So an era of unprecedented Premier League changes could be about to move into new territory — from points deductions to spending constrictions.
The asterisks which dot this season’s table in relation to punishments for clubs who have breached the top flight’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) may soon be followed by question marks on balance sheets across the division.
GO DEEPER
Premier League clubs to vote on introducing new spending cap
Should a majority of its clubs vote through the proposed hard spending cap for the 2025-26 season, it would not only aid the competitive nature of what is the world’s strongest domestic league, but also enforce a subtle shift in the perceived power base of English football.
The cap idea is based on the concept of “anchoring”, designed to limit the amount of money any club can invest in their squad by tying it to a multiple of what the division’s lowest earners get from the league’s centralised broadcast and commercial deals.
Advertisement
It would go a step further than the UEFA-mirroring new squad-cost rules, which clubs are set to vote on in June, that permit squad spending to a ratio of revenue and player sales, a small but perhaps overdue concession to those who are worried about the league’s competitive balance.
Under the additional anchoring — or hard cap — plan, greater clarity and transparency would arrive, ensuring — so the theory goes − that everyone from Chelsea and Manchester City to Wolves and Crystal Palace are playing by precisely the same rules.
The multiple is the multiple. Obfuscation, workarounds, and overspends would no longer be backstage levers for the big boys to pull.
For years, the Premier League’s ‘haves’, super-rich City, Chelsea and, more recently, Newcastle, have seemingly had things their own way: the former pair as yet unsanctioned despite allegations potentially far more serious than those that have triggered punishments for Everton and Nottingham Forest, the latter able to take a seat at the petrostate top table and enjoy some (if not all) of the benefits City and Chelsea have had over the past two decades.
If those clubs squirm at the notion of a hard cap, then many supporters outside of their fanbases will have little sympathy.
Of course, it might require slightly reduced salaries for current or new players, but the bank balance pains for those stars could be worth it for the sustainability gains. Anyone familiar with Everton’s piteous predicament would argue that if one of the league’s handful of ever-presents can sink to their knees so badly, something needs to be done to prevent it happening to others.
Everton tried and failed to chase the established ‘Big Six’, with their owner Farhad Moshiri bankrolling a misguided spending spree that in the end has them close to rolling off a precipice.
The Merseyside club might not have been able to get into such a mess had anchoring been in place in 2016, when the British-Iranian businessman first took over.
But how has such wider ethical concern seemingly won out over self-interest? What has got anchoring to the point of genuine consideration, where it would seem like the big boys are not getting it all their own way?
The answer could be a subtle power shift, caused by new mutually-beneficial alliances. The Premier League’s broadcast revenue sharing has always been, by European football standards anyway, a relatively noble meritocratic arrangement.
Advertisement
It is less that sharing ratio which clubs such as Everton, West Ham and Palace are worried about — and more the consistent advantage clubs such as City, Chelsea and Manchester United have accrued from decades of participation in European football.
Not only do the ‘Big Six’ tend to pocket extra millions every season from qualifying for one of the three UEFA competitions, they also get to strike more lucrative commercial deals each year because of it. Newcastle and Aston Villa are doing their best to prise open the door to that clique, but the established gap already seems fairly structural.
A larger Champions League designed to ward off a European Super League and next summer’s first, much-expanded Club World Cup will only reinforce the gap between the Premier League’s long-standing haves and have-nots.
It took an interesting coming-together of not only the top flight’s minnows and its middle classes — such as Palace, West Ham and Fulham — but also some of that upper-class elite to get anchoring on the agenda so firmly.
A move towards a North American sport-style salary cap system might well have been endorsed by the likes of U.S.-owned Liverpool or Arsenal in the hope it could rein in a common foe.
If City, as widely predicted, overcome the spirited challenge of both those clubs to retain their Premier League title, meaning four in a row and six in seven years, their steely dominance over English football will be underlined.
Perhaps the hope from rivals is that the introduction of a hard spending cap will loosen Sheikh Mansour and City Football Group’s firm grip on Premier League success in the past decade, and start to level the playing field a bit.
For the Premier League, much maligned in some quarters with their application of PSR sanctions casting uncertainty on this season, it is another pushback against the need for external regulation. Anchoring is unlikely to have got this far without Richard Masters, the league’s chief executive, recognising it as another concession to ease his ongoing scrutiny.
Advertisement
All this may still not be enough to make it a reality, though.
Ultimately it is the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) who might have the decisive say. The players’ trade union will need to be demonstrably consulted, listened to and likely negotiated with for the proposal to actually come into force for the season after next.
Even then, if Premier League footballers revolt strongly at the potential for pay cuts, it could throw the whole deal into doubt. Nobody will want the potential for U.S.-style sporting strikes, such as the mid-1990s baseball walkout that saw two major-league seasons left incomplete.
There would be the potential for the PFA to ask for rises in the multiple (already up from an original four and a half to five) until the point that it makes little difference and becomes lip service.
Monday’s vote may be the first step in a small but important change for the Premier League but the players on the field who do the running could yet stop it in its tracks.
Until such point, anchoring will remain a tantalising notion for a potentially fairer top-flight game, and a rare moment when the petrodollar-boosted ‘haves’ were made to contemplate the fact that not everything will always go their way.
(Top photo: Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)
