Spending cap a step closer after Premier League agreement but Chelsea abstain as Manchester clubs vote against | OneFootball

Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to the introduction of a spending cap.

The majority of clubs voted in favour of introducing a spending cap, with Manchester City, Manchester United and Aston Villa reported to have voted against the motion, and Chelsea abstaining from Monday’s vote. The approval of 14 clubs was required for the motion to pass.

The spending cap would be ‘anchored’ to the amount of money the lowest-placed Premier League club earned from television rights over the course of the previous season.

It would replace Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR) as the new method of regulating clubs’ spending from the 2025-26 season onwards, if voted for at the league’s AGM in June.

In response to clubs’ agreement to a spending cap, the Professional Footballers' Association said: “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.”

Clubs competing in Europe will also be subject to a limit of spending 80 per cent of their turnover on transfer fees, salaries and agent fees as part of UEFA’s new cost control rules from next season, dropping to 70 per cent in 2025.

The vote on a salary cap comes after criticism from some quarters that PSR, previously known as FFP (Financial Fair Play), favours the highest-earning clubs.

It emerged last week that Manchester United were opposed to the spending cap and intended to vote against the proposal on Monday.

In October, Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish revealed that he felt financial competitiveness within the English top-flight needed to be addressed.

“As far as competitive balance [is concerned], people need to be bold,” he said. “I think there is change afoot.

“UEFA’s squad-cost caps are one idea. Maybe something that is a bit more rigid than that, with a hard cap at the top, that doesn’t take turnover into account, where there are vagaries of how that turnover comes about.”