The Premier League has been threatened with legal action by the Professional Footballers’ Association if it adopts new financial rules without union backing.
The letter, sent to the league and its 20 clubs and seen by the PA news agency, accuses the league of deliberately withholding information about the rules from the PFA and being in “flagrant breach” of guidelines obliging it to consult on matters which impact players’ pay and conditions.
The league has been warned if clubs vote through proposals to adopt squad cost rules (SCR) and top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA) at a meeting on February 13, the union’s lawyers “anticipate being instructed to commence legal proceedings against the PL on behalf of our client”.
Legal proceedings will also be commenced, the letter states, if the PFA does not receive a written undertaking from the Premier League by 4pm on February 11 of the league’s intention to fully consult.
The PFA says it has “fundamental concerns” about the SCR and TBA.
The SCR limits clubs to spending a maximum of 85 per cent of revenue on squad-related costs and is similar to existing rules brought in by UEFA, which from next season will have a 70 per cent revenue-to-spending limit on clubs involved in its competitions.
TBA would put a hard cap on how much any club can spend on such costs, set to be five times what the club earning the least from central Premier League funds receives. In the PFA’s view, TBA amounts to an indirect cap on player earnings.
Manchester United and Manchester City are also known to be opponents of TBA, which they fear will limit their ability to compete with other top European clubs.
The Premier League and the EFL are obliged to consult with the PFA on matters related to player pay and conditions within the forum of the Professional Game Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC) , and cannot proceed without PFA agreement in this forum.
The PFA’s lawyers Mills and Reeve allege in the letter to the league’s lawyers, Linklaters, that the Premier League missed a self-imposed deadline to provide an updated version of the SCR prior to Christmas. Instead, it is claimed the information was sent on January 9, which they say rendered a PFNCC meeting the day before effectively meaningless.
The PFA’s lawyers further allege that the union only received an 87-page SCR manual after an ad-hoc PFNCC meeting on January 20, even though the union’s understanding is that the manual was shared with clubs last July.
“This was the first time that our client had been made aware that the manual even existed,” the letter says.
“Once again, your client’s (we can only assume deliberate) withholding of relevant documentation pertaining to the (financial) proposals is clear evidence of its failure to comply with its duties under the PFNCC constitution.”
The league is accused of paying lip service to consultation by the PFA’s lawyers.
“The fact that your client confirmed by email to our client on January 22 2025 (less than 48 hours after the ad hoc PFNCC meeting on January 20 2025 in which our client raised its concerns) that it was ‘sending the SCR rules out to our clubs later today’ suggests that it has no intention of taking into account our client’s feedback on the proposals and is instead determined to push forward with the proposals on the terms the PL deems appropriate; effectively a fait accompli.”
The league’s actions, the union’s lawyers allege, demonstrate that listening to the union’s views and proper consultation “simply was not and is not a priority for the PL”.
The PFA, as first reported last year by the PA news agency, has also instructed Nick De Marco KC to act on its behalf in this matter.
De Marco led a successful challenge by the PFA against an EFL plan to introduce salary caps in 2020. An arbitration panel found the EFL had breached the PFNCC constitution by failing to properly consult over the changes.
As well as attacking the process followed by the Premier League, the letter from the PFA’s lawyers also argued the SCR were themselves “fundamentally flawed”.
“The effect of implementing the SCR will simply maintain the status quo,” the letter said.
In addition to the legal threat, clubs have also privately expressed to PA a growing nervousness around the impact of the SCR on their ability to invest.
A Premier League spokesperson said in response to the letter: “We strongly disagree with the PFA’s views regarding the proposed financial rules and the consultation process we are conducting with our Clubs and other stakeholders.
“We have complied with PFNCC requirements and the PFA has had multiple opportunities since March 2024 to provide feedback on the rules and the principles that underpin them.
“Furthermore, squad cost ratio proposals were voted for, in shadow, by clubs at the June AGM.
“The squad cost ratio proposals under discussion align closely with existing UEFA financial rules, which a number of our clubs are already subject to. The objectives of the proposals include maintaining the Premier League’s competitive balance and ensuring clubs operate in a financially sustainable way.
“While we always remain open to discussions and feedback, we are extremely disappointed that instead of engaging with the substance of the proposals, the PFA has chosen to issue legal demands.
“Clubs will continue to evaluate the proposals with a view to bringing them to a vote at the appropriate time.”
Sources close to the league insist there have been eight meetings with the PFA on this topic, separate to PFNCC meetings, and say the union has not provided substantive feedback on the issue.
The PFA declined to comment.
