The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline Dineage, has written to Premier League CEO, Richard Masters, seeking clarity on certain remarks he made to a Committee hearing at Westminster earlier this month.
Masters was grilled on a number of aspects of governance in domestic football and the topic of Everton’s breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules was discussed along with the general sanctions framework that the League and Independent Commission used to formulate the historic 10-point deduction handed down to the Blues last November.
Dame Dineage wrote to Masters by email asking him to clarify what he meant when, during the hearing, he made reference to “small” clubs as it pertained to how the League has treated the cases involving Everton and Nottingham Forest on the one hand and Manchester City and Chelsea on the other.
She also requested greater detail on the sanctions framework itself, a point on which Masters appeared to contradict the Independent Commission’s report that laid out their reasoning for recommending the penalty against Everton that they did.
In a statement, Dame Dineage said: “Richard Masters’ implication that nine-times league title winners Everton and double European Cup winners Nottingham Forest are ‘small clubs’ will have raised eyebrows with fans. To suggest clubs are categorised according to size raises wider questions about whether every member of the league truly does receive treatment that is fair and consistent.”
Dame Dineage’s letter in full:
Thank you for appearing before the Committee on 16th January 2024. I am writing to follow up on points raised during the session.
Firstly, when discussing the charges laid against Everton FC and Nottingham Forest FC for breaching the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability rules, you said the rules
“are for everybody. They are not just for small clubs.” I would be grateful if you could clarify what criteria the Premier League uses to classify ‘small clubs’ and which clubs it regards as small.
Secondly, when questioned on the lack of transparency around Everton’s point deduction, and the Premier League’s approach to sanctions, you stated:
“An independent panel made the decisions in respect of the charge for the PSRs and indeed the sanction, independent of the Premier League, independent of the executive, the board and the clubs.“
and
“We have an open sanctioning regime. It is an active decision to leave it to the independent panel to decide because it gives it maximum flexibility to decide in the circumstances, having listened to all the mitigating arguments made by the club and by the Premier League to make its own decision. While that may not be clear, we believe it is fair.“
This appears to contradict paragraph 86 of the Premier League Commission’s report – published on 17 November 2023 – which states that the Premier League adopted a structured “sanctions policy” at its Board meeting on 10 August 2023, and subsequently presented that sanctions policy to the Commission as part of your witness statement.’ The Commission reported that
“The guidelines advocated by the Premier League are similar to, but different from, those of the EFL. As with the EFL guidelines they start with a presumption that the appropriate penalty will be a sporting sanction in the form of a deduction of points. They adopt a fixed starting point of a deduction of 6 points. There would be an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5 million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105 million. Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features. The rationale for these guidelines is given in the evidence of Mr Masters.“
While both Everton and the Premier League were entitled to make submissions on the sanctions in this case as part of the Commission’s process, there have been concerns about the decision of the Premier League’s board to agree a structured policy for sanctions and recommended it to the Commission.
The Commission declined to adopt the formula proposed by the Premier League, noting concern that the adoption of a structured formula could compromise the basis on which it was created: to approach the question of sanction in whatever way it considered to be appropriate to the individual case before it.
Nevertheless the decision to propose what the Commission described as a policy, rather than simply a sanction, has created the perception moving the goalposts, particularly in light of the Commission going on to adopt a similar penalty as that which would have been made under the Premier League’s proposed policy.
In the interests of transparency, I would be grateful if you could publish or provide the Committee with:
- the full version your witness statement presented to the Independent Commission;
- the minutes of the Premier League board meeting of 10 August 2023 when it agreed the formula presented to the Independent Commission.
I would also be grateful if you could clarify whether the Premier League will propose the same formula in other cases outside of Everton’s, and how you intend to ensure that any further sanctions applied – particularly following possible changes to rules this year – will be transparent and applied fairly.
Finally, can you assure the Committee that the latest charges against Everton and Nottingham Forest of breaking the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules – taking possible appeals into account – will be resolved before the final round of Premier League fixtures on 19 May 2024?
I would be grateful for a response to the Committee’s questions by 8 February.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Dinenage DBE MP
Chair, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
In addition, the Committee also wrote to Minister for Sport, Stuart Andrew, urging the Government to expedite the submission of the Football Governance Bill which would establish an independent regulator for football.