Major Premier League ruling stuns Aston Villa, Man Utd and Man City

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
The major Premier League spending cap vote took place on Monday.

Premier League clubs have reportedly reached an agreement in principle to introduce a new spending cap, anchoring to the television earnings of each season’s bottom club.

The Times claims a majority - at least 14 out of 20 - concurred in launching what has been referred to as “tethering” for the transfer market and salaries. The news comes after reports that representatives from all 20 clubs would meet in London on Monday.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The vote being passed means teams are set to be restricted in their business, though nothing will come into effect until after the Premier League’s annual general meeting in June. The idea is to prevent the English top tier from being dominated by one or two mega-rich clubs.

The level of the spending cap has not yet been fully decided but it’s expected to be five times the television revenue of the 20th-placed team. Based on last season’s total of £103.6 million earned by Southampton, that would result in a cap of £518 million.

Considering transfers, wages, agent fees and multi-year instalments, champions Manchester City’s recent accounts display a total spend of £624 million.

Aston Villa, perhaps surprisingly, took a strong stance against the proposal. Man City and Manchester United agreed with Villa, while Chelsea abstained from the vote.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The response from the Professional Footballers’ Assocation, also via The Times, reads: “We’ll wait to see details of proposals but we would oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages.

“There is an established process in place to ensure proposals like this, which would directly impact our members, have to be properly consulted on.”

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.