The Football Association has charged Chelsea with 74 alleged breaches of its rules relating to agents, intermediaries, and third-party investments. Manchester City’s settlement with the Premier League over sponsorship rules has frustrated many fans at the lack of clarity in two of the biggest regulatory sagas in English football.
Chelsea’s case is the most recent development. On 11 September 2025, the FA confirmed that the club had been charged with 74 breaches of its regulations. The alleged misconduct stretches from 2009 to 2022, with the majority said to have occurred between the 2010/11 and 2015/16 seasons. The charges are linked to rules on agents, intermediaries and third-party investment in players. Chelsea have been given until 19 September to respond.
The club’s change of ownership complicates the situation. During the due diligence process, the Boehly-Clearlake consortium took over Chelsea in May 2022, claiming to have uncovered potentially incomplete financial reporting under Roman Abramovich’s regime. The new owners subsequently self-reported these issues to the FA, Premier League and UEFA. In a statement, Chelsea said that immediately upon completion of the purchase, the club informed the relevant regulators and had since demonstrated “unprecedented transparency,” providing comprehensive access to historical files and data.
The new ownership set aside £100 million of the £2.5 billion bid for the club to cover any unforeseen future liabilities, meaning they were fully aware that financial sanctions would occur.
Over the last three years, the club has been fully cooperative; they have given FA investigators all the needed files, data and emails.
They settled with UEFA in July 2023 for around £8.5 million for incomplete financial reporting up to 2019.
This announcement of charges will come at no cost to the club because they self-reported the previous owners' misgivings.
The pavement is made in connection with historical transfers, which led to the belief that, for example, Eden Hazard.
However, this has no connection to the current owners; they are still waiting for the response from the Premier League's investigation.
Because it was not the current owners who did this, the club will expect a financial penalty, but a sporting sanction, such as a points deduction, could also be possible.
Which I ultimately feel is unfair, the current owners have done nothing wrong, in fact, they have done everything right, they should not be pushed for something they did not do, especially as they did not want to hide anything. If they do get a points deduction it will deter other clubs from bringing these issues up if they see the harsh consequences.
While the FA has not published full details of each of the 74 charges, reporting from Sky Sports and BBC Sport indicates they are primarily related to agent and intermediary payments and offshore transactions linked to transfers and player representatives. According to Sky’s Kaveh Solhekol, some payments are believed to have been worth millions and were made to offshore companies and families or players' representatives, but were not recorded correctly in official accounts. The club is in talks with the FA over a possible financial settlement, similar to the €10m fine Chelsea agreed with UEFA in 2023 for incomplete financial reporting from the previous ownership.
Manchester City, meanwhile, have settled a separate but equally significant case. Earlier this year, City challenged the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction rules governing sponsorship and commercial deals connected to club owners. In June, the club argued at an arbitration panel that the rules were discriminatory. But on 8 September 2025, City and the Premier League issued a joint statement confirming that proceedings had been terminated and a settlement reached. City accepted that the current rules are valid and binding as part of that agreement.
The settlement closes one legal dispute but does not address the larger case hanging over the club. City still faces 115 charges from the Premier League relating to alleged financial rule breaches stretching back over a decade. That case remains unresolved, with no date confirmed for a verdict.
The contrasting approaches of the clubs have only sharpened public debate. Everton and Nottingham Forest both received points deductions for breaches of profit and sustainability rules, punishments that were swift, public and directly affected sporting performance.
By contrast, City’s 115 charges have lingered unresolved for months, while Chelsea’s case appears more likely to end with a fine given the club’s cooperation and the fact that the breaches were self-reported by a new ownership group. Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan argued that Chelsea’s transparency will work in their favour, describing the situation as “the sins of the father on an unwilling son.”
What happens next is crucial. Chelsea must submit their response to the FA by 19 September, after which an independent commission will decide on potential sanctions. Punishment could, in theory, range from fines to transfer restrictions or even sporting sanctions, though experts believe a financial penalty is the most likely outcome. In Manchester City’s case, the settlement over sponsorship rules removes one legal battle but leaves the central question unanswered: what punishment, if any, will follow from their 115 unresolved charges?
The Chelsea charges and City’s settlement point to the same problem: a lack of transparency. Supporters are left in the dark while decisions are made behind closed doors, often shielded by confidentiality agreements and legal processes. Everton and Nottingham Forest’s swift sanctions starkly contrast, fuelling perceptions of double standards regarding how different clubs are treated.
English football is at a crossroads regarding financial regulation. Chelsea’s new owners may be punished for the sins of their predecessors, City’s fate hangs in limbo, and fans are left questioning whether the system is truly consistent or fair. What is clear is that scrutiny of how the game handles financial breaches will only intensify in the months ahead.
Add comment
Comments