11/06/2026 11comments  |  Jump to last

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

June. The Premier League season is over. Everybody’s looking forward to the World Cup. There’s excitement in the air over the transfer window.

And then, time for Everton!

Or, more specifically, time for lawyers and accountants and the Premier League’s (soon-to-be defunct) Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

On Wednesday, it was confirmed, via media reports and then a written decision by an Independent Commission, sneakily posted to the Premier League website’s initial article upon Everton’s 10-point deduction back in November 2023 (yep, that’s right, they updated a two-and-a-half-year old post), that Everton had been ordered to pay Burnley a sum of £26M, plus interest, taking the total to somewhere between £35m and £40m.

Everton, fairly so, are outraged, and have immediately appealed the decision.

Without getting too much into the weeds of it, Burnley have won a case that was originally opened up to them back in 2023, when Everton were found to have breached PSR by £19.5m, and were deducted 10 points by an Independent Commission made up of David Phillips KC, HH Alan Greenwood and Nick Igoe.

The same Commission, as per Premier League rules, heard this case, as Burnley went ahead in essentially suing Everton for damages.

It all relates to Everton’s breach of PSR in the 2021-22 season. Burnley have managed to successfully argue that they went down that campaign because of Everton’s breach.

It’s all a bit ludicrous, and it comes back to a baffling decision made by Mr Phillips back in May 2023.

At that point, applicant clubs — Burnley, Leeds United, Southampton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester City, two of which have since breached PSR — claimed they should be able to join the Premier League’s case against Everton.

That was rejected, as was the Premier League’s push to have the case heard prior to the end of the 2022-23 season, but Mr Phillips did decide that, should Everton be found to have been in breach, that may open the door for litigation down the line.

Only Burnley eventually went ahead with a claim.

Now, and I’m no lawyer, I simply cannot understand why Mr Phillips elected to open the door for litigation. I cannot understand why Burnley have a case to feel wronged when there wasn’t, and still isn’t, a mechanism to punish clubs for financial breaches in the same season.

Why do Burnley have the right to feel aggrieved? They based their argument on a calculation — a model — that found Everton would definitely have taken four fewer points had they not breached.

Does that model account for Everton being 2-0 down at home to Crystal Palace on the penultimate day of the season? Does that model account for Everton grinding to a victory over Chelsea? Does that model account for Burnley deciding to sack Sean Dyche in April 2022?

It’s ludicrous, and the same Commission that handed Everton a 10-point deduction, which was subsequently found to be severely flawed on appeal, has now deemed a £35-40m payment as suitable damages to award a club that has since three times been relegated not because of Everton’s breach, but because they are simply not a particularly well run club either. 

In fact, Everton have even expressed severe concerns that Burnley will not be able to afford to pay them back, should the Toffees fork out the damages but then win some or all of it back on appeal.

It is also bizarre that the case seems to rest on the Commission not finding enough strength in Everton’s argument that a breach cannot come into effect until the end of the financial year in which it took place.

Now, in my mind, that is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Everton had until the end of FY 2021-22 to try and correct their PSR breach. They sold Richarlison at the end of June 2022 in order to try and comply. They could have, had they known of the loopholes that Chelsea subsequently found, sold property or other assets, such as the women’s team, to themselves, too. 

But the fact is that one cannot be in breach of something if there is a deadline, until that deadline has passed.

If you spend on a credit card, then you are given until the bill date to pay it off. If you fail to pay it off by that date, then you are charged interest. Surely, that’s a relevant analogy here, too. 

By the Commission’s logic, every club that has just scraped the right side of PSR in recent years through a variety of crafty ways and player trades — Everton, Forest, Chelsea, Newcastle United, Aston Villa and surely some others — was, in fact, at some point in that financial year, in breach, and so therefore, they were always in breach.

Look, this is a bit of a rant against the unfairness and ridiculousness of it all. Of lawyers and accountants deciding outcomes for football clubs. 

But, it’s also a reminder of just how badly Everton were run, and why TFG and Angus Kinnear and Co. must all remain extremely prudent and ensure nothing like this happens again.

Evertonians should be angry. They should be angry at the pathetic Premier League executive board for not pushing back on Phillips’ original decision to allow litigation; they should be angry at the Commission’s poor logic, and most of all, they should be angry with Everton’s previous leadership.

