Everton Fan Advisory Board have compiled a statement expressing outrage at the disproportionate punishments meted out to Chelsea and Everton in recent years, culminating with last month’s whitewash and suspended slap on the wrist for more egregious fraudulent acts by the London club, which continues to evade any meaningful sporting sanction for their rule-breaking.
This relates to the Token fine deemed sufficient punishment for Chelsea’s persistent rule-breaking after a Premier League investigation published its sanction agreement back in March 2026.
In his Analysis Series, Paul Quinn has today published his own assessment of The Chelsea FC Premier League sanction agreements, providing a long and detailed analysis of the charges, process, decisions and sanctions, with the case for and against the Premier League’s approach.
Paul’s key findings are:
-
The Premier League used a negotiated Rule W.6.7 Sanction Agreement, not a contested Commission, to resolve Chelsea’s admitted eight-year concealment of £47,524,925.74 in third-party payments (Phase 1) and ten Youth Development Rule breaches (Phase 2), imposing fines of £10.75M, a suspended two-window first-team ban, an immediate nine-month academy ban, an unpaid £771,288 levy and full costs, but no points deduction.
-
On the law, the Board’s outcome is defensible: the settlement mechanism is legitimate, the PSR “no-breach-in-any-scenario” finding removed the trigger for a points deduction, and self-reporting plus “exceptional co-operation” (~200,000 documents) properly earned a 50% mitigation, a position the FA Appeal Board effectively vindicated on 31 July 2026 when it quashed a suspended six-point deduction as “excessive”.
-
On the merits, the outcome is hard to reconcile with Everton (10→6 points for a £19.5M arithmetical overspend) and the FA Commission’s own finding that Chelsea’s “principal and overall motive… was to gain a sporting advantage”. The firm judgement: the Premier League reached a legally sustainable but institutionally corrosive settlement, correct on doctrine, wrong on deterrence, and the stronger arguments lie with the critics on consistency and quantum, and with the Board only on process and PSR mechanics.