Does Chelsea's punishment fit the crime?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Athletic FC Podcast

Episode: "Does Chelsea's Punishment Fit the Crime?"

Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Ayo Akinwolere
Guests: Simon Johnson (Chelsea correspondent), Matt Slater (Senior News Reporter)

---

1. Overview of Episode

This episode explores the Premier League’s recent punishment of Chelsea Football Club for historic secret payments related to player transfers, weighing whether the financial penalty and suspended transfer ban imposed on the club is a fair response. The panel also examines what precedent this sets for future cases—particularly in the context of ongoing investigations into other clubs, such as Manchester City.

---

2. Key Discussion Points & Insights

A. The Details and Structure of Chelsea’s Punishment

• Nature of Infractions: Chelsea was fined for making secret, unreported payments (£47.5 million across 36 entities, including high-profile transfers like Eden Hazard, Willian, and others) between 2011 and 2018 ([00:52]).
• Breakdown of Penalties:
  • £10.75 million fine (halved from an initial suggested £20 million due to cooperation)
  • Suspended transfer ban
  • Additional £750,000 fine + a nine-month transfer registration ban for improper approaches to academy players ([02:30])
• Role of Bluco (New Ownership): Bluco, Chelsea’s current owners, self-reported these issues upon takeover in 2022, which expedited the investigation and process ([02:40]).
  • “Bluco blew the whistle on themselves, if you like, when they took over the club in 2022… immediately blew the whistle and that’s what started this process.” (Matt Slater, [02:51])
• Outcome: Premier League decided that Chelsea’s actions did not breach PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules), but still punished the lack of transparency.

B. Reaction from Inside and Outside the Club

• Chelsea’s Perspective:
  • Club is “pleased this has been resolved” and maintains it wasn’t their regime responsible.
  • The cooperation is viewed as extraordinary.
  • Concern is raised about what kind of precedent is set if self-reporting doesn’t provide tangible benefits ([04:01]).
    • “It’s not as if the Premier League cause UEFA have already punished them… I can't remember a club basically saying we've found this, here it all is and we're going to give you all the evidence you want—extraordinary cooperation…what kind of message does that send to everyone else…?” (Simon Johnson, [04:18])
• Broader Football Community:
  • Many see the punishment as a “slap on the wrist” considering the magnitude of the sums and the trophies won during the period in question.
  • Debate whether Chelsea’s current status is derived from the alleged wrongdoing despite regime change, and if Bluco benefited indirectly ([06:06]).

C. Fairness, Mitigation, and Precedent

• Premier League’s Reasoning:
  • Cooperation and early admission merited significant mitigation, but the panelists argue the reduction was unusually large compared to recent cases (Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester).
  • “They would have got a two year transfer ban and a £20 million fine. But because they cooperated, early plea, exceptional cooperation, they basically halved the punishment.” (Matt Slater, [03:35])
• Mitigation in Context:
  • Everton, Nottingham Forest, and Leicester all received points deductions with less mitigation for their degrees of cooperation ([15:34]).
  • “Nottingham Forest did all those things and their punishment was cut off by a third. That’s not just. Just plain not consistent.” (Matt Slater, [17:57])
• Questions Over Sporting Advantage:
  • Premier League decided not to focus on sporting advantage but rather PSR accounting; criticism is raised that this is too “black and white.”
  • “There can be sporting advantages that make a real impact… that don’t involve clubs breaching PSR.” (Matt Slater, [11:23])

D. Asterisks, Fan Sentiment, and the Value of Trophies

• Despite the punishments, neither the club’s status nor their trophy wins will be tarnished in fans’ eyes:
  • “Are you talking about asterisks?” (Simon Johnson, [13:36])
  • “I don’t think Chelsea fans are going to care… When it goes for your team, you love it. When it goes against you, you obviously don’t. And you talk about cheating and so on. That’s a very sort of light way of describing this rather more complex case…” (Simon Johnson, [13:41])
• Notion that fans are quick to excuse their own club, while rival fans see injustice.

