- The ineptitude of the FA in running football is overwhelming
- It is more than likely that Arsenal’s new players are taking a while to adjust to the ways of English officials
By Tony Attwood
There is talk that Amanda Staveley, the former Newcastle director who was at the centre of the deal which allowed the Saudi Arabian to take over the club, has apparently now become quite an influential person at Tottenham Hotspur. The club, which has only managed to finish as high as fourth (or above) once in the last six years, is now in the news because Daniel Levy has been removed as chairman of the club.
Which itself is interesting given the way that Tottenham seems to portray itself as one of the big time players in the league, no matter what its actual league position (6th, 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th and 17th in the last six campaigns).
Of course, Tottenham are aided very much by their fans, who will show up for matches no matter how poorly the club is doing in the league, so the board really don’t have to worry too much about match-day income. But with Levy now gone and Stavely on the upward path, it is possible that Tottenham could become another Newcastle (11th, 4th, 7th and 5th since their takeover).
So why is it that Newcsatle and indeed Aston Villa (17th, 11th, 14th, 7th, 4th and 6th in recent years) who have vast amounts of inward investment can’t sort themselves out.
In fact, if you read anything about these wannabe clubs and you will sooner or later (usually sooner) come across complaints about the Profit and Sustainability Rules which other clubs manage to obey. Indeed, Ezri Konsa of Aston Villa announced recently that the spending regulations had “killed” Aston Villa. Newcastle have made similar complaints.
And yet it seems odd that clubs like Arsenal can get their FFP arrangements right, and those like Villa and Newcastle constantly call foul. After all, the rules are the same for all clubs, everyone knows them, and they seem straightforward. Clubs can lose a maximum of £105m over a rolling three-year period, with £90m needing owner funding. Losses in areas like youth development, women’s football, and infrastructure are exempt from the calculation.
Chelsea, as we know, found a way of fiddling the books by selling their women’s team to another club that they already owned, and putting that income as profit. Uefa fell for that..
But although the media have got very exercised about FFP generally, and by and large didn’t worry about the Chelsea case, it is the lesser-reported Squad Cost Ratio which is causing the problems. For 2025/26 season, Squad Cost Ratio caps football-related spending, including salaries, at a percentage of revenue. Uefa has a limit of 70% of income to be spent on wages, amortised transfer spending (ie the amount spent each year when a transfer fee is agreed to be spread over, say, four seasons, rather than paid at the moment of signing), and agents’ fees for the coming season.
So to take Aston Villa as an example, they were expecting to sell Emiliano Martínez and so balance the FFP calculations, but his reputation as a troublemaker preceded him and the three clubs that were talked up by the media as potential buyers all said “no not us”. So with Villa failing to offload the keeper, Villa have FFP problems. As indeed do Newcastle which is probably why they didn’t buy Ramsey from Villa for £39m.
This is also where players coming up from the youth team help enormously. For they cost nothing in transfer fees, they are home grown, it takes them a while to go up the salary ladder, and as and when finally sold on, the entire income from the sale counts as profit and so 100% helps balance the FFP books.
Insanely, Aston Villa’s wages-to-revenue ratio was 96% for 2023/24 (according to figures from Deloitte), and so Uefa fined Villa for the breach of the rules. They were also warned that if they didn’t sort themselves out by the end of August they would have restrictions placed upon them.
What is so weird in all this is that everyone plays by the same rules and everyone knows the rules, and yet clubs go around buying players either in the belief that the rules don’t apply to them or because they believe that they are going to sell various players before the window closes. And yes of course, sometimes they do, but such things are never guaranteed, as clubs like Villa and I think Newcastle are finding.
And indeed no one really wants to get stuck within the rules until the Manchester City case is over It is almost a year now since the hearing into the 115 breaches of the rules by ManC betgan, and we still don’t have a decision. And that is making a lot of football people wonder exactly where football is going. If City get off the charges or the resultant fine is tiny, other clubs will use the same approach. If City are kicked out of the league, no one will try it again.
I agree with most of this article which is well written however little digs at Chelsea, Tottenham and Newcastle relating to PSR is futile. Nobody ever remembers who finished second so finishing in a champions league position and winning a trophy and aspiring to win the league is probably on most other teams agenda. Catching up on revenue will take time for Newcastle and Villa but it will happen. I think Arsenal should concentrate on winning something they can win like an FA cup, League cup because for now unfortunately Arsenal look like finishing second again and missing out on Champions league.
The problem with PSR is that clubs in the so called “Big 6” were allowed to have money invested from owners etc before this all came to be, with Chelsea and Man City being the most obvious, we then have commercial growth as near as 26 years ago NEWCASTLE UNITED were the 5 richest club in the world, but for them unfortunately they were bought by an owner who was using them as a vehicle to advertise other businesses, this at a time when commercial revenue was growing at a huge rate Newcastle United stagnated, we then had FFP rules brought in, it never applied to them as the owner didn’t care, but when they were bought buy owners who were prepared to invest this has been blocked, to add to this a new rule was brought in 10 days after the take over stopping over investment from sponsorship where it’s decided by the premier league what is a fair market value, in the case again of Newcastle United , the shirt SELA has been agreed at £35 mil per season, this was dropped down to £25 mil, this means that it’s nearly impossible for a club to progress as the cannot match the wages of the top clubs and it’s a vicious circle, need better players to qualify for Europe or win trophy’s, don’t have the money to pay the wages, so can’t qualify for Europe or win trophy’s so don’t get more revenue, it then makes it difficult to keep your top players as they are either tapped up, or want to leave to win trophy’s, then you have to sell too young players you’ve brought through just to get under the restrictions of face points docked.
PSR is not as cut and dry as you’re trying to portray it is in fact restriction of trade, clubs like VILLA, FOREST, NEWCASTLE UNITED, have done incredible when you take into account the restrictions that are in place.
Your forgetting about the premier league allowing Manchester united off with an overspend of about £40m during covid, every other premier league team were only allowed a £1m waiver for unexpected costs due to covid ( Man Utd were given a special dispensation of £40m to keep them within the PSR rules to stop them getting a points deduction .
PSR is not fit for purpose , there have been more clubs ( non premier league) gone into administration since it was introduced and all it has done is restricted ambitious clubs from spending , instead of the psr nonsense, why cant their be an escrow where all the clubs costs for a rolling 5 year period ( or any lengthnof time ) be placed by the club which cannot be touched, this would allow any club to spend what it could afford without risk of administration or a burdon on the incomming buyers if the club is sold?
Morpeth, I would point out that I am not trying to defend the rules as being right, fair, balanced or indeed legal. In this article all I am saying is that certain clubs got themsevles in a tangle through their own behaviour. I would argue that there are quite often laws that affect everyday life in the UK, but even if I dislike them, I have to abide by them. My point really is that some clubs simply didn’t find a way to abide by the rules, be they fair or not.