Premier League clubs have voted in favour of a proposal that would impose restrictions on spending on transfers, wages and agent fees.
The proposal, which would limit spending for top clubs to an as yet unconfirmed multiple of the amount that the bottom side receives in television money, achieved more than the necessary majority of 14 votes. At the Premier League shareholders’ meeting on Monday, it got the support of 16 of the 20 teams, with Manchester City, Manchester United and Aston Villa those reported to have voted against it. Chelsea opted to abstain.
The idea is that stopping clubs from spending so freely and will create a more competitive Premier League, rather than one that is dominated by only one or two extremely wealthy clubs.
The ‘anchoring’ principle would put a ceiling on spending, with the Premier League already set to replace Profit & Sustainability rules in 2025 with a new squad cost control regulation that limits a club’s spending on transfers, wages and agents fee to 85% of their total revenue. Backing for the spending cap came from those fearful of the advantages that the highest-earning clubs could have over others, as well as concerns about potential spending power from state-backed clubs.
A spokesperson said in a statement: “We will obviously wait to see further details of these specific proposals, but we have always been clear that we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages. There is an established process in place to ensure that proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, must be properly consulted on.”
In 2022/23, bottom club Southampton earned £104m from TV money, while Manchester City spent £619.5m, just under six times as much. Under the new proposal, clubs wouldn’t be asked to reduce outlay from current levels, so spending limited to six times the TV earnings of the bottom club could work.
The exact details of the spending cap will be the subject of discussions at the next Premier League AGM in June. Those talks and another vote on the final proposal will be crucial to what the future of the competition and its financial landscape will look like.
