‘Salary cap would be legally challenged by clubs’

A Premier League proposal to introduce a controversial salary cap will be legally challenged by some clubs, according to the head of the Professional Footballers’ Association, who warned it “cannot be imposed unilaterally”.

Top-flight clubs will meet next week and are set to vote on whether to replace the existing profit and sustainability rules (PSR) that limit financial losses.

An alternative top-to-bottom anchoring model (TBA) would restrict the amount a club can spend on player wages, agents and transfer fees to five times the income earned from broadcasting and prize money by the bottom club in the league.

If approved, a cap would be imposed on clubs’ spending, regardless of their own income.

He told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme: “We have a tendency in football to think that we’re above the law, but football is not above the law, and unfortunately the reality is you cannot artificially cap someone’s ability to make a living.

“The league knows themselves that even before the PFA does it, there will be clubs within their own room that would also legally challenge that measure, and the only ones who’ll end up winning are the lawyers.

“There are ways to agree on things around financial sustainability, but this cannot be imposed unilaterally.

TBA is being trialled by the Premier League, alongside a squad cost ratio (SCR) system of financial control that allows clubs to spend a percentage of their total revenues on squad-related costs.

On 21 November its clubs will vote on whether to adopt either or both models, and replace PSR that allow losses of £105m over a three-year reporting cycle.

In February clubs chose to continue with PSR, but it has been criticised by some for limiting their ability to invest.

Nine of the Premier League’s 20 clubs must comply with Uefa’s SCR rules as a result of qualifying for Europe, and some believe it makes sense to align the regulations.

In order to encourage financial sustainability, Uefa permits participants in its competitions to spend up to 70% of their revenues on their squads, while the Premier League has said it would allow 85%.

BBC Sport has been told that a number of clubs would vote for SCR to be implemented only if it was accompanied by anchoring, so that those with the largest revenues did not get too far ahead of the rest and competitive balance was protected.

Last year 16 clubs voted to conduct detailed analysis of TBA, with only Manchester United, Manchester City and Aston Villa voting against.

At the time United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe said anchoring would “inhibit the top clubs in the Premier League, and the last thing you want is for the top clubs in the Premier League not to be able to compete with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Paris St-Germain – that’s absurd”.

In the 2023-24 season 20th-placed Sheffield United earned about £110m. So last season no top-flight club would have been able to spend more than £550m on player wages, amortised transfer fees and agents combined if TBA had been in force.

Meanwhile, a European club generating revenues of £1bn, for example, would be able to spend £700m, while still adhering to Uefa’s SCR rules.

City spent £413m on wages alone last year, with total revenues of £715m. With amortised transfer fees and agents fees added to those outgoings, they could be one of a number of clubs close to a breach if TBA was in force.

Some clubs opposed to TBA are known to fear that it could threaten the Premier League’s long-term status, may put some clubs at threat of an immediate breach and could disincentivise growth.

BBC Sport has learned that, under the current proposals, any club breaching the rules for a second time would be sanctioned with a six-point deduction, plus a further point for every £6.5m of overspend.

Clubs opposed to the TBA system say the league’s competitive balance is sound as it is, and that some clubs are only in favour because it will mean less money is spent on player wages.

In February the PFA issued what the Premier League described as “legal demands” over concerns it had about the impact that anchoring could have on player contracts if introduced.

The league said the PFA had been given “multiple opportunities to provide feedback”.

In 2021 the PFA’s claim that a planned salary cap by the EFL for League One and League Two was “unlawful and unenforceable” was upheld by an independent arbitration panel.