Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[moore_94]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/32461/13474908/leicester
 

Leicester will face three separate charges this time: breaching the PSR limit in season 2023-24 when the club was last in the Championship; failing to file their annual accounts with the Premier League before the December 31 deadline; breaching an explicit rule in the League's handbook which gives all clubs an "obligation to provide full, complete and prompt assistance to the Premier League."

 

Independent commentators have told Sky Sports News Leicester's defence is likely to focus on the principle that the second two charges hold no weight: having won their case in the courts to say the Premier League was acting beyond its jurisdiction, they feel they were equally under no obligation to provide their accounts by the allotted time.

 

As such, they may be able to argue there is no validity in the suggestion that they were failing to co-operate with the football authorities.

 

However, there is added complication here because following Leicester's successful appeal, the Premier League took the case to arbitration, and in May 2025 that panel found in the League's favour: "Jurisdiction to investigate the alleged breach… is, therefore, established."

 

It was this decision by the arbitration panel that led the Premier League to bring the three new charges that Leicester are now facing.

 

It is difficult to predict what punishment Leicester might receive if the independent commission goes against them, especially because the exact size of Leicester's breach of PSR rules has never been made public. However, a nine-point penalty is a distinct possibility - three points for each of the three charges.

 

Breaching the PSR limit by more than £20m carries an automatic three-point penalty under the rules, with three further points being deducted if the Premier League wins each of its other arguments - that Leicester failed to submit their accounts on time, and that they didn't co-operate fully with the League.

 

If the Championship club were to be given such a hefty penalty, Sky Sports News has been told it is expected they will appeal.

 

There has been no comment from Leicester, the EFL or the Premier League on the matter, with each observing their obligation of confidentially while the disciplinary process plays out.

[TheGoldenGod]

It's incredible really that an outlet as big as Sky haven't got a clue so just peddle out nonsense. Something like this should be cut and dry but when the rulebook can have a bus driven right through it with how vague and leaky it is...the whole thing becomes a farce. Really there should be zero reporting on it until the decision has been made, endless conjecture!

[Nolucklcfc]

Think it’ll be 9 appealed to 6. 

[AKCJ]

15 minutes ago, TheGoldenGod said:

It's incredible really that an outlet as big as Sky haven't got a clue so just peddle out nonsense. Something like this should be cut and dry but when the rulebook can have a bus driven right through it with how vague and leaky it is...the whole thing becomes a farce. Really there should be zero reporting on it until the decision has been made, endless conjecture!

It is about time the EFL and the Premier League got serious about spending laws and ensured the rules are black and white to stop poxy clubs like us from trying their hardest to break them and get away with it.

 

We should be punished for our overspending in the last few years. 
 

Here’s hoping we get a 6-9 points deduction and we can just accept it and move on.

[grth2004]

8 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It is about time the EFL and the Premier League got serious about spending laws and ensured the rules are black and white to stop poxy clubs like us from trying their hardest to break them and get away with it.

 

We should be punished for our overspending in the last few years. 
 

Here’s hoping we get a 6-9 points deduction and we can just accept it and move on.

Move on until we breach it again I wouldn’t be surprised. I always thought it would be 9 Points and then another year of this rubbish because we are run so badly. 

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It is about time the EFL and the Premier League got serious about spending laws and ensured the rules are black and white to stop poxy clubs like us from trying their hardest to break them and get away with it.

 

We should be punished for our overspending in the last few years. 
 

Here’s hoping we get a 6-9 points deduction and we can just accept it and move on.

They won't do though as the PL are going ahead with changes that will be even more misaligned with the EFL.

[An Away Move]

Am I right in thinking that Man City kept us out of the Champions League places the two years we came 5th. So if they are ever found guilty of financial doping resulting in on field success then we would never have been in this situation?!

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, Nolucklcfc said:

Think it’ll be 9 appealed to 6. 

Probably 6 points appealed to 9, remember how we are run.

[jonthefox]

When do we find out?

[AjcW]

12 minutes ago, An Away Move said:

Am I right in thinking that Man City kept us out of the Champions League places the two years we came 5th. So if they are ever found guilty of financial doping resulting in on field success then we would never have been in this situation?!

We kept ourselves out of the champions league places two years running…

[HedgeEnd]

10 minutes ago, An Away Move said:

Am I right in thinking that Man City kept us out of the Champions League places the two years we came 5th. So if they are ever found guilty of financial doping resulting in on field success then we would never have been in this situation?!

All based on assumption. There could be a claim of loss of revenue but whether it would have stopped us from going the way we did. I’m not so sure. 

[HedgeEnd]

6 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

When do we find out?

It was mentioned recently that it’ll be early next year but that’s regarding any punishment. 

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, moore_94 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/32461/13474908/leicester
 

Leicester will face three separate charges this time: breaching the PSR limit in season 2023-24 when the club was last in the Championship; failing to file their annual accounts with the Premier League before the December 31 deadline; breaching an explicit rule in the League's handbook which gives all clubs an "obligation to provide full, complete and prompt assistance to the Premier League."

 

Independent commentators have told Sky Sports News Leicester's defence is likely to focus on the principle that the second two charges hold no weight: having won their case in the courts to say the Premier League was acting beyond its jurisdiction, they feel they were equally under no obligation to provide their accounts by the allotted time.

 

As such, they may be able to argue there is no validity in the suggestion that they were failing to co-operate with the football authorities.

 

However, there is added complication here because following Leicester's successful appeal, the Premier League took the case to arbitration, and in May 2025 that panel found in the League's favour: "Jurisdiction to investigate the alleged breach… is, therefore, established."

 

It was this decision by the arbitration panel that led the Premier League to bring the three new charges that Leicester are now facing.

 

It is difficult to predict what punishment Leicester might receive if the independent commission goes against them, especially because the exact size of Leicester's breach of PSR rules has never been made public. However, a nine-point penalty is a distinct possibility - three points for each of the three charges.

 

Breaching the PSR limit by more than £20m carries an automatic three-point penalty under the rules, with three further points being deducted if the Premier League wins each of its other arguments - that Leicester failed to submit their accounts on time, and that they didn't co-operate fully with the League.

 

If the Championship club were to be given such a hefty penalty, Sky Sports News has been told it is expected they will appeal.

 

There has been no comment from Leicester, the EFL or the Premier League on the matter, with each observing their obligation of confidentially while the disciplinary process plays out.

We've gone so far above and beyond cooperation with the Premier League and EFL that we've literally helped both leagues understand their own rules by proving repeatedly that we haven't broken any of them. 

 

We should be getting a points REWARD for cooperation.

[urban.spaceman]

24 minutes ago, An Away Move said:

Am I right in thinking that Man City kept us out of the Champions League places the two years we came 5th. So if they are ever found guilty of financial doping resulting in on field success then we would never have been in this situation?!

IF the Premier League find Man City guilty we would have a serious case of denial of rightful earnings from 2 years of playing in the Champions League. We'd be entitled to hundreds of millions in compensation. 

[UniFox21]

The cooperation charge is laughable. Had we co-operated initially we'd have been charged for something the independent committee ruled against

[Philkeavo]

The Telegraph wrote at the weekend a comprehensive piece about the new financial rules.

 

The Premier League has voted through a new financial rule called the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR), which limits each club’s spending on transfers, wages and agent fees to 85% of their annual revenue. However, a crucial accompanying measure — the anchoring principle, which would have capped the maximum spending of the richest clubs to prevent them racing away financially — was voted down.

Why this matters
    •   Without anchoring, the wealthiest clubs (boosted by Champions League and Club World Cup income) can spend far more than smaller clubs while still staying within the 85% ratio.
    •    This will widen the gap between top clubs and the rest.
    •    Premier League politics led to only half the intended package being approved.

How the vote unfolded
    •    Originally the rules were meant to be voted on as a package.
    •    The vote was instead split into three parts.
    •    Clubs were reportedly told that if anchoring passed, SCR wouldn’t be voted on — changing the dynamics dramatically.
    •    Ultimately, anchoring was defeated 12–7 (with one abstention), but SCR passed.

