Following his detailed critique of certain aspects of the Premier League’s independent commission findings that resulted in the draconian 10-point deduction levied on Everton for a single breach of P&S Rules, Andy Burnham has composed a second letter addressing aspects of Alison Brittain’s reply that are ‘highly problematic’.
Here is the full text of Andy Burnham’s response to Alison Brittain’s reply as Cahiir of the Premier League:
Alison Brittain
Chair
The Premier League
2 December 2023
Dear Alison
EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB: DEDUCTION OF POINTS
I appreciate your detailed reply to my letter of 26 November and your clarification of a number of important points. In particular, I noted two clear statements:
“You are correct to say that (unlike the Premier League), the English Football League (EFL) does have sanctioning guidelines in place.”
“In 2020, the Premier League Executive asked its clubs whether similar guidelines (as those in the Football League (EFL)) should be adopted and the clear consensus was that they should not be.”
I can assure you it was not my intention to seek to engage you in protracted correspondence on this matter. I had hoped you would be able to provide me with enough reassurance to leave things there. However, If anything, having read your letter carefully, I am now more concerned about the Premier League’s handling of Everton’s case.
Let me explain why.
There is a particular sentence which, when read alongside the other statements I have referenced above, is highly problematic. It is this one:
“The league’s submission contained a formula (as a means to explain how it reached its view on the appropriate sanction), however it is not a ‘policy’ as you describe, or a framework.”
This raises serious issues.
Firstly, you say ‘policy’ was my description. In fact, this is how the Independent Commission chose to refer to what was presented to It in Mr Masters’s witness statement (presumably because this was how Mr Masters described it in his statement). Paragraph 86 is the relevant part of their Decision:
“On 10 August 2023 the Premier League board adopted a sanction policy that it considered to be appropriate to breaches of the PSR. The policy was detailed in section 7 of Mr Masters’s witness statement.”
The paragraph goes on to say that the PL subsequently sought to clarify a misunderstanding about the status of the position it had adopted on 10 August. The PL told the Commission it was “advancing its view in the same way as the EFL policy was advanced by those representing it before a Commission hearing an EFL P&S complaint”.
In your letter to me, you claimed that the PL’s position was different from that of the EFL However, in Its evidence to the Commission, the Pl said its approach was, in effect, the same as the EFL policy. I hope you can see the glaring inconsistency here.
Let me go on to the next issue.
Your letter attempts to draw a distinction between a ‘formula’ and a ‘policy’. Most people would struggle to see the difference between these things. It is only possible to see a difference if the formula was to be used in one case only. This begs two questions:
1. Is it your intention to use this ‘formula’ only In Everton’s case? If so, how does that inspire confidence that the Premier League is acting fairly and consistently in respect of all clubs?
2. Or, is it your intention to use the same ‘formula’ in other cases? If so, surely that breaches the decision taken by the clubs in 2020?
It is clear to me, from the Commission’s Decision, that It too saw an issue in what appeared to be the PL attempting to introduce a sanctioning policy “through the back door”. In paragraph 89, it states: “Nevertheless, the Commission is concerned that the adoption by it of a structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by Rules W.5O & 51. We consider that it is not for a Commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case by case basis.”
My reading of this part of the Commission’s Decision is that, if it had accepted what the Premier League was saying, the Commission would have compromised the basis on which it was based. That could have amounted to accusations of an abuse of process. It goes on to state in paragraph 90: “We therefore decline to adopt the structured formula proposed by the Premier League.”
You state on two occasions that it is normal practice in sporting arbitration cases for both sides to be asked to give a view on sanctions. My understanding is that this is meant to be a general view about the nature of the sanction – ie, financial or sporting – and not a detailed formula which, in effect, ties
the hands of the body concerned.
In Everton’s case, the problem we are left with is this: the Independent Commission went on to adopt a very similar sanction as the one that would have been required under the PL’s formula without providing full reasoning for concluding that level of sanction to be appropriate. If nothing else, this risks a perception of undue influence exerted by the PL on the Commission.
For the reasons I have given above, I do not believe your letter in any way clears up concerns about abuse of process. I also believe that this matter now concerns more than Everton. All Premier League clubs, and their supporters, have a right know the detail of what was adopted on 10 August by the PL and how it was presented in Mr Masters’s submission, particularly Section 7.
So, in the interests of transparency and fairness, I am asking two final questions:
• Will you publish the minutes of the Premier League Board of 10 August?
• Will you publish the full version of Mr Masters’s witness statement, including Section 7?
I am again copying this letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Shadow Secretary of State given the growing relevance of Everton’s case to the Football Governance Bill.
Yours sincerely
[signed]
ANDY BURNHAM
cc Rt Hon Lucy Frazer MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Thangam Debbonaire MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport