Chelsea’s cheating – was a fine too lenient?

On page six of its ‘sanction agreement‘ on Chelsea’s catalogue of secret payments between 2011 and 2018, the Premier League lays out what factors it considered when deciding on a punishment for the years of rule-breaking over transfers.

The need “to punish the club and to vindicate those clubs who have complied with the relevant rules” is referenced. Along with “the importance of deterring breaches” and “the need to preserve public confidence in the fairness of the competition.”

But has that been achieved?

The Premier League handed Chelsea a record £10m fine. A one-year transfer ban was suspended. But by avoiding a sporting sanction such as a points deduction, has the league failed to properly punish one of English football’s most serious cheating scandals?

After all, the Premier League accepts that this case involved “not only obvious and deliberate breaches of the rules but… deception and concealment in relation to financial matters”. And that it “occurred with the knowledge and approval of certain senior former officers and/or directors”.

Crucially, the wrongdoing had a material sporting impact, not only on Chelsea but also some of their rivals.

The 36 payments totalling more than £47m over eight years involved the signings of some of the most influential players in the club’s modern history.

Players such as Eden Hazard, Samuel Eto’o, Willian and David Luiz. Stars who helped Chelsea to become one of world football’s most successful clubs during that period, when eight major trophies were won.

The signings named in the report:

The Premier League says it applied leniency on the grounds that Chelsea’s new Clearlake ownership self-reported rule-breaches committed under a previous era, and that the current hierarchy displayed “exceptional” levels of co-operation. It has also made clear that the secret payments did not mean profit and sustainability rules limiting losses would have been broken.

“It is worth remembering that… this sanction is because of activities that happened under the previous Chelsea regime,” Richard Monks, the chief executive of the Independent Football Regulator, told the BBC on Tuesday.

“It’s not the current owners or executive group. What we’ll be doing is working with the Premier League to understand if there’s anybody involved in that case still involved in football, and if necessary we can investigate if we thought they were unsuitable to continue to be in football.”

For those former Chelsea executives who have since left the game, that will be of little concern. And some rivals undoubtedly feel that for a club with a squad worth £1.5bn – the most expensively assembled in football history – a £10m fine is insufficient.

And while the current ownership was in no way to blame for the wrongdoing, they have arguably benefited from the considerable success achieved during the Abramovich era, which has only increased the value of their asset.

“Galling” is how one former senior Manchester United executive – who was at Old Trafford during that period – described the Chelsea situation to BBC Sport. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they claimed that “United lost out on players, Hazard most prominently [in 2012], due to their actions.”

Honours in the period covered by the report:

Premier League winners: 2014-15 and 2016-17

FA Cup winners: 2011-12, 2017-18

League Cup winners: 2014-15

Champions League winners: 2011-12

Chelsea were handed a nine-month academy transfer ban and a £750,000 fine over the registration of academy players between 2019 and 2022.

But compare this case with Everton and Nottingham Forest in 2024, when both clubs received points deductions for PSR breaches that appear much less serious.

And what does it say about the effectiveness of the Premier League’s financial monitoring that it admits that without Chelsea’s voluntary disclosures, a number of the rule breaches may never have come to its attention?

So what relevance, if any, does all this have on the league’s other major disciplinary case?

Fifteen months after the end of an independent commission hearing into more than 100 alleged breaches of financial rules by Manchester City, the club is still waiting to discover its fate.

Unlike Chelsea, City deny wrongdoing and are contesting the case. And unlike at Stamford Bridge, there has been no change of ownership at the Etihad to provide mitigation.

But City fans will surely be encouraged that the Premier League board did not appear to even consider a points deduction in the case of Chelsea, despite the “deception and concealment”. Indeed, it referred to a two-window transfer ban as an “appropriate” punishment, had the club not self-reported and co-operated.

In July 2023, Uefa fined the club £8m over the same case. And the FA is expected to take similar action when it announces the conclusion of its disciplinary process into the affair in the coming weeks.

But there are clear signs that Chelsea feared it could have been worse. In 2024, it was revealed that owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali held back £150m of their purchase price for the club to cover potential fines relating to the Abramovich era. So far this episode has cost the club about £18m.

Some of their rivals may feel that the cost to them may have been greater, in the form of trophies and prize money they could potentially have won. And also to the integrity and credibility of a competition that relies on everyone following the rules.

There is one other significant subplot that is emerging. Chelsea’s punishment relates to rule breaches in the 2010s. The Manchester City case also covers this period. Between them the two clubs won six Premier Leagues in that decade.

What do these cases say about the football – and the titles won – in that era?