The debate over financial rules in the Premier League reached a new level of intensity on Friday, as all twenty clubs gathered in London to vote on the future of PSR and the possible introduction of fresh regulations.
The meeting was always expected to be tense, and it certainly delivered, with three separate proposals on the table and the future of squad spending hanging in the balance. For months, the league has explored alternatives to the current Profit and Sustainability Rules, which many clubs feel no longer suit the modern financial landscape.
By the time the votes were completed, the picture became clearer, and the biggest talking point was the list of six clubs who stood against the most important change of all.
The first major vote involved the idea of “anchoring,” a rule designed to help limit spending by tying wage increases to revenue growth. While some believed anchoring would create healthier financial habits across the league, the concept was rejected almost instantly.
It received only seven votes in favour, twelve against, and one club chose to abstain. The scale of the defeat surprised many inside the room, marking it as one of the most one-sided votes ever seen at a Premier League shareholders’ meeting.
According to analysis afterwards, many clubs feared anchoring would have knock-on effects in the Championship, where it could reduce the influence of parachute payments and shrink the financial edge enjoyed by relegated teams. In the end, self-interest played a major role, and the proposal collapsed with little resistance.
The most important vote, the one the entire meeting revolved around, was the proposal to replace PSR with SCR, short for Squad Cost Ratio. Under SCR, a club’s spending on wages, transfers and agents would be limited to a fixed percentage of their football-related revenue.
It is designed to keep clubs from overstretching their finances, and it represents a major shift away from the existing system. Everyone knew this would be the tightest vote of the day, because if seven or more clubs voted against it, the rule would not pass and PSR would continue unchanged.
In the end, the final count landed at fourteen votes in favour and six against just enough to push SCR through. Shortly after the vote, The Athletic revealed the six Premier League clubs who opposed the change: Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds United.
Their opposition means they effectively voted to keep PSR, despite the fact that many other clubs believe the existing model is outdated and inconsistent. Analysts have suggested that several of these clubs simply did not want to be told how much they could lose financially, while others felt the new restrictions might limit their flexibility in future transfer windows.
Some also feared SCR would give a competitive advantage to bigger teams with higher revenues, widening the gap between the top and the rest.
The final vote of the afternoon centred on another proposed rule known as SSR, short for Sustainability and Systemic Resilience. Compared to the other two proposals, this one was more straightforward.
SSR requires clubs to prove they have enough available cash or credit to cover all financial obligations for the season. It was widely viewed as a basic financial safeguard, and all twenty clubs approved it without hesitation.
The unanimous vote was interpreted as a message to the UK government that the Premier League remains capable of regulating itself and does not require an independent regulator, an idea that has been gaining traction in political discussions.
This is not the first time Premier League clubs have been divided on financial reform. When PSR was first introduced in 2013, the vote passed by the narrowest margin possible.
Thirteen clubs voted in favour, six voted against, and one abstained. Interestingly, several of the clubs that opposed PSR back then including Fulham once again found themselves on the rejecting side in Friday’s vote. Others, such as Manchester City and Southampton, opposed the introduction of PSR in 2013 but supported replacing it with SCR in 2025. These shifts over time reflect how financial interests change based on ownership, league position and long-term strategy.
After the meeting concluded, analysts began breaking down what the results truly mean for the league. For many, it confirmed that financial debates in English football are rarely about what is best for the sport as a whole.
Instead, each club tends to vote based on what benefits them most in the moment. Smaller clubs often fear that new spending models will widen the gap between them and the giants. Meanwhile, bigger clubs worry that too many restrictions could hinder their ability to compete in Europe or attract elite talent.
The Premier League now moves forward with SCR and SSR set to shape the financial direction of the competition for years to come. But the divisions revealed on Friday show that the conversation is far from over.
Football’s financial landscape is changing quickly, and as revenues grow, ownership structures shift and transfer fees skyrocket, disagreements like these will only become more common. For now, though, the league has chosen its path, and the next chapter begins with more questions than answers.