Who opposed SCR

Six clubs voted against SCR — all known for good financial management:
    •    Brentford
    •    Brighton
    •    Crystal Palace
    •    Bournemouth
    •    Fulham
    •    Leeds United

These clubs:
    •    Have never broken financial rules.
    •    Have lower revenues and rely on smart strategy rather than huge spending.
    •    Fear the new rules will make it harder to compete.

Main concerns raised
    •    Under SCR, lower-revenue clubs will struggle because:
    •    A rich club’s 85% is massively higher than a smaller club’s 85%.
    •    If a club overspends, it pays a “luxury tax” — money that may end up helping bigger rivals, which seems perverse.
    •    The rules align with UEFA’s stricter SCR model, but top clubs already benefit from much larger UEFA payouts.
    •    Middle-tier clubs (e.g., Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest) will be under pressure to qualify for European competitions just to remain compliant.

Bigger implications
    •    Anchoring’s defeat means:
    •    Elite clubs can continue expanding the financial gulf.
    •    Competitive balance is threatened — the very thing that makes the Premier League compelling.
    •    Broadcasters may eventually value the league less if predictability increases.
    •    Smaller, innovative clubs like Brighton, Brentford and Palace may still find ways to adapt — but the system is now heavily stacked against them.

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

https://talk2soccer.com/breaking-news-gary-lineker-slams-efl-over-leicester-city-point-deduction/?fbclid=IwY2xjawORTVRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeGSGOKJ-KzmSH3TPKAsvapbsZHM1pJXJuaUkJI_AsFZ8b61tdGbee3AJDwZw_aem_OfIL82GdY-YZMBz8cIXxdw

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: Gary Lineker Slams EFL Over Leicester City Point Deduction

2 days ago

Add Comment

by talk2soccer

Former England striker Gary Lineker, 64, has sparked a storm of controversy in the football world after openly criticizing the English Football League (EFL) for their treatment of Leicester City. The football legend has revealed exactly why, in his view, the League has no right to deduct points from the club, reigniting debates about fairness, transparency, and governance in English football.

 

Lineker’s Criticism: “The EFL Has Overstepped Its Boundaries”

Speaking on social media, Lineker made his stance clear: the EFL’s decision to impose point deductions on Leicester City is unjustified and procedurally flawed. According to him, the League’s approach sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively impact not only Leicester but other clubs in the future.

 

“Clubs, fans, and players should never bear the consequences of administrative mishandling,” Lineker stated. “Point deductions should only come after a fully transparent process, and I don’t believe the EFL has met that standard in this case.”

 

He further questioned whether the League even has the legal authority to implement such sanctions in this instance, highlighting concerns over fairness and accountability.

 

 

The Context: Leicester City’s Off-Field Struggles

Leicester City, one of England’s most beloved clubs, has faced a turbulent period off the pitch. From financial scrutiny to administrative complications, the club has been under intense media and regulatory attention. The EFL’s decision to deduct points was reportedly related to alleged breaches in league regulations, though specifics remain hotly debated.

 

For the club’s supporters, the deduction represents more than just numbers on a table—it’s a blow to the team’s morale and a disruption to months of hard work by players and coaching staff. Lineker emphasized that such decisions affect everyone involved, not just the club executives.

 

Fan Reactions: Social Media Erupts

The backlash to the EFL’s decision has been swift, with fans and pundits echoing Lineker’s criticism across social media platforms. Many argue that the League is being overly punitive, while others have raised concerns about consistency in enforcement, asking why similar cases in the past were handled differently.

“Leicester deserves fair treatment,” one fan tweeted. “Point deductions should be about the rules, not punishment for administrative mistakes.”

Lineker’s intervention has amplified the debate, bringing the issue into the national spotlight and prompting discussions about how disciplinary measures should be applied in professional football.

What This Means for the EFL and Clubs

Lineker’s comments are not just a critique—they serve as a wake-up call for the EFL and other governing bodies in English football. Transparency, fairness, and consistent enforcement of rules are essential to maintain the integrity of the sport.

If the League continues down this path without addressing these concerns, it risks alienating clubs and fans alike. For Leicester City, the controversy could potentially impact their position in the Championship and even affect player morale during the season.

The Bigger Picture: Governance in English Football

This incident also raises broader questions about governance in English football. Who truly holds authority in disciplinary matters? How are decisions communicated to clubs and fans? And perhaps most importantly, how can fairness be ensured across all levels of competition?

Lineker’s statements shine a light on these critical issues, reminding fans and officials that football isn’t just about points and trophies—it’s about respecting the rules, players, and supporters who make the sport what it is.

Conclusion

Gary Lineker’s public criticism of the EFL over Leicester City’s point deduction has reignited discussions about fairness, transparency, and governance in English football. While the League has yet to respond formally, the pressure is mounting to ensure that clubs are treated justly and that the integrity of the game remains intact.

One thing is clear: the football world is watching, and fans will be holding the EFL accountable.

 

I dont see anything that we have been deducted points, just checked the league table and it only has deductions for sheff wed.

[Corky]

51 minutes ago, Philkeavo said:

The Telegraph wrote at the weekend a comprehensive piece about the new financial rules.

 

The Premier League has voted through a new financial rule called the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR), which limits each club’s spending on transfers, wages and agent fees to 85% of their annual revenue. However, a crucial accompanying measure — the anchoring principle, which would have capped the maximum spending of the richest clubs to prevent them racing away financially — was voted down.

Why this matters
    •   Without anchoring, the wealthiest clubs (boosted by Champions League and Club World Cup income) can spend far more than smaller clubs while still staying within the 85% ratio.
    •    This will widen the gap between top clubs and the rest.
    •    Premier League politics led to only half the intended package being approved.

How the vote unfolded
    •    Originally the rules were meant to be voted on as a package.
    •    The vote was instead split into three parts.
    •    Clubs were reportedly told that if anchoring passed, SCR wouldn’t be voted on — changing the dynamics dramatically.
    •    Ultimately, anchoring was defeated 12–7 (with one abstention), but SCR passed.

Who opposed SCR

Six clubs voted against SCR — all known for good financial management:
    •    Brentford
    •    Brighton
    •    Crystal Palace
    •    Bournemouth
    •    Fulham
    •    Leeds United

These clubs:
    •    Have never broken financial rules.
    •    Have lower revenues and rely on smart strategy rather than huge spending.
    •    Fear the new rules will make it harder to compete.

Main concerns raised
    •    Under SCR, lower-revenue clubs will struggle because:
    •    A rich club’s 85% is massively higher than a smaller club’s 85%.
    •    If a club overspends, it pays a “luxury tax” — money that may end up helping bigger rivals, which seems perverse.
    •    The rules align with UEFA’s stricter SCR model, but top clubs already benefit from much larger UEFA payouts.
    •    Middle-tier clubs (e.g., Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest) will be under pressure to qualify for European competitions just to remain compliant.

Bigger implications
    •    Anchoring’s defeat means:
    •    Elite clubs can continue expanding the financial gulf.
    •    Competitive balance is threatened — the very thing that makes the Premier League compelling.
    •    Broadcasters may eventually value the league less if predictability increases.
    •    Smaller, innovative clubs like Brighton, Brentford and Palace may still find ways to adapt — but the system is now heavily stacked against them.

Given we still receive some grief for entering administration in 2002, it should be pointed out that Crystal Palace have been in administration twice and Bournemouth were fined for breaking FFP rules.

[davieG]

15 minutes ago, Corky said:

Given we still receive some grief for entering administration in 2002, it should be pointed out that Crystal Palace have been in administration twice and Bournemouth were fined for breaking FFP rules.

• Derby County: September 22, 2021
• Wigan Athletic: July 1, 2020
• Bury: November 27, 2020 (second administration, leading to eventual dissolution) and July 18, 2019
• Bolton Wanderers: May 13, 2019
• Portsmouth: February 17, 2012; February 26, 2010; and 1998
• Coventry City: March 21, 2013
• Leeds United: May 4, 2007
• Leicester City: October 21, 2002
• Crystal Palace: January 26, 2010 and 1998
• Hull City: February 7, 2001
• Queens Park Rangers: April 2, 2001
• Middlesbrough: May 21, 1986
• Charlton Athletic: February 1984 

None were docked points until after us. 

