Are the Premier League's financial rules fit for purpose?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2024
- Following Nottingham Forest's four-point deduction for breaching the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) earlier this week, Ayo Akinwolere is joined by The Athletic's senior football news reporter Matt Slater as well as Tim Spiers to explain what happened.
The panel debate the sanction handed out to Forest, following Everton's own six-point deduction with the Goodison Park outfit set to receive a further punishment in due course.
00:00 Intro
00:20 Nottingham Forest's PSR punishments
01:36 Nottingham Forest & Everton’s breaches
06:56 Transfer windows
15:29 How bad is PSR breaching?
16:33 What does PSR mean for Premier League teams?
19:36 Is PSR sustainable?
24:15 PSR in Europe
28:49 How can clubs improve on their sustainability?
30:59 The Super League
33:50 How do football clubs police their profit?
36:33 Who should regulate the Premier League?
37:47 Final comments
38:56 Outro
The Athletic Football Podcast is your essential guide to football's biggest stories, five times a week this season...
Listen on Apple and Spotify: theathletic.lnk.to/tafcpodYT
Subscribe to The Athletic Football Podcast channel 👉 bit.ly/athleticuk | 🔔Make sure to enable all push notifications!🔔
The Athletic is currently offering a special price subscription of £2/$2 a month for the first 12 months. To redeem that limited-time-only offer go to 👉 theathletic.com/footballpod
Follow The Athletic FC:
Website 👉 theathletic.com
Twitter 👉 / theathleticfc
Instagram 👉 / theathleticfc
Facebook 👉 / theathleticfc
Follow Tifo Football:
Website 👉 tifofootball.com
Twitter 👉 / tifofootball_
Facebook 👉 / tifofootball
Instagram 👉 / tifofootball_
Subscribe to Tifo Football 👉 bit.ly/TifoFootball
Thumbnail: James Baylis - AMA / Contributor / Getty Images Europe via Getty Images
David Horton - CameraSport / Contributor / CameraSport via Getty Image
#nottinghamforest #everton #premierleague - Sport
Matt Slater didn't have a single valid or logical point to make regarding the 4 points for forest and 6 for Everton for the same breach.. unlike forest Everton even spend 2 transfer windows cooperating with the PL where they got approval for every transfer they made during the window.. yet, Everton were given more punishment..
Q: Are the Premier League's financial rules fit for purpose?
A: 100% yes, perfectly aligned to their purpose, which is keeping the big 6 at the top.
So why were there only 2 clubsthat voted against these rules? Both members of the big 6.
@@lilbaz8073 because some clubs have infinite pockets so for them it serves them
@@thefootballpunnedit so the 17 clubs that voted for the rules (southampton abstained) did so to keep the big 6 at the top?
Makes sense.
Didn't they just scarped 14 votes back than and only Man City was against it from big 6? Maybe back than they thought those rules are good idea? Also many owners who voted for those rules aren't even here anymore.
Perhaps not the purpose, but certainly working toward that.
Why have Forest & Everton been charged but no club been charged for over a decade? Just going ignore spending that’s gone on before this season? FFS
they don't want an independent regulator, so they're punishing some clubs to make a few 'easy wins' and convince the government that independent regulation isn't necessary
@@WOOOPdoctorFROGherecorrect. What an absolute joke.
Except thats not it... Theyve been building the case for all charges... As is completely normal..
You know it takes time to gather evidence and build a case? Look at how far back the city charges stretch. This isn't a detective movie
Matt slater said they are trying to make the industry sustainable - absolute nonsense, its there to enable the sly 6 to prosper and have a closed shop.
Just city ya mean
Chelsea will be in massive breach of the rules this next season. The prem have charged City on 115 different accusations including accounting fraud. The rules of decided by the prem, who are comprised of all 20 clubs.
You'll find out it's not so simple
Nobody should have the ability to veto 115 charges pending/ in limbo with the hopes of tweaking the rules while other clubs get penalized, other clubs are put at a disadvantage. There's a clear bias towards City.