E. The Broader Financial Landscape: Who Really Pays?

• Fines paid from funds set aside during the Bluco takeover, not directly by current management—potentially coming out of a pot originally earmarked for Ukrainian war victims.
  • “This is where really sticking in people’s throats here. This is the final sickener. That is money that’s really coming out of the charitable contribution that [Abramovich] promised to the victims of the war in Ukraine.” (Matt Slater, [21:07])

F. Consistency and the Premier League’s Reputation

• The Premier League is criticized for inconsistently applying rules and mitigation across clubs, undermining credibility:
  • “It sounds like I’m criticizing Chelsea. I just to be clear, I’m really criticizing the Premier League… It’s the inconsistency. That’s what gets people going on the phone ins. That’s what’s happened here.” (Matt Slater, [23:26])

G. The Manchester City Situation and Broader Implications

• Ongoing investigation into Man City’s alleged 115 rule breaches is distinctly different and potentially far more serious, involving alleged revenue inflation and cost reductions through questionable means ([24:49]).
• If found guilty, City would almost certainly have breached PSR, with harsher sporting and financial penalties likely.
  • “The Man City case is pretty unique… the actual case was heard a year ago… we are waiting [for a ruling]… If they are found guilty… then they have spectacularly failed PSR.” (Matt Slater, [25:12])
• The handling of Chelsea’s case could color expectations and critique of whatever decision is eventually reached regarding Manchester City ([27:55]).

---

3. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Chelsea’s self-reporting & mitigation:

  • “[Bluco] immediately blew the whistle and that’s what started this process.” (Matt Slater, [02:51])
  • “If you want to do a harsh punishment when we've been this kind of helpful…what kind of message does that send to everyone else in the game…?” (Simon Johnson, [04:18])

• On the punishment feeling like a slap on the wrist:

  • “You’re going to be very upset. You're going to think Chelsea have been able to find a way around the system…” (Simon Johnson, [06:06])

• On football fan hypocrisy:

  • “There's a massive hypocrisy with football fans… you almost turn a blind eye and it's the result that is all that matters.” (Simon Johnson, [13:41])

• Comparison of mitigation with other clubs:

  • “Nottingham Forest did all those things and their punishment was cut off by a third. That’s not…consistent.” (Matt Slater, [17:57])

• On fines and who pays them:

  • “It's just luxury tax stuff…who is actually paying this fine?...money that’s really coming out of the charitable contribution that [Abramovich] promised to the victims of the war in Ukraine.” (Matt Slater, [21:07])

• Premier League consistency:

  • “It’s the inconsistency… That's what gets people going on the phone ins. That's what's happened here.” (Matt Slater, [23:26])

• On the uniqueness of the Manchester City case:

  • “The Man City case is pretty unique… If they are found guilty of the most serious things, then they have spectacularly failed PSR, if not most years, every season that those, those charges look at… So if Man City are guilty, the Premier League have basically said, well, that's the most important thing to us.” (Matt Slater, [25:12])

---

4. Timestamps: Important Segments

• [00:52] — Matt Slater lays out the key facts of Chelsea’s punishment and background.
• [03:35] — Explanation of how Chelsea’s cooperation affected the severity of the penalty.
• [04:01] — Simon Johnson provides the Chelsea viewpoint on self-reporting and the reward/penalty relationship.
• [06:06] — Perceptions from outside of Chelsea, and impact of punishment on rivals.
• [11:23] — Debate on whether PSR breach should be the only deciding factor for sporting penalties.
• [13:36] — Discussion on whether Chelsea’s trophy wins are now ‘tainted’ or deserve asterisks.
• [15:34] — Matt runs through precedent from Everton, Nottingham Forest, and Leicester City’s punishments.
• [21:07] — Who really pays the fine, and what it means for Abramovich/Ukraine fund.
• [23:26] — Final critique of Premier League’s handling and the issue of inconsistency.
• [24:49] — Setting up the context of Manchester City’s unresolved and far-reaching case.
• [25:12] — What’s at stake for Man City and Premier League’s approach to future cases.

---

5. Conclusion

This episode provides a thorough, critical analysis of Chelsea’s Premier League punishment, raising significant questions about consistency, fairness, and precedent in English football’s regulatory landscape. While Chelsea’s current owners are praised for cooperation, many argue their penalty doesn’t match the scale or potential sporting advantage of the original infractions—especially compared to other clubs’ harsher sporting penalties. The conversation foreshadows even bigger questions and possible controversies to come, with attention turning to Manchester City’s still-unresolved case and what the Premier League’s next moves will say about governance and justice across the sport.

---

Transcript

[A]

The Athletic FC.

