3 hours ago
10
The Premier League’s judgment against Chelsea for breaking football’s rules – during an eight-year trophy spree under Roman Abramovich – concludes that the club engaged in “deception and concealment”.
The breaches, more than 30 of them, relate to at least £47m in off-book payments linked to landmark deals for star players, including Eden Hazard, Willian, David Luiz and Nemanja Matic.
Many of these secret transactions, routed through Abramovich’s network of offshore companies, were revealed in an investigation published by the Guardian and international partners in 2023.
Despite the apparent severity of the transgressions, the punishment amounts to a relatively mild £10.75m fine and a suspended transfer embargo that may never be imposed.
So have Chelsea got off lightly and could there be harsher penalties to come?
Will this hurt Chelsea?
No. The Clearlake consortium that bought the club from Abramovich inserted a £150m “holdback” clause into the £2.5bn takeover deal. This sum is withheld for five years, to cover any costs arising from actions during the Abramovich era. Uefa fined Chelsea more than £8.5m in 2023 for incomplete financial reporting under Abramovich. Throw in the Premier League’s knuckle-rap and the total amounts to less than a quarter of what Chelsea received in 2019 from selling Hazard to Real Madrid. What’s more, there is plenty left in the fund to absorb any further penalties.
As for the suspended transfer embargo, that will be imposed only if Chelsea commit any more breaches during the next two years. So, in effect, the club can brush off both penalties without breaking stride.
This impact, or lack of it, must be set against the benefits that Chelsea enjoyed during the period covered by the breaches (2011-18): two league titles, the Champions League, two FA Cups and a League Cup. The club went on to win multiple trophies thereafter, thanks in part to the platform for success created during the Abramovich reign.
So this is a let-off?
“The approach of the Premier League board is surprisingly lenient,” said Stefan Borson, a football finance expert who is head of sport at the law firm McCarthy Denning.
He pointed to the Premier League’s enthusiasm for points deductions in recent profitability and sustainability cases against Leicester, Nottingham Forest and Everton.
Borson notes that the Premier League made no mention of Chelsea having obtained “sporting advantage” from the admitted breaches, which may explain why there was no sporting sanction, such as a points deduction.
“They’ve clearly signed players [such as Willian and Hazard] in competitive situations by paying £47m off book, which according to the written sanctions agreement, was deliberate and involved deception and concealment. On the face of it, these are serious matters that relate to sporting performance. Admitted conduct as egregious this would ordinarily result in sporting sanction.”
But didn’t Chelsea own up?
The club received clemency because the new owners self-reported some of the breaches. But the judgment confirms that the investigation was “larger than the matters recorded in the club’s own disclosures”, involving substantial other investigative steps.
Borson questions whether self-reporting should matter, particularly given the benefits that the present-day club enjoy as a result of past actions.
“Just because you sold a business doesn’t mean links to the past are severed. If Manchester City were to sell the club tomorrow nobody would expect the [charges of rule breaches] to disappear.”
Could the FA still deduct points?
Yes. The Football Association charged Chelsea with 74 rule breaches last year and its investigation is ongoing. While there is no sign of an outcome, the language of today’s Premier League ruling is intriguing.
The ruling states that the league’s board considered “the potential sanction which may be imposed upon the club as a consequence off the FA charges”.
That could signal a belief that the Premier League expects the FA to follow its example – and that of Uefa – by sticking to a financial penalty. Or, it could mean that the Premier League does not feel the need to impose a sporting sanction because it expects the FA to do so.
What now?
Chelsea’s owners won’t be able to relax fully until they have heard the FA’s verdict, which could drop at any time. The club and Premier League will also be hoping that no new revelations emerge in the meantime that may raise further questions about activity the period covered by penalties already imposed. Anything of that nature could prove embarrassing for all concerned.
For now though, Borson thinks Chelsea will be breathing a sigh of relief.
“Chelsea’s lawyers have done a really good job. They’re indemnified by the previous owners and they’ve managed to convince the Premier League, who historically have pushed hard for severe penalties,” said Borson.
He added that the impact of Chelsea’s rule-breaking will in effect be borne only by victims of the war in Ukraine. This is because the financial penalty is absorbed by the holdback amount, which is derived from the proceeds of the club’s sale. Abramovich has pledged to donate those funds to people affected by the war, although this plan is subject to a dispute between the oligarch and the British government.