@@RandySnortin Nothing has been vetoed, do you think that 115 charges can be solved with a simple slapped on points deduction? If they're found guilty, which will take years with their lawyers, they will likely be expelled from the Premier league.
Matt slater is an EPL cheerleader. Always back masters and co
My question is why are clubs with no or extremely little outstanding debt not afforded greater allowances, surely that promotes better financial responsibility?
That would widen the gap on state ownership or unaccountable billionaires. All clubs should be dipping into debt every now and again to fund projects
Platini’s original aim for FFP was to tackle debt which he said was the most corrosive element of European club football. and action was needed to deal with it.He also considered it gave an unfair advantage to certain clubs who could afford to carry large debts over those clubs who couldn’t.
He even named two clubs who he considered to be the worst offenders - I’ll not name names but one wears red shirts and comes from Trafford, Greater Manchester, and the other wears blue and play in West London. Of course there were plenty of others in Spain and Italy (we all know who).
However, when the first draft of FFP arrived - surprise surprise, not a mention of debt.
Almost as if certain clubs had leant heavily on UEFA and threatened ….perhaps…. maybe …. a breakaway super league if they didn’t drop the debt thing
@michaeldoig9881 Newcastle can build a whole new stadium with 0 debt. That's already an advantage, they don't need another one. Agree there is utility in curbing debts re club security but don't see it as a FFP tool
@@robbied6585it needs to be based on revenue so whoever makes the most can spend the most. I know that doesn't sound better but looks at Chelsea and Brighton. It would still promote a better way of running things.
@@robbied6585it was the original FFP tool until the biggest clubs with the biggest debts decided it shouldn’t be.
Those clubs wanted FFP to be about spending only what was earned in revenue streams, of which, they conveniently had many lucrative ones, while new upstarts like City only had a few.
Not paying your debts is akin to spending someone else’s money, or in the case of clubs like Man Utd, like having a dozen maxed out credit cards but instead of paying those off you spend your income on buying luxury goods.
It is certainly unfair because some clubs can’t afford to service debts on their incomes and it cements certain clubs in place at the top.
Even governments stress the notion of paying your debts off as soon as possible.
Keeps the top 6 in place works perfectly as intended
To be a midtable Champ club and grow to become an established Prem club it seems now you have to;
- Somehow outcompete teams with parachute payments who are way richer than you with better squads in the Champ
- Once promoted without those parachute payments, build a squad good enough to stay up with less than half the FSP budget allowance
- Meanwhile you are dealing with less revenue in sponsors because you aren't Prem established... meaning sponsors are paying less than your EPL peers.
- Repeat the miracle for a 2nd season in order to have the same FSP allowance as everyone else on year 3.
3 insane Rocky Balboa seasons back to back to back to in order to be a Crystal Palace!
I like there are rules in place to stop Oligarchs and Gulf states taking the piss (which they still do we're not stupid).
But these rules are making it ludicrous for a club like Blackburn or Coventry to ever become Prem established again.
It's so grossly tilted against you to get into and stay in the EPL.
Great comment
Very well said. Completely agree
All depends on how you look at it Everton had £124,550 loss. Forest had £95,500 loss. What is completely wrong is that Forest were limited to £61M and expected to compete with all but one other club on £105M
Because it's absolutely fucked.
Ayo is a great host in this type of format
Premier League should be free of any financial restraints!
Big owners should be allowed to spend BIG
Then end up like reading when the owner decides to stop spending.
@@lilbaz8073 Whats the issues, allows other owners/clubs to shine.
You can just make the owners who spend beyond clubs means have to put the money in and show they can cover next 3-5yrs of spend.
You can make owners
to prove he has finance until players contracts is valid. Problem solved.
There should be restrictions to keep (or rather make........) the league competitive. However, it makes no sense to ensure owners who have funds to invest are restricted from building squads of equal strength to others in the same league and preventing clubs from being competitive.