[B]

Welcome to the Athletic FC podcast with me, IO Akimolere. Chelsea have been handed a £10 million fine and also handed a suspended transfer ban for making secret payments in relation to transfers. So does the punishment fit the crime and what precedent does this set for future cases? And I'm talking about Manchester City's 115 charges. All right here with us today, we've got our Chelsea Corridor correspondent, Simon Johnson. We've also got our senior news reporter, Matt Slater as well. Matt, this story has you written all over it. I heard about it on Monday and I was like, we need to get Matt on. So let's talk about it. Let's talk about the transfer ban that's been handed to Chelsea, but most of all as well, the 10 million pound fine.

[C]

Yeah, I'm all about secret payments, aren't I? That's, that's, that's me all over. That's why you thought of me. Well, I think most of our listeners and viewers will have gathered that Chelsea have been slapped on the wrist this week. They've actually been fined 10.75 million. That's important to sort of set out at the beginning because I think there are two parts to this. The first is, as framed in your question, they have been fined 10 million pounds by the premier League for a number of unreported payments. The total 47.5 million pounds, I think, to 36 different entities between 2011 and 2018. And these are related to a number of high profile transfers. These are under the table payments to agents and offshore entities to kind of grease the wheels of those transfers. Eden Hazard, Willian Samuel, eto, Nemanja Matic, some big names, David, Louise and a few redacted ones as well. So I think we can assume there are some underage, you know, some younger players as well. The issue there for the Premier League is these payments you didn't tell us about. Now, if we put them back into your profit and loss accounts for those seasons, would you. They would cost the business related to your transfers. Would they have tipped you over the threshold for psr? You know, so that's. We then get into conversations like Everton and Nottingham Forest and Leicester, right? And what the Premier League have decided is we've gone back, we've added those payments which you fessed up about. To be fair, we're going to come back to that this point quite a lot. Blueco blew the whistle on themselves, if you like, when they took over the club in 2022. Everyone remember that was an expedited process. It was very quick. Abramovic was sanctioned. All happened fast because Chelsea were running out of money. So that deal was done quickly. I think it's fair to say that more due diligence would have been done. Bluco found out some stuff that doesn't make sense, immediately blew the whistle and that's what started this process. So anyway, we've got to the end of the Premier League's look at this and they've decided Chelsea would not have breached PSR in any of those reasons. However, you didn't tell us about those payments, so we are going to punish you. They would have got a two year transfer ban and a 20 million pound fine. But because they cooperated, early plea, exceptional cooperation, they basically halved the punishment. So that's the 10 million bit. And then there's a second part which is your 750 grand fine and a nine month registration ban for some other stuff that Bluco fessed up about that came out a bit later. This is to do with improper too early approaches to academy players and that is why they've got a nine month registration ban on academy players and this 750 grand fine. So two bits. One is very much about PSR massively mitigated by their cooperation and the other one is this more academy, smaller issue

[B]

from a Chelsea perspective. Simon, what are Bluco saying about this and the punishment they've been dealt?

[A]

Well, it's the club statement which was released on Monday showed that they're pleased with the outcome. They're, they're, they're pleased that it's now been resolved. Although we should stress that the FA's verdict is still to come on the 74 charges which they announced officially in September. This hasn't come as a surprise to me. I go back to people I was talking to back in 2024. They, the club always felt that a financial penalty would be fair in the sense that, and we're not talking about how other people see this by the way, we're talking purely about the club that they themselves are sort of. It wasn't us, it wasn't under our watch Gov. And secondly, the fact that, as Matt said, the fact that I can't remember a club sort of telling on themselves to this degree. It's not as if the Premier League cause UEFA have already punished them a few years ago with a financial punishment. I can't remember a club basically saying we've found this, here it all is and we're going to give you all the evidence you want extraordinary cooperation and collaboration which is in contrast to perhaps some other clubs which I won't go into because that's not my patch. So the club sort of think, well, if you want to do a harsh punishment when we've been this kind of helpful and actually told on ourselves, then what kind of message does that send to everyone else in the game that actually is better. Better to lawyer up, deny everything, oh, we haven't seen anything and, and drag it out as long as possible. So Chelsea will sort of think, well, by doing the right thing, this is our reward as such. But obviously outside of Chelsea, people are going to have a slightly different view and I totally understand why.

[B]

Yeah, that was what I was going to ask you. Simon. Can you see what it looks like here in terms of. It feels like a bit of a slap on the wrist considering all the other financial stuff. We're talking about Chelsea and then all. Also the amount of times that Chelsea have also shown financial losses as well.