[Pliskin]

Football is dead…. What on earth has this sport become? 

[hebangsthedrums]

33 minutes ago, Corky said:

Given we still receive some grief for entering administration in 2002, it should be pointed out that Crystal Palace have been in administration twice and Bournemouth were fined for breaking FFP rules.

 

Also Leeds known for good financial management?

Yes was a while ago but didn't they spend like £100k on tropical fish or something?

[Parker Pen]

9 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Football is dead…. What on earth has this sport become? 

The Premier League and EFL are Quite literally disappearing up their own arsehole!

[Pliskin]

28 minutes ago, Parker Pen said:

The Premier League and EFL are Quite literally disappearing up their own arsehole!

Yep….. the last great thing ever to happen was our PL win….. nothing will eclipse that I don’t think. 
 

Games dead, it needs ripping apart and starting again…

[dmayne7]

6 hours ago, AKCJ said:

It is about time the EFL and the Premier League got serious about spending laws and ensured the rules are black and white to stop poxy clubs like us from trying their hardest to break them and get away with it.

 

We should be punished for our overspending in the last few years. 
 

Here’s hoping we get a 6-9 points deduction and we can just accept it and move on.

I agree with everything apart from this bit. We didn't actually try to push the rules initially and gain a competitive advantage did we? Tielemans arguably the only player we bought where there was a question mark over whether he would be interested without a big pay packet but even then that's unlikely. A guy we could have sold for a massive profit but instead let him leave on a free. We had a pretty modest net spend, and it's not like we were spending the money of free transfers where they expect and inflated wage.

 

You're giving the board far too much credit; it's just complete an utter mismanagement not some attempt to be clever with the rules. Over inflated wages out of loyalty, letting valuable assets go on frees and the pathetic attempts to grow the club commercially. We deserve whatever we get just for being so poorly run.

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Philkeavo said:

The Telegraph wrote at the weekend a comprehensive piece about the new financial rules.

 

The Premier League has voted through a new financial rule called the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR), which limits each club’s spending on transfers, wages and agent fees to 85% of their annual revenue. However, a crucial accompanying measure — the anchoring principle, which would have capped the maximum spending of the richest clubs to prevent them racing away financially — was voted down.

Why this matters
    •   Without anchoring, the wealthiest clubs (boosted by Champions League and Club World Cup income) can spend far more than smaller clubs while still staying within the 85% ratio.
    •    This will widen the gap between top clubs and the rest.
    •    Premier League politics led to only half the intended package being approved.

How the vote unfolded
    •    Originally the rules were meant to be voted on as a package.
    •    The vote was instead split into three parts.
    •    Clubs were reportedly told that if anchoring passed, SCR wouldn’t be voted on — changing the dynamics dramatically.
    •    Ultimately, anchoring was defeated 12–7 (with one abstention), but SCR passed.

Who opposed SCR

Six clubs voted against SCR — all known for good financial management:
    •    Brentford
    •    Brighton
    •    Crystal Palace
    •    Bournemouth
    •    Fulham
    •    Leeds United

These clubs:
    •    Have never broken financial rules.
    •    Have lower revenues and rely on smart strategy rather than huge spending.
    •    Fear the new rules will make it harder to compete.

Main concerns raised
    •    Under SCR, lower-revenue clubs will struggle because:
    •    A rich club’s 85% is massively higher than a smaller club’s 85%.
    •    If a club overspends, it pays a “luxury tax” — money that may end up helping bigger rivals, which seems perverse.
    •    The rules align with UEFA’s stricter SCR model, but top clubs already benefit from much larger UEFA payouts.
    •    Middle-tier clubs (e.g., Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest) will be under pressure to qualify for European competitions just to remain compliant.

Bigger implications
    •    Anchoring’s defeat means:
    •    Elite clubs can continue expanding the financial gulf.
    •    Competitive balance is threatened — the very thing that makes the Premier League compelling.
    •    Broadcasters may eventually value the league less if predictability increases.
    •    Smaller, innovative clubs like Brighton, Brentford and Palace may still find ways to adapt — but the system is now heavily stacked against them.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

Forest aren't a mid-tier club.