It is sad that the clubs that wanted to break away and form their own super league have essentially created that league within the premiership. Conspiracy theorists may feel FFP restrictions were achieved via concessions from the league, ensuring to cement the position of the top 6 (wealthiest clubs).
The transfer window and the reporting periods have to line up. It’s ludicrous to have one in the middle of another unless the aim is to make small clubs star players available to the big six for knock down prices…………..hmmm🤔
Most clubs accounting periods and players contracts end on june 30th.
Uefas rules go from jan to dec. So punishments can be dished out the following season.
The first so called Independent commission were recommended, by the Premier League, to punish Everton with a 12 point deduction! How independent was that?
very independent
"I know you've hired us to be independent but what do you think ?"
The premier league were prosecuting.
Ofcourse they can say what they think everton should get.
But the commission is independent and makes up their own mind after hearing evertons defence.
It's why they didn't get a 12 point deduction.
@@lilbaz8073 they weren't prosecuting. The only body in the UK that can initiate a prosecution is the CPS. People really need to familiarise themselves with the difference between civil and criminal law before having an opinion on these points deductions
It's only 9 points for administration
What other industries actively discourage investment 🤣🤣🤣
10 year old rules, PL suddenly flex due to the impending regulator threat, hit the easy targets rather than the big boys! You can talk, talk, talk the figures, the facts are the PL have suddenly come to life without considering the implications. A big mess that does nothing for our game and reputation. Can of worms from day one!
This debacle reminds me of how sh1t VAR is...
Use the effects of inflation to make the case that the loss limits are no longer fit for the purpose that they were initially introduced for 15 years ago.
Inflation on transfer fee costs have far outstripped the rate that income has increased.
E.g. income increased 60% from 2016 to 2023.
Total EPL transfer spend went up from £500m in 2016 to £1,350m in 2023. That’s almost 200% increase.
Look at Kante. Sold by Leicester to Chelsea for £32m in 2016. Rice was sold for £105m in 2023. That’s a 230% increase for a player with same profile, same age, same position / status etc.
Bang the drum about cost inflation making the loss limits no longer fit for purpose, and demand the PSR rules are suspended.
At the very least the cost inflation would reduce the significance of the breaches that have occurred.
Inflation is fundamental and the reason why PSR is currently not fit for its originally well intended purpose.
Suspend PSR.
Just put a levy on the clubs to donate to local clubs lower league / non-league . The increasing layers of governance indicate a toxic inflated market , eg. selling off talent(assets) to serve/fund the system
Well Forest's losses ARE 'sustainable' because Mr Marinakis will cover them. The stupidity that because we were outside the PL for 2 of the 3 years means that we - and other promoted clubs who've been out of the top league for 5+ years, say - are subject to a different metric than the established clubs ! WHo the hell thought up these rules ?!?!?!
The PL clubs literally wrote the rules.
How can the dates that the ffp is measured on are not the same as the transfer windows? It makes no sense. I know that different leagues have different dates for the transfer windows, but to have it like it is is stupid.
Seems like rules are there just to solidify position of bigger clubs. Which is not what a lot of fans want but maybe the big tv deals are centre around those teams. Man City and Chelsea are only big because they’ve been allowed to breach the rules and pull up the draw bridge behind them. Much as in the rest of life people don’t want a competition or to compete they want an opponent with one hand tied behind his back. They would prefer to have three teams coming up that are cannon fodder and then a few teams at the top mopping up the titles and trophies. Well done, bravo. Disgrace that because Man City have accused of a massive crime they can keep reaping the benefits of the alleged crime. Whatever the ins and out of all this the football fans are losing out, at least the ones that don’t eat prawn sandwiches.
The discussion here was interesting but like lots of things these days only discussed on a superficial level without looking into the structural problems. But like a lot of journalism, The Athletic cannot bite the hand that feeds them so are unlikely to be critical of the top teams. In conclusion, premiere league is corrupt but makes a lot of money and that’s the only thing that matters in contemporary times.