[A]

I think from outside of Chelsea, of course you're going to, especially rival fans, you're going to be very upset. You're going to sort of think that Chelsea have been able to find a way around the system which has benefit themselves, of course, not just in terms of the trophies won in that period, but the knock on effect. You could make the argument that, yes, Blueco weren't responsible for what happened, but they've indirectly benefited from it because of the club they've been able to buy. The competitions that, and the status that Chelsea are now at is partly because of what has happened. A counter argument is, of course, we have to stress about the players and then not being aware of any wrongdoing. But there's also an assumption that these guys would not have joined anyway, which I do sort of put a bit of a question mark on, because of course it helps if you're giving certain people close to them a bit of extra money. But my question is, and. And this is just me sort of throwing out there tentatively. It's not as if these guys were joining a Mickey Mouse outfit. So Eden Hazard, who was chased by basically everybody, his tweet when he broke the news of who's joining, he said, I'm joining the European champions. Chelsea had just won the European cup, so it's not as if Chelsea weren't an attractive proposition to these players. We don't know how much of an impact these payments had on their decision. What I don't get is why this was done in any way if Chelsea were going to pass psr. It's a very Sort of strange thing. If. If you were going to pass psr, why did you feel the need to sort of do it off, off books, offshore?

[B]

Any reply to that, Matt?

[C]

No, but Simon's asking some fantastic questions that are being asked by the industry. What you got from Simon there is very much the Chelsea view, and I'm not picking some of that. That was very much, you know, that's Simon's role, and he hadn't said it, I would have said it. And the point Simon makes about the reporting is important. So the Premier League has to incentivize clubs to act in good faith, right? There has to be a benefit to being good citizens and to being like the golfer who calls the foul on themselves or the curler. Because I was. Because I was watching a lot of curling. You're supposed to call your fouls in curling, too, right? Now, if you take that away, if you take away the mitigation and the reward, all you're doing is saying, guys, just lie, just fib, right? If you get caught, you get. There's gonna be no benefit for you cooperating with our investigation. In fact, what will be incentivized is you doing everything you can, as Simon said, lawing up, right? So there has to be, within the system, some reward for honesty and acting in utmost good faith. However, I'm afraid that is actually in the rules. So it's not like you should get a biscuit for being good. It is actually the rule. You are all supposed to act in good faith. So mitigation, yes. Incentivize, good behavior, yes, but within limits. And I think the significance of this story and why it has annoyed people, frankly, it's not what Chelsea did, because I think there's really good, interesting debates to be had about, well, why did Chelsea do that? Did they really need to. And what was going on there? Was that just, you know, the underhand nature of the time, people not wanting to declare payments, and is it really one for HMRC and the tax authorities of where these people are based? I suspect there's a lot of that going on here. And likewise, we don't know if Chelsea couldn't have got those players anyway, if it was the difference between, you know, I don't know. I'm making names up here. Willian, eto matic, right, being chased by four or five clubs. The number was 30. Chelsea were willing to go to 32. The other clubs were stopping at 31. 30. There was some secret pain. Look, maybe if it was all done on the table, would Chelsea have got that player, anyway, we don't know. Right. And as Simon points out, the Hazard one is perhaps the most high profile one because he's so bloody good and was a difference maker on the pitch. And that does automatically lead to questions, debates around. Hold on. I think there was a sporting benefit to fielding Eden Hazard. You know, that's quite a tough one to argue. But he didn't just go for the check, did he? I mean was that is if you go too far the other way, you're saying, well, he said no to Man. Of course you go to Man United. Everyone would go to Man United if given the choice. Well, is that true? I don't know. The pull of London, Chelsea were a sexy choice. Okay, so we don't know. I think the big debate, like I said, and I have plenty more to say on this, looking at precedent as well. Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester and even going further back, it is totally right and legal and makes complete sense that Chelsea should have been given mitigation and their punishment should have been knocked down. It's how much mitigation they were given. It doesn't appear to fit precedent. The Premier League I think have just got this wrong. They've given Chelsea too much mitigation. And then I think my second concern is around this sort of Premier League has seemed to box themselves in a bit on what they consider to be sporting advantage and whether it should be a points penalty. They seem to have taken a very black and white view that if it's not a PSR breach, then a fine or some other punishment is more suitable. Limit your squad size, registration ban, something like that. Right. If it's a PSR breach. Yep, absolutely. That's, that's a sporting advantage. There go your points. I think that is too black and white. There can be sporting advantages that make a real impact on the pitch that don't involve clubs breaching psr. So that is why people are annoyed and trust me, other clubs are really annoyed about this. And it's not just Everton fans who are annoyed about every time any other club is punished or not punished. Other clubs who are like, I don't know, too much mitigation. And I think there was sporting advantage there. The Premier League really quickly seemed, you know, I've read the 28 page written decision. They really quickly, they don't even mention sporting advantage. It becomes a real kind of accounting analysis of whether these payments added back onto their costs would have knocked them over psr. They didn't. Okay, let's move on and now let's sort of think of a sort of how much cooperation have they given, which is exceptional. But it appears to sort of mitigation is normally kind of like a finite resource. Right. I use some of my mitigation to knock down that bit of the penalty, but I don't get to use it again. You know, the mitigation is supposed to sort of kind of diminish. Well, I've used it there. I don't get to use it again on this part of the punishment. This is why it seems like way too lenient. This is the Athletic FC podcast with IO Akimolere.

