Newcastle United are ‘banging at the door’ but the established order do not like the idea of another club ‘threatening’ the status quo.
That is the view of football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who has been speaking just a few weeks after Manchester City challenged the validity of the sponsorship rules that were introduced in the wake of Newcastle’s takeover in 2021. The champions argued in an arbitration hearing that Premier League clubs only voted through these association party transactions (APT) regulations in response to Newcastle’s buy-out so that they could ‘safeguard their own commercial advantages’.
Amanda Staveley previously said that ‘nobody likes competition’ and the former Newcastle owner suggested that other clubs do ‘everything they can’ to ensure the Champions League places are available to ‘as few people as possible’. Newcastle still managed to finish in the top four in 2023, but the Magpies have been unable to fully maximise the backing of the club’s wealthy owners because the club’s revenues pale in comparison to those around them.
Although Premier League clubs have since agreed to trial squad cost rules and top to bottom anchoring regulations in shadow, alongside the existing profit and sustainability rules, Maguire has indicated this won’t radically change the landscape for upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle.
“The purpose of Financial Fair Play and its latest manifestation, PSR, and what we are going to move to, which is a squad cost control regime, is not to create a level playing field,” he told Football Weekly. “It’s not to allow clubs who are ambitious or aspirational to try to join the top table. It’s to create a glass ceiling because if you’ve already qualified for Europe and the Champions League, you’ve got a £100-£150m advantage over the clubs that are not.
“If you can spend 70% of that on wages, that means you have got somewhere between a £70m and £100m advantage. That allows those clubs to maintain the status quo and that was always the purpose of PSR. It was just dressed up as a form of cost control which was good for the game as a whole, but 19 out of 20 clubs in 22-23 lost money on a day-to-day basis in the Premier League. It’s a fallacy.
“Football doesn’t have a problem in terms of the money coming in, whether it’s from owners, ticket sales, TV or commercially. Football has got a problem in terms of spending money – not generating money – and I think the bigger clubs don’t like the idea of another Manchester City or another Chelsea threatening the existing system. Six into four doesn’t go so seven or eight into four is even worse if you’ve got [Aston] Villa or Newcastle banging at the door.”
Newcastle United are ‘banging at the door’ but the established order do not like the idea of another club ‘threatening’ the status quo.
That is the view of football finance expert Kieran Maguire, who has been speaking just a few weeks after Manchester City challenged the validity of the sponsorship rules that were introduced in the wake of Newcastle’s takeover in 2021. The champions argued in an arbitration hearing that Premier League clubs only voted through these association party transactions (APT) regulations in response to Newcastle’s buy-out so that they could ‘safeguard their own commercial advantages’.
Amanda Staveley previously said that ‘nobody likes competition’ and the former Newcastle owner suggested that other clubs do ‘everything they can’ to ensure the Champions League places are available to ‘as few people as possible’. Newcastle still managed to finish in the top four in 2023, but the Magpies have been unable to fully maximise the backing of the club’s wealthy owners because the club’s revenues pale in comparison to those around them.
Although Premier League clubs have since agreed to trial squad cost rules and top to bottom anchoring regulations in shadow, alongside the existing profit and sustainability rules, Maguire has indicated this won’t radically change the landscape for upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle.
“The purpose of Financial Fair Play and its latest manifestation, PSR, and what we are going to move to, which is a squad cost control regime, is not to create a level playing field,” he told Football Weekly. “It’s not to allow clubs who are ambitious or aspirational to try to join the top table. It’s to create a glass ceiling because if you’ve already qualified for Europe and the Champions League, you’ve got a £100-£150m advantage over the clubs that are not.
“If you can spend 70% of that on wages, that means you have got somewhere between a £70m and £100m advantage. That allows those clubs to maintain the status quo and that was always the purpose of PSR. It was just dressed up as a form of cost control which was good for the game as a whole, but 19 out of 20 clubs in 22-23 lost money on a day-to-day basis in the Premier League. It’s a fallacy.
“Football doesn’t have a problem in terms of the money coming in, whether it’s from owners, ticket sales, TV or commercially. Football has got a problem in terms of spending money – not generating money – and I think the bigger clubs don’t like the idea of another Manchester City or another Chelsea threatening the existing system. Six into four doesn’t go so seven or eight into four is even worse if you’ve got [Aston] Villa or Newcastle banging at the door.”
