareholders’ meeting today 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.”
UEFA’s regulations will limit all clubs playing in their competitions to spending 70% of their revenue on wages, transfer fees and agent costs in the 2025/2026 season. The Premier League’s proposals set a domestic limit of 85%, although these plans have to be voted through before being adopted – and transition arrangements will have to be agreed by all twenty clubs as the league will operate under PSR until such a vote is passed.
The Premier League clubs indicated a willingness to prioritise their own regulatory framework ahead of agreeing a financial package to support the English Football League, the ‘New Deal for Football’ – in a blow to the authority of chief executive Richard Masters.
The obvious conclusion to this proposed rule change is that it would benefit the top clubs who generate the highest revenue. Fulham would have breached the FSR limits in 25 of the last 26 seasons – and would need to reshape their own financial planning.
Let’s just have a European Super League – or maybe just call it the Oil and Petrochemicals League. Then the remaining Premier league might be genuinely competitive. Just a thought.
If the point of FFP is to stop clubs overspending and getting into debt that they can’t manage then it’s a good thing but as it is it entrenches inequalities and kills competitiveness which is bad.
There’s a simple solution . Treat investments that are no obligation gifts as turnover thus allowing rich owners to subsidise their clubs to their hearts and wallet’s content. Loans from them would not be turnover.