Financial Fair Play (FFP) is back in the headlines because of Manchester City. At the end of September 2026 the Premier League published the ruling of the independent commission that heard its case against the club, and City were found guilty of breaking the league’s financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009-10 to 2017-18. City lodged an appeal on 1 October, and the punishment has not been decided.

Strictly speaking, though, FFP no longer exists. UEFA replaced it in 2022 with its Financial Sustainability Regulations, and the Premier League has replaced its own version, the profit and sustainability rules (PSR), from the 2026-27 season. This guide explains what FFP was, what replaced it, and where the City case fits.

What was Financial Fair Play?

Financial Fair Play was UEFA’s set of rules for clubs playing in its competitions, such as the Champions League and Europa League. UEFA agreed the idea in 2009, and the first monitoring period began with the 2011-12 season. The aim was to “improve the overall financial health of European club football”: to stop clubs spending more than they earned, and to stop them running up debts that could threaten their survival.

How did Financial Fair Play work?

The core of FFP was the break-even requirement. Over each three-year monitoring period, a club’s relevant expenses could exceed its relevant income by no more than €5 million. If the owners or a related party covered the excess with fresh equity, the allowed loss rose to €45 million, and later €30 million.

What counted under the Financial Fair Play rules?

Income that counted included gate receipts, broadcasting money, sponsorship and advertising, commercial and merchandising revenue, UEFA prize money and profit on player sales.

Expenses that counted included wages and other employee costs, transfer spending (amortised over the length of each contract), finance costs and dividends.

Spending on stadiums and training facilities, youth development and community work was left out. UEFA treated it as investment it wanted to encourage, so a club could spend as much as it liked there without breaking the rules.

What were the punishments for breaking Financial Fair Play rules?

Breaches went to UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). Its list of disciplinary measures ran from the mildest to the most severe:

  • Warning
  • Reprimand
  • Fine
  • Points deduction
  • Withholding of revenue from a UEFA competition
  • Prohibition on registering new players for UEFA competitions
  • Restriction on the number of players a club can register for UEFA competitions
  • Disqualification from a competition in progress, or exclusion from future competitions
  • Withdrawal of a title or award

The most famous case was Manchester City. UEFA banned City from its competitions for two seasons in February 2020 and fined them €30 million. In July 2020 the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) overturned the ban and cut the fine to €10 million.

What replaced Financial Fair Play?

On 7 April 2022, UEFA’s Executive Committee approved the Financial Sustainability Regulations, which came into force in June 2022 and were phased in over three seasons. They rest on three rules:

  • No overdue payables: money owed to other clubs, players and staff, tax authorities and UEFA has to be paid on time. The deadlines are checked several times a year rather than once.
  • Football earnings rule: FFP’s break-even test in a new form. Clubs can now lose up to €60 million over three years, double the old €30 million, and up to €10 million more per year for clubs in good financial health.
  • Squad cost rule: the big change. Spending on player and coach wages, transfers and agents’ fees is capped as a share of revenue: 90% in 2023-24, 80% in 2024-25 and 70% from 2025-26.

The new rules have already been used. In July 2025 the CFCB fined Chelsea €31 million (€20 million under the football earnings rule and €11 million under the squad cost rule), Barcelona €15 million and Aston Villa €11 million, with larger conditional fines if the clubs fail to meet their targets.

What about the Premier League?

The Premier League ran its own version, the profit and sustainability rules. They allowed losses of up to £105 million over three seasons, or £15 million if the owners did not cover them. In 2023-24 Everton and Nottingham Forest were both docked points under PSR.

In November 2025 the clubs voted to replace PSR with a squad cost ratio from the 2026-27 season, close to UEFA’s model. A club’s squad spending is measured against 85% of its football revenue plus its net profit on player sales. Clubs can go above that line using a limited multi-year allowance, which carries a levy. At the same meeting the clubs rejected “anchoring”, a proposal that would have tied every club’s spending to the income of the bottom club.

The Manchester City case

The Premier League charged City on 6 February 2023 with 115 breaches of its rules over the nine seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18. A three-person independent commission heard the case in private from September to December 2024.

The ruling, published at the end of September 2026, found City guilty of every charge about the club’s finances, and of most of the charges of failing to co-operate with the league’s investigation. At its centre is sponsorship. Of the £949.94 million City booked as sponsorship income over those nine seasons, the commission found that £830.69 million came from the club’s owners, disguised as payments from sponsors.

City deny wrongdoing and have appealed to the Premier League’s Appeal Board. The sanction will be decided at a separate hearing in front of the commission, and fines, points deductions and expulsion are all possible.

What are the criticisms of financial rules in football?

The main criticism of FFP was that it protected the clubs that were already rich. Clubs with big existing revenues could keep spending, while clubs trying to break into the top tier could not lean on a wealthy owner to close the gap.

The second was sponsorship from companies linked to a club’s owners, which could inflate a club’s income. UEFA and the Premier League both added fair-value tests for these deals. The City ruling shows why: it found that money from the owners had been passed off as sponsorship for years.

UEFA’s answer to both points was the move to a squad cost rule. It lets owners put in more money than FFP did, but caps how much of any club’s revenue can go on the squad.

Featured photo: AFP / Fabrice Coffrini