 

 

Reader Comments (11)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()


Michael Kenrick
1 Posted 11/06/2026 at 15:48:22
Patric, re::

Phillips's original decision to allow litigation;

I guess you might have a point... although the rules themselves provide for compensation to be levied in the event of a breach:

Rule W 51. Having heard and considered such mitigating factors (if any) the Commission may:
...
W.51.5. order the Respondent to pay compensation unlimited in amount to any Person or to any Club;


I'd have to go back and read the original document where Phillips denied those clubs a legal role in the first Independent Commission, but opened the door wide for them to sue for compensation if Everton were found guilty.
Michael Kenrick
2 Posted 11/06/2026 at 16:02:42
Looks like Rule W.27 is actually the basis for this compensation claim:

At any stage, the Commission may indicate... that if the complaint is upheld, it may wish to exercise its power under Rule W.51.5 to award compensation... If the Commission so indicates, it shall notify the parties to the proceedings... The Commission may then make appropriate directions as to the receipt of evidence of loss... as well as directions on the receipt of evidence in response from the parties to the proceedings.

Just in case anyone thinks Phillps dreamt this up out of nowhere...
Alan J Thompson
3 Posted 12/06/2026 at 05:16:11
Bugger it, just do a City and drag them through every and any Court for years to come, the precedent has been set.

What does worry me is if our present managers/executive were at Leeds when a settlement with that club was reached and if that might cause them a problem of self interest.
John Collins
4 Posted 12/06/2026 at 07:52:49
Patric.

£25 million, with interest, becomes £35-40 million over a few years.?

Can you find out who Burnley bank with please.
I'm opening an account sharpish.
Anthony Dove
5 Posted 12/06/2026 at 09:03:51
There is talk of a settlement being made with Leeds.

If one was made, then the sum paid would presumably appear in the annual accounts.
Patric Ridge
6 Posted 12/06/2026 at 11:16:00
#2 yes Michael great spot. It's not that it was necessarily Phillips coming up with it out of nowhere, but he definitely opened the door to it. I also understand the Premier League are not particularly happy with this outcome and realise the cat may have been let out of the bag in regard to future cases. Serves them right!
Patric Ridge
7 Posted 12/06/2026 at 11:16:32
#4 John - haha, I know, absolutely insane!

The rate, off the top of my head, is 11.8%. Quite incredible.
Alan J Thompson
8 Posted 12/06/2026 at 11:33:16
John(#4)&Patric(#7); It's not difficult, just find a football club that needs to borrow funds as it is or just has built a new ground and has an Accountant who doesn't know which side of which ledger what should be entered. Just ask Blue Bill or Phillip Green while holidaying in the Bahamas.
Michael Kenrick
9 Posted 12/06/2026 at 17:41:26
Anthony,

We carried the story back in September, reporting that Everton made out-of-court settlement with Leeds United over PSR compensation

The Athletic said that the settlement was reached "earlier in the year", which suggests that it could indeed have occurred in the 2024-25 financial year and therefore be in the accounts.

It probably gets wrapped up in 'Exceptional Items'. This is what they said in 2024:

The Club incurred exceptional costs of £10.4M (2022-23: £3.2M) relating
to the costs associated with refinancing, as part of procedures required
for a proposed change of ownership, as well as costs associated with
defending the Club’s position at the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability
commission hearings.


And in 2025:

The Club incurred exceptional costs of £7.1M (2023-24: £10.4M) relating to the
costs associated with amounts payable to former employees and refinancing
costs, associated with the change in debt structure of the Club following the
change in ownership.


However, out-of-court settlements in commercial disputes almost always carry legal non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Both Everton and Leeds United are legally barred from stating the exact compensation figure. Revealing the specific amount within a public financial document would violate the terms of the settlement itself.
Anthony Dove
10 Posted 12/06/2026 at 19:52:34
Michael, thank you for the additional information. I guess we will never know the figure for that item of expenditure or many others.
Phillip Warrington
11 Posted 13/06/2026 at 06:40:19
Wow! Recently, every time you think we just got over that hurdle, we get hit with another obstacle. It's almost like the best signing we can make is a witch doctor to get rid of this curse that seems to be hovering over us.

Why can't we be the first in the footballing side of things instead of point deductions and fines?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb