Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Premier League clubs back plans to explore spending cap

Premier League clubs have backed the principle of a spending cap in the top flight (Mike Egerton/PA)
Premier League clubs have backed the principle of a spending cap in the top flight (Mike Egerton/PA)

A majority of Premier League clubs have given their backing to progressing with plans to examine a spending cap in the top flight.

The PA news agency understands clubs voted on Monday to progress to the final stages of a legal and economic analysis of anchoring – a principle which would potentially limit expenditure on things like player wages, plus agents’ fees and transfer amortisation costs, by capping them as a multiple of the central Premier League revenues going to the bottom club.

The intention of anchoring is to keep the league competitive by preventing the richest clubs dominating, with Manchester United and Manchester City understood to have voted against it.

Aston Villa are also reported to have voted against, with Chelsea reported to have abstained.

Anchoring faces some major obstacles before it can be fully adopted, not least the backing of the Professional Footballers’ Association which said on Monday it would “oppose any measure that would place a ‘hard’ cap on player wages”.

United oppose the concept of anchoring because they feel the measure unfairly penalises them for their success in generating large, self-sustaining revenues which they have built over decades of sporting achievement and commercial innovation.

The club are also understood to be concerned that measures to level out competition in the Premier League risk undermining the competitiveness of English clubs in relation to their European peers and weaken the Premier League as a global force.

Anchoring, if approved, would be one part of the new squad cost control measures which are set to replace the existing profitability and sustainability regulations (PSR) from the 2025-26 season.

Clubs unanimously voted in support of squad spending caps linked to revenue being a key principle within those new rules at a meeting on April 11.

Clubs playing in European competition from 2025-26 will need to limit squad-related costs – including spending on transfer and agents’ fees plus wages – to 70 per cent of revenue in order to abide by UEFA’s rules.

Manchester United are opposed to the principle of a spending cap in the top flight
Manchester United are opposed to the principle of a spending cap in the top flight (Martin Rickett/PA)

It is understood Premier League clubs are expected to be limited to 85 per cent of revenue, with points deductions still likely to be applied where breaches of the ratio are serious.

While the squad cost to revenue rules would effectively place spending limits on aspiring clubs who do not have the same earning power as more established clubs, anchoring – if approved – would create a ‘hard’ ceiling for the biggest and richest clubs which has no direct link to the revenue they earn.

Rules on anchoring are now set to be drafted, and could be voted on at the league’s annual general meeting in June. However, the PFA will need to be convinced that the measures do not place limits on what its members can earn.

A spokesperson for the PFA said on Monday: “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.”