[B]

Chelsea achieved a lot between 2011 and 2018. A lot of trophies were won in that period. Should we now look back at that period and I guess take those rose tinted glasses off because Chelsea were great. As Matt said they were sexy. But as we've pointed out, there were some things going on in the background that we probably shouldn't be too proud of.

[A]

Are you talking about asterisks?

[C]

That's what I'm leaning towards, yeah.

[A]

I was there at Stamford Bridge on Tuesday night. His name is being Roman Abramic's name is Sping's son and will continue to be sung. Now, of course there's going to be. This is a multi layered reason for them doing that is obviously also to have a pop at the current ownership and how things are slipping in contrast. But do you really think that Chelsea fans are going to care? I don't think they will. Look, others will sort of go, well, that's. That's outrageous. You know, but we know what football fans are like. It's a bit like. This may be a terrible analogy but. But it's a bit like a player diving for a penalty to win a game of football. When it goes for your team, you love it. When it goes against you, you obviously don't. And you talk about cheating and so on. That's a very sort of light way of describing this rather more complex case. But I do think there's a massive hypocrisy with football fans and that's why I'm talking about diving. And actually things that happen on the pitch is that very quick to get upset when it doesn't go for you, but sort of very kind of, you almost turn a blind eye and it's the result that is all that matters. I don't think Chelsea fans are going to go, oh, memories of winning the Champions League. And because we're talking 2011-18 here, the champions League, the Europa League, the Premier League wins the FA cup was just the last domestic cup they won in 2018. I don't think they're gonna bat an eyelid quite frankly. So yeah, I think I'll still be watching their end of season DVDs for a while yet.

[B]

Yeah. Matt, let's go back to what you were talking about. In terms of the likes of Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester City, who respectively suffered points deductions in recent seasons for breaching financial rules, are we saying Chelsea got off lightly? I think we've covered that point in many respects. But could the sanctions not have been sporting in many respects?

[C]

