The Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) were apparently designed with the noble aim of promoting financial stability and preventing clubs from spending beyond their means.
However, recent developments suggest that these rules, far from creating an even playing field, are instead being navigated through “dark arts” of clever accountancy, leaving clubs like Newcastle United, striving to comply, at a significant disadvantage.
The glaring issue is the apparent disparity in how PSR is applied or, more accurately, how clubs are finding creative ways to circumvent its stricter interpretations. While clubs like Everton and Nottingham Forest have faced points deductions, and Newcastle has operated with a degree of frugality despite immense wealth, others seem to be sidestepping the spirit of the regulations with audacious financial manoeuvres.
One of the most talked-about tactics, pioneered by Chelsea and now exploited by Aston Villa, is the internal sale of assets, specifically their women’s teams, to affiliated companies or even to themselves.
Chelsea reportedly sold their women’s team to their parent company for a figure approaching £200 million, a sum that, while raising eyebrows given the women’s team’s revenue figures, significantly helped them record a profit and comply with PSR. Aston Villa have just explored a similar avenue, offsetting substantial losses by ‘selling’ theirs for a reported £55m.
This practice, while technically permissible under current Premier League rules – a recent proposal to close this loophole failed to gain sufficient club support – fundamentally distorts the financial landscape. It allows clubs with significant financial backing to generate “income” without genuinely increasing their operational revenue or selling tangible assets to an independent third party at market value.
This is, in essence, creative accounting that allows for continued heavy spending in the men’s transfer market, while other clubs are forced to sell star players or limit their ambitions to remain compliant.
For Newcastle United, operating under intense scrutiny following their Saudi-led takeover, this is a bitter pill to swallow. The club has been praised for its adherence to PSR, prioritising sustainable growth and investing in infrastructure and the academy.
However, this commitment to compliance, while commendable, puts them behind rivals who are seemingly finding ways to inject funds through these financial loopholes.
The danger is clear: unless Newcastle begins to explore similar “dark arts” of clever accountancy, they risk being left behind in a league where financial fair play feels anything but fair. The very purpose of PSR – to level the playing field – is undermined when some clubs can conjure profits through internal transactions that don’t reflect genuine market activity.
The argument for FFP, in its purest form, is indeed a valid one, especially when considering the staggering debts of some of the Premier League’s biggest clubs. Manchester United, for instance, is reportedly over a billion pounds in debt, while Chelsea has also accrued significant liabilities. The original intent was to prevent clubs from plunging into financial oblivion, ensuring the long-term health of the sport. However, when the rules are selectively applied or easily manipulated, the system breaks down. It becomes a mechanism that penalizes those who genuinely try to abide by the spirit of the law, while rewarding those who can afford the most ingenious accountants.
It’s time for the Premier League to take a long, hard look at its PSR. If the goal is true financial sustainability and a level playing field, then these loopholes must be closed. Clubs like Newcastle, striving to do things by the book, should not be penalized for their integrity. But, if nothing changes, it might soon be time for Toon chiefs to find their own loopholes and exploit the existing ones before they’re shut down.
The current situation fosters an environment where the richest clubs, despite their enormous debts, can continue to dominate by exploiting grey areas, making a mockery of “fair play” in the world’s most lucrative football league.
The “Fair market value aspect of assets is now moot, Masters has said Chelskis sale of rheir womens team to themselves was not an inflated price, due to the potential for an increase in value over time.
Apply that to anything and it is free reign, if we want to sell a player to a pif owned Saudi ckub , we can charge them anything in the same manner, due to the precedent set by masters , potential = unknown value , how can any entity question the potential of any player when a womens football team has been sold for 6x its actual value , it will though, be interesting to see what Uefa have to say about it, i would be amazed if they are not sanctioned in some way( possibly banned from European competition) and it would be such a shame if Pedro and Liam missed out on CL football because the spineless PL have not acted to stop these obvious rule breaches ( i dont blame Chelski by the way, its all down to the PL and their cartel masters dictating ) what goes around will hopefully come around though
Graeme Devon(Quote)
The issue with Chelsea and now Villa is it is a short term fix. What happens say, if they fail to secure Champions League qualification for a two to three seasons, which cuts off a high amount of revenue. The debt will increase because of overspend on salaries and long term contracts and with nothing left to sell to itself, it will result in the offloading of players. The fun starts when clubs refuse to buy a player who commands an outrageous salary and refuses to move for less (remember Jack Rodwell at Sunderland). We just need to be patient and let it all play out. It will come back to bite at some point
Peter(Quote)
Is this the sixth article on PSR over the last two days. Give it a rest. Masters is paid too much to change it. It’s doing what the cartel want. Never gonna change to a fair playing field. So can we please just stop posting moan fests
PremAndUp(Quote)
The crying about PSR is embarrassing.
Even if the Premier League scrap it, you still have to abide by UEFA FFP. That does not account for the sale of a women’s team to a holding company.
Debt is a normal part of a business. If another club is paying off the minimum amount annually to their investors/debtors, then why should PSR care how much debt there is?
A couple of clubs selling an asset to fund extra transfers, is a short term tactic and unsustainable. If they have a couple of under-performing seasons financially, they’ll be in serious trouble.
Haz(Quote)
Prem – amen to that mate
Sharpy17(Quote)
Appreciate PSR is a tedious topic, but this is a blog and we’ve got to debate the modern world of football when it is impacting us so much.
I wish the last week featured us signing players, but it’s featured Chelsea having seemingly endless financial power despite PSR, Villa selling their women’s team and Newcastle struggling to compete for early targets.
No signings to talk about as of yet, no games, plenty of frustrating and a lot of that is towards PSR; which is a huge topic now, sadly.
Olly Hawkins(Quote)
The other factor is shareholder loans of which Liverpool and Man Utd have benefitted most it appears .. basically Arsenal had a £ 400 million freebie bung along with the loopholes and psr .. it’s rotten to the core .. playing in Eufa competitions meant there will be a cap but it really won’t affect those with the biggest incomes as it’s all relative… we need to build a 70k stadium asap to generate more money to compete
Mike(Quote)
‘Cept you’re not debating you’re whinging.
Until the clubs want to change .. and they don’t.. they won’t.
We can only hope the club hierarchy are less whiny victims than the authors of articles such as this one
GR(Quote)