The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) has threatened the Premier League with legal action if it tries to introduce a hard salary cap next season as part of a new financial fair play regime.
Prompted by concerns that the Premier League was going to vote on the proposals at its shareholders’ meeting next week, the players’ union made its threat in a letter sent to the league and its 20 clubs on Wednesday.
The clubs voted in principle last summer to bring in a so-called squad cost rule (SCR) that will limit clubs to spending no more than 85 per cent of their total income on wages for their senior players and coaches, amortised transfer spend and agents’ fees.
Already used by European football’s governing body UEFA, albeit with a lower limit of 70 per cent, the Premier League’s SCR regime is meant to replace the profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) it has used for the last decade, including this season.
While this idea should improve the clubs’ financial sustainability, the Premier League is keen to bring in another cost-control measure, which would work alongside SCR, to protect the league’s competitive balance.
Known as “anchoring”, this would set a hard cap on how much any team can spend on its squad, with the cap being a multiple of the central payment the league makes to the team that finishes 20th in the table.
As first reported by The Athletic last year, the league believes a multiple of five would be enough to stop the top clubs from monopolising all the best players without putting them at a disadvantage against their European rivals.
If the multiple was applied last season, the biggest spenders would have been allowed to spend about £550million — five times the £110m Sheffield United received in central payments. No club would have breached that limit but Chelsea and Manchester City would have been close.
The PFA, however, is strongly opposed to anchoring, as it would clearly apply a hard limit on how much clubs can spend on wages, regardless of their own ability to meet the costs. This is a view shared by several top sides, most notably Manchester City and Manchester United.
GO DEEPER
Why Manchester United voted against Premier League spending cap plans
But anchoring is popular with the league’s middle and lower classes, as they worry that a financial fair play regime based only on SCR would make it impossible to compete with sides that regularly feature in European competitions.
While the PFA is not opposed to the idea of SCR, a form of which already operates in both League One and Two, it believes the Premier League knows it cannot get the two-thirds majority it needs from clubs in a vote to bring it in without also introducing anchoring.
For the union, SCR and anchoring are linked, so it will try to block any move to bring them in. The decision to put this threat in writing was prompted by the league sending out briefing papers to its clubs two weeks ago. Under league rules, there must be a 21-day consultation period before any substantive vote.
Like SCR, anchoring was approved in principle by the clubs at last summer’s annual general meeting and is running “in shadow” this season. But no firm decisions have been made on bringing it in or at what multiple.
Chelsea and Man City would have been close to the salary cap limit if one had been in place (Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
Any rule changes that are likely to impact players’ contracts are meant to be agreed by a body called the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC), which comprises the PFA, Premier League, English Football League and League Managers’ Association.
The PFA claims the league has not properly explained why it wants to bring in anchoring or given sufficient details on how it will work. The league, however, strongly rejects this.
“We have complied with PFNCC requirements and the PFA has had multiple opportunities since March 2024 to provide feedback on the rules and the principles that underpin them,” a Premier League spokesperson told The Athletic.
“Furthermore, squad cost ratio proposals were voted for, in shadow, by clubs at the June AGM.
“The squad cost ratio proposals under discussion align closely with existing UEFA financial rules, which a number of our clubs are already subject to. The objectives of the proposals include maintaining the Premier League’s competitive balance and ensuring clubs operate in a financially sustainable way.
“While we always remain open to discussions and feedback, we are extremely disappointed that instead of engaging with the substance of the proposals, the PFA has chosen to issue legal demands.
“Clubs will continue to evaluate the proposals with a view to bringing them to a vote at the appropriate time.”
While the league did issue the papers in time for it to have a vote on these matters next, that does not necessarily mean a vote will take place. In fact, the league often chooses not to put proposals forward for votes, particularly if it is unsure of success.
The PFA declined to comment on its legal threat to the Premier League but it should be noted that it successfully blocked an EFL attempt to introduce hard salary caps in Leagues One and Two in 2021 on the grounds that the league had not gone through the proper PFNCC process.
GO DEEPER
Why a spending cap could signify a subtle but important power shift in the Premier League
(Top photo: George Wood/Getty Images)