Well, look, if we just take those cases. So Everton of course had two cases, two PSR breaches the first time, 20. They're always obviously looking back at seasons prior. They initially were given minus 10. Huge hoo ha. It's quite a significant breach and obviously a lot of debate around the cost of building the stadium and how Everton treated that cost and how they kind of declared it. Their conversations with the Premier League, they appealed it and they got it from minus 10 to minus 6. Now the appeal panel obviously then, you know, gave them some mitigation. It was more to do with those conversations around the stadium debt, how Everton explained that to the Premier League. They also, this, the appeal panel felt that the first panel had got things wrong, some legal errors, and they also thought the Premier League had got things wrong with this not having a kind of set tariff for punishments. So by the time we got to Everton part two, which was a year later, Everton got minus two points. Now they were actually given three points of mitigation because the breach, you know, we did now have sort of a benchmarking element to it. The Premier League were kind of asking for five. Everton got three. And the points they got back were an early plea. So if we think about our Chelsea case, early plea cooperation, but not exceptional cooperation because even the, the second panel were like, well, you could have, you could have cooperated a little bit more, but you were better than the last time. And double this, this principle of double jeopardy, like, you know, you, you, you got done last year because it's this three year rolling PSR issue. It feels like we're punishing you again for the same crimes. So that was interesting. Now we go to Nottingham Forest. Nottingham Forest, if I remember rightly, got four points. They got two points plus two of mitigation. So it should have been six, four. They did do an early plea and they were credited with exceptional cooperation. They wanted more points back. And this was that debate. Do you remember around the Timing of the Brennan Johnson. If I'm not in Forrest, I'm thinking that was quite a good argument actually, because what are PSR rules for? They're about sustainability. We delayed the sale of Brennan Johnson to get a better price. Isn't that kind of the sustainable thing to do? The kind of business thing to do? The panel said no, that was a business decision. You couldn't guarantee you'd get more money by delaying it after your year end, blah, blah, blah. So they didn't get any mitigation for that, but they did get mitigation. So this is crucial. Again, think Chelsea for early plea and exceptional cooperation. So they basically got a third back. They went from minus six to minus four. Third of the punishment came off. Now we go to Leicester, they just got minus six and they got no mitigation. I don't know why they got one back actually, because they failed a lot of their mitigating arguments. I know that the Premier League actually wanted them for an aggravating factor. They wanted one more added for not filing their accounts, their most recent set of accounts. So almost like the opposite of cooperation. That's why the Premier League have appealed that one. So we're waiting to see actually what an appeal body thinks about Leicester's degree of cooperation, whether it's lack of cooperation is worthy of a greater penalty. So those are your precedents and I could talk about some of the other ones in the EFL as well, but I think the Premier League ones are the most relevant because they're recent. So let's just go back to Chelsea. I have two problems. One, this issue of Sports Exaction, the kind of. Did Chelsea's wrongdoing, was there a kind of sporting benefit to that? The Premier League very quickly decided no and moved on to this psr, this very dry black and white accounting exercise. I think that's mistake number one. But of the mistakes, the lesser and definitely debatable. And I'm, you know, I'm not, I'm not personally annoyed by it. I'm a little bit surprised by it. It's the next one. They have halved Chelsea's penalty punishment. They looked at this and sort of thought, well, okay, not points for all the reasons that Simon outlined. Would they have come anyway? Chelsea were a good, you know, a great club. We don't know really what's going on here and. But they definitely, you know, broke our rules. Definitely. But then they definitely fessed up and cooperated. So why are they halving their punishment? Nottingham Forest did all those things and their Punishment was. Was cut off by a third. That's not just. Just plain. Not consistent. And I think most reasonable people that I have spoken to sees this as a series of transgressions around the transfer system, around transfers, around buying players. So the most fitting punishment should have been a transfer ban. Well, it's been suspended. What transfer ban? It's just a fine. It's the cost of doing business. It's luxury tax stuff. And this is, I think, where we get into. Is this the Premier League's fault? No, but the context is important. So who is actually paying this fine? And this, we go back to the kind of complexity of that original blueco purchase, when they paid Abramovich two and a half million. Two and a half billion. Sorry for Chelsea, because it was a rushed due diligence. They were clever and they went, you know what? We're just going to park 150 million of it for, just in case. Just in case you've done things wrong, just in case there's any. Anything coming down the track that we haven't had time to find out about. So 150 million has been parked 10 million euros. So 8 million quid has already come off for the 2023 UEFA settlement for this same stuff. The same stuff that the Pemley's looked at, the same stuff the FA is looking at. So part one of three, if you like, entities looking at these same transactions. So 10 million euros has come off now. 10 million quid has come off and we're waiting for the fa. The FA are suggesting they're not going to go for points. Another fine. So this is just money that Abramovich's company, fordstam, that's in dispute anyway, and the money's just sitting there in a bank account for four or five years anyway, is going to get back because that 150 million, whatever is left of it, goes back to him next year, five years after the deal was done. And this is where really sticking in people's throats here. This is the final sickena. That is money that's really coming out of the charitable contribution that he promised to the victims of the war in Ukraine. It's just less money to that pot that we're still arguing about. Bluco are not paying this fine.

[B]

Simon, you're sitting here listening to that and I'm sure you know a lot about it, but it doesn't sound great. I'll be honest with you, it really doesn't sound great, especially from an outsider looking in and you're thinking, this is Always business anyway. And I think that's the sad part from a football fan's perspective anyway.

[A]

Do Chelsea come out of this smelling of roses? Of course not. But they come away with the trophies.

[B]

So it's all about trophies now, is that it?

