The Premier League voted through its biggest funding deal in a decade without confirming what is in it

Premier League clubs voted through the biggest change to English football’s money in a decade on Thursday 30 July, and then declined to tell anybody what was in it.

What the 20 clubs actually confirmed

The vote was unanimous, which by itself is worth pausing on. Twenty clubs with wildly different interests all raised a hand for the same package, described by the league as a long-term proposal that would now be formally offered to the EFL.

The confirmed shape of it is thin. It runs for ten years. It starts in the coming season. It is funded through an increased transfer levy, with contributions weighted to what each club earns. It sits on top of the roughly £1.6 billion the Premier League already sends down the pyramid every three years. That is close to the entire official disclosure.

Everything else you have read about it, including the £1.5 billion headline number, comes from press reporting rather than from the league. Sky News broke the ten-year framework and the levy mechanism. Other outlets have since put figures on the payment schedule, describing a sliding scale that starts under £100 million in year one, rises to around £160 million by year three and holds there, along with two ringfenced pots: a lifeboat fund for clubs in immediate financial trouble and a separate allocation restricted to infrastructure. Treat all of that as well-sourced reporting, not as settled fact, because the Premier League has confirmed none of it.

The levy is where the fight was

The mechanism reported everywhere is a rise in the domestic transfer levy on top-flight deals from 4 per cent to 6 per cent. Every transfer between English clubs already carries that charge, so lifting it by two points falls hardest on the clubs who trade most.

Manchester City, who trade a great deal, spent weeks arguing the point. Their counter-proposal was a rise of a single percentage point rather than two. At least one other club is understood to have backed them, and another floated capping how much the higher levy could raise before it reverted to 4 per cent. Neither idea carried, and City voted for the package in the end, which is how the vote came out unanimous despite the club leading the opposition to its central mechanism.

There is a logic to funding the pyramid this way. The transfer market is the sharpest expression of the gap between the Premier League and everything beneath it. Making that market pay to narrow the gap is at least honest about where the gap comes from.

The argument nobody has settled

None of the reporting says anything definitive about parachute payments, and that omission is the most interesting thing about the whole package.

Parachutes are the EFL’s actual grievance and always have been. Rick Parry, re-elected as EFL chair in June for another three years, has spent years arguing they should be abolished entirely and replaced with a quarter of pooled broadcast revenue distributed on merit across all four divisions. His case is that three clubs dropping into the Championship each year with money nobody else in the division has makes those three likely to bounce straight back, and drags everyone else into spending they cannot sustain trying to keep up.

The Independent Football Regulator confirmed in January that parachute payments would be examined in its State of the Game report, with a draft due for consultation this year and a final version in spring 2027. So the question is live, it is simply being handled somewhere other than in this proposal. An EFL board weighing an offer of extra money while a separate process reviews the payments it actually objects to is in an odd negotiating position.

Why it happened now

Because somebody finally had the power to force it. The two leagues have been arguing since Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review in 2021 recommended a 10 per cent transfer levy. The Premier League offered an extra £358 million over three years in late 2023, and EFL clubs rejected it over the conditions attached. Talks collapsed altogether in 2024.

What changed is the Football Governance Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 21 July 2025 and created the Independent Football Regulator, chaired by David Kogan since October. The IFR holds backstop powers to impose a financial settlement if the leagues cannot reach one. The EFL’s own statement thanks “constructive discussions involving the EFL, Premier League and Independent Football Regulator over recent months.”

Read that how you like. A deal negotiated with a regulator holding a binding alternative over the table is a different animal from a deal freely struck, and the Premier League will have worked out that a settlement it writes beats one written for it. Four years of stalemate ended inside a year of the referee arriving.

It is not done

The EFL board has the proposal and has committed to nothing beyond reviewing it in full before taking it to its 72 members. Its statement promises to weigh the benefits and implications against the long-term interests of those clubs, which is the sentence you write when you have not decided.

The EFL spent years asking for more than this from a position with no leverage. It has leverage now. Whether the board takes a good offer or holds out for the one it has actually been asking for is the next question, and 72 clubs have never agreed on anything quickly.

More long reads from our football desk