How Premier League Financial Rules Shield the Big Six and Force Clubs Like Aston Villa and Newcastle into Selling Stars

As the transfer window closes until January, clubs outside the traditional top tier of English football are feeling the weight of new financial regulations. Aston Villa and Newcastle United, both recently breaking into the top four, have found themselves compelled to sell key players due to these rules.

Shared Frustration Among Ambitious Clubs

Last season’s opening match between Aston Villa and Newcastle saw fans from both sides chanting accusations of corruption against the Premier League. The root cause? The Profit & Sustainability Rules (PSR) that many believe limit their clubs' growth. Former Newcastle manager Eddie Howe openly expressed how the regulations forced the club to sell important players and restricted squad improvements. Similarly, Villa’s Unai Emery criticized the financial controls, arguing that while designed to prevent bankruptcies, they now stifle clubs aiming for higher achievements by restricting investments before revenues catch up.

Changes Ahead, But Doubts Remain

The Premier League recently introduced new financial measures ahead of the 2026-27 season, including the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) and Sustainability and Systemic Resilience (SSR). Yet, some observers fear these might deepen the gap between the elite and the chasing pack rather than close it.

The Origin and Effects of Profit & Sustainability Rules

The PSR came into effect in 2013 as England’s answer to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP), aiming to curb reckless spending that threatened club stability. Unlike UEFA’s stricter system, the Premier League allowed clubs a loss threshold of £105 million over three years, enabling even non-European qualifiers to compete financially.

Over time, however, the failure to adjust this limit for inflation made the rules tougher on newer, ambitious owners who cannot spend like the established Big Six — Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea, and Manchester City. For instance, despite the wealth backing Newcastle’s Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund takeover in 2021, the club still faced spending limits since their revenues lagged behind the giants.

Kieran Maguire, from The Price of Football podcast, noted that these rules have stopped clubs with fresh ownership from following the paths of previous heavy spenders like Roman Abramovich at Chelsea or Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City. This has fueled claims that there’s one set of rules for the Big Six and another for everyone else, a divide reinforced by recent transfer activity.

Key Player Departures Highlight the Divide

Despite ongoing investigations and fines involving top clubs like Manchester City and Chelsea, Newcastle and Aston Villa spent the summer rebuilding after losing crucial players. Newcastle sold stars such as Anthony Gordon and Bruno Guimaraes, while Villa parted ways with six starters from their Europa League-winning squad, including veterans Emiliano Martinez and Lucas Digne. Fans were particularly stunned when promising talent Morgan Rogers moved to Chelsea, a club not even competing in the Champions League this season, while Chelsea sent Alejandro Garnacho to Villa in exchange.

The frustration deepened seeing clubs like Tottenham, which narrowly avoided relegation twice recently, embark on lavish spending sprees.

The Financial Realities Behind the Scenes

Aston Villa and Newcastle have been among the biggest spenders globally in recent years, but much of their income has gone toward player wages—over 90% for Villa at one point. Their reputation as poor sellers didn’t help either. Neither club can stockpile players like Chelsea or Manchester City, who often profit from transfers gone wrong.

Players are notoriously hard to value consistently in the market. Maguire pointed out that while UEFA imposes strict rules to prevent profit manipulation through quick player swaps, the Premier League’s rules are looser, allowing some clubs to engineer deals that ease financial calculations.

Will New Financial Rules Change the Landscape?

The replacement of PSR by SCR and SSR focuses more on squad costs relative to football-related revenue, capping spending at 85%, compared to UEFA’s 70% threshold for European teams. Premier League CEO Richard Masters said this approach offers clubs more flexibility to invest in infrastructure, like renovations at Villa Park, and enforces finances on a yearly basis rather than over three years.

Both Newcastle and Villa supported the new system, but Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish warned that selling players to balance books might become even more common. Clubs like Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Leeds, known for their ambition, opposed SCR, which Parish sees as a warning sign.

Maintaining Balance Amid Disparity

Masters acknowledged that removing cost controls entirely would create chaos and widen financial gaps further. He highlighted Villa’s recent European success and Newcastle’s rebuilding under new management as examples of clubs striving within the existing framework. The Premier League, he insisted, remains competitive, with room for all to aspire.

Still, many fans disagree, pointing out that the club paying the highest wages has won six of the last nine titles. Some question the league’s fairness and credibility, though viewing figures and fan loyalty suggest interest remains strong. As Maguire observed, supporters often stick with their clubs regardless of controversies.

For now, the Premier League’s popularity shows little sign of waning despite ongoing debates about financial fairness. While some label the system "corrupt," most fans of the elite clubs seem content with how things stand and likely will continue watching closely in the years ahead.