[A]

No, no, no. I want to make this clear. This is not me talking. Right. If that makes sense. I'm just doing it from the Chelsea point of view, right, that they're going, kept the trophies tick, kept the points tick, some money that, as Matt's explained, it's kind of negative. Of course the optics don't look great. I mean, funnily, I'm going to be a bit tongue in cheek now, which I think you're used to on this podcast. But weirdly, there is an argument that Chelsea could do with a transfer ban. They stop wasting money. They stop wasting money on players that aren't good enough and that they actually sort of try and work with what they've got. But anyway, that's my. My tongue in cheek comment, but it is a token punishment. It is a. We've looked into it and here you go.

[C]

There was another line that has annoyed people in the game. In the Premier League statement, look, it sounds like I'm criticizing Chelsea. I just to be clear, I'm really criticizing the Premier League. In the Premier League statement, they make this point that this fine is the record fine they've ever hit anyone with. And the previous big one was West Ham. Five and a half million back in 2007. That was the Carlos Tevis Mascarano stuff, right? The third party ownership, blah, blah, blah. Just stick five and a half million into any bank, any inflation calculator, it's pretty much the same. It's actually 9.4 million. But that's regular inflation. That's you and I inflation. Football inflation has been running at about three, four, five times that. It's not in real terms the biggest fine at all. So that's, you know, my annoyance. And the annoyance I'm hearing is with the Premier League. You know what's the thing that annoys people about bad refs? It's the inconsistency, isn't it? It's the inconsistency. That's what gets people going on the phone ins. That's what's happened here.

[B]

Okay, Si, Appreciate your time as always. Thanks for joining us.

[A]

Cheers, guys.

[B]

Right, next, let's look ahead and let's talk about the Manchester City case.

[C]

Foreign. You're listening to the Athletic FC podcast with IO Akamilere.

[B]

Okay, Matt, we have to Talk about Manchester City, because if we're talking financial breaches, they are the ones still unsolved to a certain degree because they're still under investigation for their alleged 115 breaches of Premier League rules charges which they deny, of course. Where are we right now with this case? Because it feels like it's been a while since we've spoken about it.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, are they under investigation for them? I mean, the actual case was heard a year ago. So, you know, we're waiting for, you know, this, this stellar panel of very, very senior jurists to get their thoughts down on paper. I find, like, I. Every time we talk about this, I. I have to sort of immediately say two very important caveats. One, of course, is that Man City deny everything, and of course those allegations are unproven at the moment or as far as we're aware of. And the second is the Man City case is pretty unique. You know, I know this came up a lot when we were talking about Everton and Forest and Leicester and what have you, and sometimes even Sheffield Wednesday and everything else. The Man City case is. Is really pretty remarkable. So drawing too many conclusions from other cases can be problematic. The ones, though, that, that I'm thinking off the back of this is it goes back to what I was saying earlier about how the Premier League appear to have decided that psr, that threshold is the most important thing to be to. For us to concern ourselves around. And that is why points were taken off the table as a potential penalty for Chelsea because they did their. Their sums. Okay, you haven't breached. God knows why you did what you did, but you haven't breached psr. All right, so let's start thinking about some other punishment. I think with Man City, we know, we pretty much know that if they are found guilty of the most serious things, then they have spectacularly failed psr, if not most years, every season that those, those charges look at, and it's more than a decade, because it is about artificially inflating your revenue with these alleged kind of bogus sponsorship deals from related parties in the uae. And it's also cutting your costs via image rights and side hustles for, for Mancini and what have you. So if you take down your revenue and massively bump up your costs, I think Man City are going to breach. So if Man City are guilty, the Premier League have basically said, well, that's the most important thing to us. We will now look at potentially 13, 14, whatever it is, PSR breaches, which of course are some of those 115 charges. So that's. So that, you know, that's. That's as much as we can say because we are. We are waiting. And the nature of those allegations, basically fraud, you know, a conspiracy, defraud, you know, they've been tested at Cass to a degree. Cass went its way home. Premier League has says it has more evidence. Certainly looked a lot longer. We shall see.

[B]

One of the things you spoke about, especially around the Chelsea case, was how the Premier League come out of this looking. And in this case in particular, the Manchester City one, which they've obviously denied all the charges, is that what does it say about the Premier League? How do they look considering this has been dragged on for so long?

