The Premier League’s ongoing efforts to reshape its financial regulations are facing fresh resistance, as several top-flight clubs express concern that the proposed Top-to-Bottom Anchoring (TBA) system could spill over into the EFL Championship, reshaping the financial structure of English football beyond the top division.
What the TBA Proposal Means?
Under the TBA framework, a club’s total squad spending would be capped at five times the central broadcasting and prize money distributed to the bottom-ranked Premier League team. The rule is intended to promote competitive balance by curbing the spending power of the league’s wealthiest sides.
However, critics argue that this effectively amounts to a salary cap, limiting flexibility and potentially undermining competitiveness in European competitions. Manchester City, Manchester United, and Aston Villa reportedly opposed the proposal when it was last discussed in April 2024.
The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) has taken a firm stance against TBA, retaining leading sports lawyer Nick De Marco KC to mount a legal challenge. The union believes the proposal could breach collective bargaining rules that require player consultation.
Championship Repercussions and Parachute Payment Fears
Beyond the Premier League, several clubs are worried that the same spending model could be adopted by the English Football League (EFL). If TBA were mirrored in the Championship, relegated clubs receiving parachute paymentscould find their budgets constrained by limits tied to the division’s lowest earners — reversing the financial advantage parachute money was meant to provide.
EFL chairman Rick Parry has previously criticized the inequality parachute payments create, and observers believe the EFL might pursue its own version of spending caps if the Premier League model passes legal scrutiny. This could further compress the financial gap between divisions, but at the cost of flexibility for relegated sides.
Legal Risks and Potential Fallout
There is growing concern among clubs that adopting TBA could invite legal and competition law challenges, both from the PFA and individual clubs. Sources close to the process indicate that, given this risk, the proposal could be dropped before the November 21 vote or fail to gain enough support to pass.
Should TBA be rejected, clubs would need to decide between maintaining the current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) or adopting the Squad Cost Rules (SCR) — a system already trialled in shadow form since 2024.
Aligning with UEFA — But at What Cost?
The proposed SCR model would align the Premier League with UEFA’s financial regulations, which cap squad-related spending at 70 percent of revenue. The Premier League’s version proposes an 85 percent limit for non-European clubs, with potential points deductions for breaching a 115 percent threshold.
While advocates argue that SCR encourages financial discipline and parity, critics say it could widen the gap between high-revenue clubs and the rest, tying sporting success more tightly to income. Smaller or mid-table clubs that depend on player trading and development argue that the current PSR model better supports their long-term planning cycles.
365247 View
The Premier League’s financial reform debate reveals a deeper tension at the heart of modern football: balancing fiscal control with ambition. While TBA and SCR seek to stabilise the sport, they risk limiting upward mobility and entrenching financial hierarchy.
If implemented, TBA could mark the biggest structural shift in English football governance since Financial Fair Play — and its ripple effects may soon reach far beyond the Premier League.
Don’t Just Watch Sport, Understand It. Join the 365247 Newsletter for daily insights
IMAGE: Getty Images
