In November 2025, the Premier League reached a pivotal decision on its financial future. Clubs voted to replace the longstanding Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) — which capped losses at £105 million over three years — with a new framework effective from the 2026/27 season. This includes the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) system, limiting on-pitch spending (wages, amortised transfer fees, and agents’ fees) to 85% of a club’s football-related revenue plus net profit or loss from player sales. A related Sustainability and Systemic Resilience (SSR) measure passed unanimously to bolster long-term financial health.

However, a more radical proposal known as top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA) — often described as a de facto salary cap — was firmly rejected. This would have capped all clubs’ spending at roughly five times the central broadcast and prize revenue received by the bottom-placed team (estimated at around £550–600 million based on recent figures). The vote fell short: only seven clubs supported it, 12 opposed, and one abstained, well below the required 14-vote majority for rule changes.

Why a Hard Salary Cap Was Proposed

Advocates, primarily from mid- and lower-table clubs, pushed for anchoring to address widening financial disparities. The Premier League’s revenue model rewards success through larger broadcast shares, sponsorships, and global appeal, allowing elite teams to generate far more income than others. This creates an “arms race” where promoted or smaller clubs struggle to compete without heavy owner investment or risk financial ruin.

A hard cap tethered to the weakest club’s earnings could:

• Enhance competitive balance, making title races and European qualification less predictable.
• Promote sustainability by preventing excessive spending that has led to points deductions (e.g., Everton and Nottingham Forest under PSR) or even insolvency risks seen in the EFL.
• Foster fairness, giving more clubs a realistic shot at success without relying solely on billionaire backing.

The model draws parallels to North American leagues like the NFL, where salary caps (tied to shared revenue) promote parity and profitability across teams.

The Case Against a Strict Salary Cap

Opposition came from bigger clubs (including Manchester City and Manchester United), the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), and player agents, who threatened legal action. Key concerns include:

• Punishing success: In a promotion/relegation system, clubs should benefit from growth driven by on-field performance and commercial savvy. A uniform cap ignores individual revenue differences and could discourage investment.
• European competitiveness: Premier League sides face rivals in leagues without equivalent hard caps (e.g., La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A). Restricting spending might weaken English clubs in UEFA competitions, where UEFA’s own squad cost rules are at 70% but not league-wide anchored.
• Legal and market risks: Critics argued it could breach competition law by restricting players’ earning potential and free-market dynamics. Agents’ fees would also decline significantly.
• Limited practical impact: Even at £600 million, the proposed ceiling exceeds what most clubs spend today, affecting only a handful of top teams in the short term.

Football’s open ecosystem — unlike the closed, revenue-sharing NFL — makes a rigid cap a poor fit, potentially driving talent abroad or sparking disputes.

A Balanced Alternative: The Adopted SCR System

The approved SCR offers a more tailored approach. By tying limits to each club’s own revenue (85% standard, with a 30% “luxury” allowance up to 115% before harsher penalties), it curbs excesses while preserving incentives for growth. Monitoring occurs annually rather than over three years, potentially reducing the dramatic points deductions seen under PSR. Clubs in European competitions must align with UEFA’s stricter 70% threshold.

This revenue-linked model promotes sustainability without imposing a one-size-fits-all ceiling, closing loopholes (e.g., non-football asset sales) and encouraging responsible financial management.

The Premier League’s rejection of a strict salary cap was the right call. While competitive balance remains a valid concern, a hard cap risks stifling ambition, inviting legal challenges, and harming the league’s global standing. The SCR system represents a pragmatic evolution: it reins in spending relative to means, protects the competition’s integrity, and maintains the merit-based dynamism that defines English football.

If disparities continue to widen dramatically, future adjustments — such as tweaking percentages, introducing luxury taxes, or softer league-wide measures — could be explored. For now, the current direction supports a sustainable, exciting, and competitive Premier League without the blunt instrument of a true salary cap.

About The Author

LAJONG11

See author's posts