[C]

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this. The first Everton PSR case was a bit of a mess. Everton massively breached. That wasn't really in dispute. There was some complex. Every case is different. Right. There were some real complexities around the stadium. What Machiri was, was declaring the loss of Usmanov's money. He was sanctioned, of course. He was the big sponsor. A lot of losses, serial losses there, much of it that was wrapped up, as I said, with capital expenditure, which normally you can discount from your PSR submissions. But the, the first case hit them hard and didn't really use a lot of precedent and case law, which they could have got from the EFL cases. So where the appeal was felt better. The minus six. And then the next few cases very much lent. So when I say the next few, I mean, I really mean Forest really lent on that. And we, we appear to get somewhere that, okay, when you're this much over, this is what you can expect. And there was consistency. And these are the kinds of mitigating factors we like. And these are the kind of mitigating factors that we just. You're just not gonna. You're not gonna get anything for. So, you know, kind of anything to do with like a choice that Brennan Johnson, that choice, that timing choice, things like promotion, bonuses, some quite contentious stuff. But at least we had consistency. I just think with this, the Premier League have kind of undone some of their recent better work. You know, they would say, well, it wasn't a PSR case, we did that. But for me it's connected. And I was seeing some consistency from the panel decisions. I was, I was. They were making sense. When I read the judgments, I'm reading this one and I just think you've. You've over mitigated, you've been too nice where you Weren't very, you know, you weren't that nice to Everton and you weren't that nice to Leicester. Now, it could be because Leicester annoyed you and Leicester didn't deserve much mitigation, but I don't know, I'm just sort of thinking there's some quite important, like legal principles here that you have. You have massively. But you've gone, oh, yeah, Chelsea. Brilliant. Yeah, yeah. So, yes, it was a different ownership. It was the last slot. Yeah, okay. Big tick for that. Well, hold on a minute. As a sort of a starting point in almost every other case, it's about the club, it's about the entity. Owners come and go. Otherwise you're just going to let clubs off. You know, a club could do. Could break every rule going and be sold. A new person could come in and go, oh, sorry, none of that was me. You know, the fact that this club has qualified for this tournament and earned this much money and bought these players and got these sponsors and got these trophies. Yeah, that was the last lot. They're gone. I mean, that's just not. That's just not a principle of law that makes any sense. I mean, that's exactly the kind of debate we're having around Sheffield Wednesday. So I don't know, I just think Premier League have got. They've got some law wrong. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer but I mean, I'm talking to lawyers and they're kind of agreeing with me or that's certainly the view of the, of the football industry that. Where's the consistency? This doesn't quite feel right. And I just, as a final point, loathe as I am to big up other podcasts. I thought the Christian Perso Henry Winter podcast this week, the. The Tales from the Ballroom or whatever they call it, was interesting, right, because it's Purslow. Purslow, who was Imagine director at Liverpool, then was a commercial, very senior commercial director at Chelsea during this period and then went on to be CEO of Villa. So he makes the point in the podcast that he had nothing to do with transfers at Chelsea and no one is suggesting that's totally credible. And he says, but he did do him at Liverpool and Villa, very much a Villa. So he's done loads of transfers. So he's looking at this going, this isn't right. Backhand, unreported hidden payments, just not right. And if anyone had ever asked him about this whilst he was in those positions at Liverpool and Villa, he'd have sacked them. And he feels Chelsea have been treated very leniently here and he doesn't understand the over mitigation. And I just thought that was really interesting that Parslow this is a sacking offense. If someone suggested this and these are the bits we haven't got yet. So I'm waiting for. I suppose we should wait for the FA because the FA are looking at this and they're looking at it from a different lens. I'd like some individuals to be named, so I'd like some executives who did sign off on this stuff at Chelsea to be named and ideally punished. But let's just wait for the FA to do its work.

[B]

Thoroughly appreciate your time on this one, Matt, and also Simon who joined us earlier. Thanks for jumping on the pod. And also thank you guys for joining us too. We'll be back soon.

[C]

You've been listening to the Athletic FC Podcast. The producers were Guy Clark, Mike Stavrou and Jay Beal, with editing by Paul Eiliff and Nick Thompson. The executive producer is admirable to listen to other great athletic podcasts for free, including our dedicated club shows. Search for the Athletic wherever you get your podcasts. You'll also find us on YouTube at the Athletic FC podcast, so make sure you subscribe. The Athletic FC Podcast is an athletic media company production.