FFP is an absolute joke. Promoted clubs having to sell best players they can afford to keep to meet an arbitrary target set by the other clubs, it’s anticompetitive and as a non Forest fan think it’s a joke. It’s simply an attempt to make a status quo whereby clubs that come up to back down and teams in CL spots lock others out.
These are rules not laws.
How Forest can have ended with a smaller punishment for a higher breach than Everton is baffling.
Seems to have just turned on them being nice and friendly about it all, which shouldn't be a mitigation
Because they had their reduced for cooperating. Everton had points added for trying to mislead and said the money went on the stadium where it was spent on players. Which they admitted in the end.
Everton's was solely Premier League NFFC was Championship to Premier League
@@lilbaz8073wrong.
Think of it like pleading guilty for a lighter sentence. Same principle.
Whenever Matt‘s on it raises the level of knowledge and explanatory competence by a mile. Thank you!
he used to pop up on Tifo podcast many years ago too before it got a bit too chummy and comical. He's good, he deals in facts rather than opinions. Yet some thicko listeners still get upset and think he's criticising their club
As a fan of Wolves, who were the last two players that came through your Academy to play 100 games for the team?
How come you haven't mentioned Man City's breaches????
The European clubs probably wouldn't have demanded FFP if it was just competition in the transfer market, but the one thing that scared them was city investing in a south American scouting system that was going to compete with the Portuguese and Spanish big clubs for the best from South America.
some bs being talked on here by matt slater
It can't be this difficult to have a system where clubs are stopped from spending money they or their owners don't have while also allowing non-top 6 clubs like Newcastle to spend as much as United or City. Ffp is such a mess.
So what is the system if it’s so easy
Why should Newcastle be allowed to spend as much as united or city if they don’t make as much revenue as them?
@Fgd231 so that the league is fair. How can a non established team ever generate the same revenue as the established teams (big 6) if they aren't given the ability to spend to reach the heights of those teams. You can't just build bigger stadiums and expect fans to attend or expect a worldwide fanbase unless if you are a successful club. And when 6 clubs have in some cases 10 times the revenue of the other clubs its impossible to build to that level without being able to spend at least the same as what they are spending.
@@AndrewS-xk6fw where is the fairness in a nation state coming and just buying success? This is what ffp was brought in to stop, so the likes of Chelsea and Man City don’t happen again.
@@Aanike09 , off the top a my head, a uniform spending cap and a thorough check of finances behind every purchase. I, however, am crucially a layperson here. I would expect a far higher quality of solution from the people running the show, and they should be able to sort this out.
Let's call FFP/PSR for what it is. Initially designed to prevent clubs overspending and going bust it now works to prevent clubs investing and becoming competitive, thus preserving the position of the clubs with the largest squads at the top of the league.
Not only is FFP making clubs like Forest and Everton LESS sustainable (by restricting their ability to compete) they prevent rich owners of clubs from investing in their business to bring clubs up to a similar level of others.
You talk about 'breaking away to form a super league'. The top 6 have essentially done this by massing the wealthiest of squads, paying the highest salaries, and due to their inevitable successes drawing in the wealthiest sponsorship deals and global audience.
Yes, teams like Villa and Newcastle HAVE spent money, but they have done so to try and build failing squads into ones that can compete, squads that are STILL valued at only a percentage of those protected at the top by FFP. If in disagreement just look at the squad values - the stats don't lie.
If you desire a competitive league there should be a ceiling to at which all can spend (allowing owners to invest.......), and a way allowing those that can afford the ability to compete. I can see questions being raised about the anti-competitive nature of the league at some point, but am sure that those wealthiest are doing their utmost to keep it this way.
Next question might be why any potential owner might want to invest in a football club when faced with an inability to invest and grow the business. If it were me I'd look elsewhere.
What is crazy Everton did not get an on field advantage but Forrest did make an on field advantage.
Why has the £105 million not increased year on year with inflation ?
They did get a sporting advantage. Read the actual report not social media.
