An air of desperation hung over a handful of Premier League clubs last summer.
Accounting years were drawing to a close across the top division of English soccer, and the pressure was on to book profits before it was too late. Player sales were a must if a breach of the league’s profitability and sustainability rules, or PSR, was to be avoided before June 30th.
Newcastle United’s business back then was a microcosm of the chaos. The team reluctantly agreed to sell Yankuba Minteh, their then-teenage winger, to Brighton & Hove Albion for £30 million (or €35 million at the time) before sanctioning the exit of Elliot Anderson, the home-grown forward, to Nottingham Forest for £35 million (€41m).
“We had no other option,” Newcastle’s manager, Eddie Howe, told reporters in October about those two departures. “We couldn’t breach PSR, couldn’t face a points deduction, and the only two deals we had on the table at that time were the two deals we did.”
Newcastle, who had spent £320 million (€379m) in the first 2½ years under their Saudi Arabian owners, did not want to sell either Minteh or Anderson. Nor did it want to pay Forest £23m (€27) for Odysseas Vlachodimos, a third-choice goalkeeper yet to feature for the team in the Premier League under Howe.
Anderson’s sale, though, was reliant on Forest, who had breached PSR last season and were close to the line again, getting something in return, so Newcastle had no other options.
Other clubs were at it, too, with Aston Villa, Everton, Chelsea and Leicester City all concocting their own mutually beneficial deals to chase compliance. Close to £200m (€236m) was collectively banked by those six clubs in June’s final weeks. Tuesday brought confirmation that the trading had been worth it.
A 14-day assessment period of 2023-24 accounts and PSR calculations had not raised red flags within the Premier League, and there was no cause for disciplinary action to be triggered.
A charge may still be coming for Leicester, who remain in a legal battle with the league over club losses incurred during the three-year accounting period ending in 2023-24. But this week’s quiet was a marked difference from last January when Everton and Forest were both charged. It seems that 2024, the year of the asterisk, has left its mark.
The three PSR charges heard last season – two for Everton and one for Forest – resulted in a combined 12 points being deducted, the kind of shock therapy that was difficult for other clubs to ignore.
It may never be known just how close Newcastle and others came to going beyond their spending threshold last season. Clubs’ 2023-24 accounts, which are due to be filed by the end of March, will give us clues, but the absence of transparency in the PSR process makes it difficult to offer fully informed analysis.
Clubs instead have to be judged by their actions, and those madcap days of late June revealed anxieties ultimately borne out of the penalties handed to Everton and Forest a few months earlier. That jolted the whole of the Premier League, heightening motivation to find quick profits in the transfer market once the season had concluded.
Howe admitted as much – Newcastle had no wish to sell Minteh or Anderson, and certainly not both. But as the manager, the front-facing figure in that organisation, admits, there was “no other option” but to accept £65m (€77m) in transfer fees for the duo if a PSR breach was to be avoided.
Were Chelsea as close to the edge? Their compliance owed as much to the sale of two hotels, which are part of the wider site at its Stamford Bridge stadium, to other companies owned by BlueCo, Chelsea’s parent company, as it did the late sale of defender Ian Maatsen to Aston Villa for £37.5m (€44m). Other clubs did not have the luxury of property deals enhancing the numbers.
PSR continues to have its vocal opponents, including Villa co-owner Nassef Sawiris, who told the Financial Times in June that the regulations were inhibitive and “not good for football”.
But last season served the warning that overspending would still carry a sporting cost. Everton and Forest became the bad boys nobody wanted to emulate. That was obvious with the sudden business done in June, and the wariness has been extended into this season.
Manchester United, traditionally one of English soccer’s strongest financial forces, have made it clear they have little scope to strengthen the squad for new coach Ruben Amorim after the club’s heavy recent losses.
Newcastle also remain bound by financial constraints with only about £60m (€71m) spent this season. Aston Villa’s net spend for the season, meanwhile, stood at about £26m (€31m) going into the current winter transfer window.
Those three clubs could have spent more but learned last season that punishments would subsequently then be unavoidable.
The Premier League is still grappling with the 115 charges of financial wrongdoing hanging over four-in-a-row title winners Manchester City, and Leicester’s case remains unresolved. But last season served notice that rules had to be followed. Points deductions would loom over any club not complying.
“The Premier League submits that the only proper sanction is a sporting sanction in the form of a deduction of points,” it argued in Everton’s first PSR hearing, which brought an initial 10-point penalty, later cut to six on appeal. That exact sentence was repeated when Forest faced an independent commission.
PSR has its inconsistencies and imperfections, and it might well lead to a more scrambled, incoherent transfer business before financial years are out at the end of every June. But the past 12 months – and no fresh charges this week – have made it clear to clubs that the penalty for transgressing the rules is to be taken seriously.
– This article originally appeared in the New York Times
2025 The New York Times Company
