Bored Leeds fan here who happened to be browsing.
Burnley’s entire case was not based on the points deduction. It was their main argument because it was the easiest to argue, but it was actually dismissed. Points deductions are not a direct equivalent to the sporting advantage gained.
Burnley’s secondary argument that won them the case was actually what you’re suggesting Leeds will attempt to do and is what they will use as a precedent. They quantified the sporting advantage gained by the overspend and the probability of Everton being relegated without it.
two sections from the case below - full text here which has the methodology which Burnley used if you’re interested https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/06/10/14b0acd1-3d6a-41e0-a862-fffce1d6c2cc/BURNLEY-v-EVERTON-Compensation-Decision-with-Attachments-Redacted-.pdf
Burnley submits that the simplest method of quantifying the sporting advantage
is to adopt as a proxy the 6 points deduction imposed by the Appeal Board in the
PSR complaint proceedings. That directly reflects the extent of the breach. A
deduction of 6 points at the end of the 2021/22 season would have had the effect
of securing Everton’s relegation in place of Burnley, who would have remained
in the Premier League. Causation would therefore be simply established. We
recognise the attraction of the simplicity of Burnley’s submission but cannot
accept it as being appropriate. The 6 points deduction was expressed to be a
sanction for Everton’s breach of the PSR. Financial fair play decisions repeatedly
recognise that determination of the appropriate sanction for a breach is not a
quantification of the sporting advantage conferred by that breach. For example
in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd (SR/196/2020) Lord Dyson
said at paragraph 103 –
A club which breaches the Upper Loss Threshold causes unfairness to other clubs competing
in the same competition who have stayed within the P&S Rules. In such circumstances a
sporting advantage is to be inferred and a sporting sanction is appropriate. A points deduction
is not designed to assess and reflect the sporting benefit from the breach, which is likely to be
impossible to quantify. Instead, it is to punish and to deter with the wider aim of upholding the
integrity of the competition and protecting the interests of the game.
In support of a submission advanced as an alternative to the 6 point proxy
argument Burnley instructed experts to conduct an analysis as to whether
Everton’s breach of the PSR resulted in a sporting advantage and, if so, the extent
of that advantage. The experts in question were Professor Rob Wilson, Director
of Executive Education at University Campus of Football Business, and William
Daniels of Daniels Associates, a statistician who has previously worked as both
Head Football Trader and Head American Football Trader at Spreadex, a leading
company in the Sports Spread Betting sector. Mr Daniels has also held executive
roles at both AFC Wimbledon and Forest Green Rovers. In response Everton
instructed Derek Holt of Alix Partners, an economist with 30 years’ experience as
an expert and economic advisor but with no direct experience of footballing
issues. Mr Holt was instructed to assess the impact of Everton’s breach of the
PSR and the likely impact had Everton reduced its spending by £19.5 million over
the PSR Period.
