A football finance expert has claimed that Manchester United avoided breaching the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) due to ‘special’ financial assistance.
The Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) continue to cause headaches for several top clubs, with some facing significant restrictions in the current transfer window. Clubs are required to comply with the PSR, which allows for a certain level of losses over a three-year period. Until June 30, these losses are calculated as permitting Premier League clubs to lose a maximum of £105m over three years, or a maximum of £35m per season.
The consequences of breaching these rules are severe, with Everton and Nottingham Forest both being deducted points for violations last season. Leicester City are also another club facing potential sanctions for financial issues in the last two seasons.
Newcastle are also in a difficult position and need to raise funds to meet the PSR requirements, while Aston Villa, despite their Champions League qualification, face a similar situation. However, Manchester United’s PSR position has been questioned, considering their limited spending in the transfer market in recent seasons.
Recent investment from the INEOS Group has allowed Manchester United to spend close to £100m this summer on the signings of Rasmus Hojlund and Jonny Evans. But finance expert Stefan Szymanski said that Man United were on the brink of a PSR breach but were saved by some ‘special’ financial assistance.
Speaking to talkSPORT, Szymanski said: “Manchester United are a really interesting case because we have a lot of information about them. The fact is that Man United last season did breach the PSR, and the reason they avoided a penalty was twofold. First, it seems that they got about £40m in ‘special’ financial assistance during the pandemic in 2022 that other clubs didn’t get. Other clubs got a maximum of £1m during that year. We don’t know how they managed to get that.”
“Secondly, they seem to have gotten about £35m in ‘special’ charges relating to the sale of shares to INEOS owner Jim Ratcliffe, which, frankly, the Glazers should have paid themselves because they were the main beneficiaries. But we know that in terms of the numbers, that’s £35m and the only way they were able to meet the PSR for 23/24, and this isn’t just me, this is the opinion of lots of people in the industry, is that they relied on this ‘special’ assistance to avoid breaching the PSR. This ‘special’ assistance is relatively rare in football.”
This article is from a user submission and does not represent the views of Soccer News Pick. If you repost it, please indicate the source: https://www.soccernewspick.com/premier-league/18685.html