When you're promoted though you have less than HALF the FSP allowance... so if you're newly promoted not only is your side worse, and your revnue worse, and your sponsorships won't be as big because you're not EPL established... you then get LESS THAN HALF the margin. Then you're relegated... and you've got a massive parachute payment advantage over the rest of the Champ. In one league you'e a monster in the other you're F-D! That's why Bournemouth and Fulham look stable now, they've been the monster parachute teams in the Championship multiple times. It's also why Forest coming up via playoffs with a squad full of loanees who left... HAD TO spend for even a small chance.
Man City charged first so EPL must address and resolve this first. Clubs are being charged early and harshly. Rules that don't include allowances for inflation are not fit for purpose. Years ago £100m would let you buy a new team and today just 1 player costs £100m.
This has happened to clubs within the Football League so why so much surprise and outcry when it happens in the Premier League?
Purely designed to keep the teams at the top, at the top.
When we talk about how fit for purpose this whole process is I can't understand why there was only minimal reference to Man City?? There was some useful points made by the guests but Im sure I speak for many fans when we ask "Wtf is happening with the City case?"
Not a City fan. It's a completely seperate issue that is far more akin to Chelsea's new(ish) owners reporting Roman's previous financial indiscretions than Forest, Everton or Leicester's FFP/PSR concerns. Just like Chelsea's concerns will be aired in December if they do not sell players to reach compliance as they'll be heavily under pressure by the end of the 24/25 period (June 2025). Forest and Everton have issues that have come to rear right now, which is why that's what the conversation is. Leicester will face a points reduction from the Prem this summer. City will have their day further down the line but it's not a story right now because there is nothing that can happen at present.
FFP is not working for the league, why can't clubs be allowed to spend what they want. Everyone thought real Madrid and Barcelona were amazing when they broke the transfer record year after year, as soon as the English team's could do the same they changed the rules. Come on remember the galacticos
And real madrid almost went bankrupt. Had to do a dodgy deal selling land to the council for much more than it was worth to keep afloat.
How's Newcastle's takeover of football getting on
Iam a forest fan iav spoke with a mp about football players bring paid i work she said that government is doing something about football players getting jobs iav said football players need to stop bring paid
If you do not want the table to keep changing you stop appeals and have a penalty matrix.
Or you get rid of this nonsense.
The Premier league is actually not fit for purpose. A certain club keeps winning the titles and many other trophies with what is obviously vulgar amounts of unfair investment that has broke 115 regulations yet nothing will be done due to the shear power, wealth and resources of that particular owner. While other clubs are punished for small indiscretions and face catastrophic consequences. The Premier league should just give the trophy to the club that has the most money and resources, which saves playing 38 games, which means nothing anymore!
Playing Johnson was a foolish decision and a huge gamble by Forest. Had he broken his leg, he would have been worth nothing.
The ruling was not a tough read. This is what aggrevates me about football fans. Opinion matters more than intellect! Learn how to read then apply some critical thinking.
City are the owner of pgmol and can win the leage
Explaining financial rules is pointless, just like explaining refereeing is pointless. FANS DON’T WANT TO KNOW; they just want to support their team, and will be actively ignorant to do so.
I'm a Forest fan and am frustrated by the rules and the fact we could've avoided breaking them. I think its good to try and understand the rules to try and have a better understanding and be able to make a more informed opinion.
In one word, NO
The premier League is all about manipulating the status quo in favour of the big 6. They use var and added time to manipulate results.
Forest's defence is laughable. It amounts to "but but but it's not fair"
But it isn’t fair, and I’m not a Forest fan.
@@michaelmckie9164 All their defence is basically "We think we had good reason to break the rules" even though those reasons aren't contained as clauses in the rules.
No of course not
Forest budgeting to finish 12th was also stupid.
Probs not
They knew the rules, so they knowingly broke them.
No. Move on
Incoming, Everton and Forest fans who never actually read up, coming in to just shout gut feelings
I'm surprised that little Premier League toady Ornstein isn't on this one to act as cheerleader for their bullshit.