Premier League clubs have voted to overhaul the league’s financial regulations from the start of the 2026-27 season, marking a significant shift in how clubs will manage their finances. The changes include the introduction of the squad cost ratio (SCR) and the sustainability and system resilience (SSR) measures, replacing the current profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
The clubs held a shareholders’ meeting in London on Friday to discuss these new financial measures. The first proposal, anchoring, was voted on but received only seven votes in favor, with 12 against and one abstention. This was followed by the SCR and SSR, which passed with 14 in favor and 6 against for SCR, and unanimously for SSR. A threshold of 14 of the 20 clubs voting in favor is required to change Premier League rules.
SCR will directly limit how much clubs can spend on players and their head coach, with the amount varying based on the club’s revenue. This replaces the current PSR rule, which limits club losses to £105 million over three years. SCR will be assessed across a season, similar to UEFA’s SCR regime, which nine Premier League clubs already adhere to. Costs under SCR include player and head coach wages, agent fees, and transfer fee amortization, with women’s team and youth academy costs excluded.
To ensure swift punishment, clubs will undergo an SCR Compliance Test each March 1. If their squad cost is equal to or less than 85%, they are compliant. Exceeding this level triggers an Accounts Confirmation Test at the end of the season. This is a notable difference from UEFA’s SCR rules, which limit squad costs to 70% of relevant income.
SSR comprises three prongs, focusing on ensuring clubs have sufficient resources to handle known outgoings and revenue fluctuations, and assessing the long-term financial health of the club’s balance sheet. The league added that SSR will assess a club’s short, medium, and long-term financial health through working capital, liquidity, and positive equity tests.
The anchoring proposal, which would have limited clubs’ spending on wages and transfer fees to five times the amount paid in prize money and broadcast revenue to the bottom-finishing club, was rejected. This proposal faced legal challenges from players and football agencies, who argued it would artificially cap earning potential. The Premier League responded by claiming they had provided the PFA with opportunities to share their views and maintained the league’s value and competitive balance.
These changes reflect the Premier League’s aim to promote success for all clubs while maintaining a competitive and sustainable league.