Though most football fans’ eyes will be on this Sunday’s North London Derby, the biggest fight in English football this weekend will not be on the pitch but in the boardroom. On Friday (21/11/25), Premier League clubs will vote on whether to abandon their existing financial rulebook – the Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) – and adopt a controversial new model known as ‘Top-to-Bottom Anchoring’ (TBA). It is a decision that could permanently reshape the economic landscape of the Premier League and the balance of power between club and players.
Under the proposed TBA model, clubs would be restricted to spending no more than five times the broadcasting and prize-money revenue received by the Premier League’s bottom-placed team on player wages, transfer costs and agent fees, effectively placing a hard ceiling on total squad spending that is not tied to an individual club’s commercial strength or overall revenue. Supporters of the model argue that anchoring spending to the league’s lowest-earning club would help preserve competitive balance and ensure that the Premier League does not go the way of Europe’s other ‘big five’ leagues where ‘superclubs’ such as PSG and Bayern Munich blow their domestic competitors out of the water with inflated wages and transfer fees. It would mark a seismic shift from the current PSR framework, which focuses on limiting a club’s financial losses to ensure sustainability rather than regulating how much income can be channelled directly into the playing squad.
While Premier League broadcast and prize-money revenues continue to rise, the TBA model would effectively cap how much of that growing income can flow to players in the form of wages, bonuses and transfer-related payments. Critics argue that this shifts revenue away from labour and towards club ownership and executives, limiting players’ ability to benefit from the commercial success they generate on the pitch. Three of the game’s largest agencies – CAA Base, CAA Stellar and Wasserman – have already written to the Premier League via lawyers, warning that the proposals may breach UK competition law and signalling their readiness to challenge the system on behalf of their clients if it is adopted. Although 16 clubs initially backed exploring the TBA model, four sides (including both Manchester clubs) opposed it, warning that a hard spending anchor could weaken the Premier League against Europe’s wealthiest superclubs. In the past week, reports have suggested that some original supporters, most notably Arsenal, are now reconsidering their position, underscoring the lack of consensus within the league.
Opposition from players has been just as immediate. The PFA – the trade union representing professional footballers in England and Wales – has taken an uncompromising stance against the proposal. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, PFA Chief Executive Maheta Molango argued that ‘you cannot artificially cap someone’s ability to make a living’ and warned that the model ‘would not withstand any legal challenge’ that the PFA might bring.
Given his experience advising on disputes between leagues, clubs and players, I asked Richard Cramer, sports lawyer at arch.law sports, to break down where the PFA might go next.
The most drastic route theoretically open to the PFA would be to consider industrial action. In practice, however, strikes in professional football are exceptionally rare, with the last major threat of a walkout back in 2001 – also in response to a dispute over broadcasting revenue. Any modern strike would need to qualify as a ‘trade dispute’ under UK employment law, a threshold that is far from straightforward in a sector where employment contracts, competition rules and commercial arrangements overlap. As Richard Cramer notes, “The question of whether a players’ strike would legally constitute a trade dispute was never tested in 2001 and remains an unknown quantity. The mere threat of industrial action at that time was considered catastrophic, and any disruption to Premier League fixtures – let alone a breach of broadcasting commitments – would carry enormous financial and reputational consequences. For that reason, strike action remains the most draconian and least likely option available to the PFA.”
A more realistic avenue for the PFA would be to challenge the TBA model through the Premier League’s internal arbitration system. This mechanism is regularly used to resolve disputes between clubs and the league and is designed to provide a quicker, less public and less confrontational process than going straight to court. Through arbitration, the PFA could examine the legality or proportionality of the proposed spending cap within the Premier League’s own governance framework – although any proceedings would take place entirely behind closed doors. As Richard Cramer explains, “The confidential and highly sensitive nature of the relationship between the PFA and the League- together with the commercial sensitivities surrounding broadcasting arrangements – means that neither would want this ‘dirty linen’ to be aired publicly. The key advantage of arbitration is not only its speed but the fact that disputes are heard by a panel of three highly experienced arbitrators with a deep understanding of the football industry, ensuring a specialist and informed evaluation of the issues.”
A final route available to the PFA would be to seek a court injunction on the basis that the TBA model breaches UK competition law. Several leading agencies have already suggested that anchoring all clubs to a single hard spending cap effectively creates a wage-restricting cartel, limiting the ability of players to compete for remuneration in an open market. Recent events also demonstrate that such challenges are far from hypothetical – Manchester City’s successful action against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction rules showed that clubs can overturn league regulations if they are found to unlawfully distort competition. Richard Cramer elucidated that, “Any competition-law challenge would have to be heard through the courts, either in the High Court’s Chancery Division or before the specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal, both of which are equipped with judges experienced in complex commercial and regulatory disputes. It is likely that the three agencies raising concerns have already set out this position in their pre-action correspondence. For the Premier league, this would be an undesirable outcome: litigation would be a fully public process, exposing highly sensitive commercial and broadcasting matters to scrutiny from both the press and wider industry.”
Increasingly, it appears that the most likely outcome is that the TBA model will be struck down by the clubs themselves at Friday’s vote. Industry reports suggest that several sides are now reconsidering their position, raising the prospect that the Premier League could step back from the plans before they even reach implementation. If that happens, the league will be forced to revisit the wider question of what sustainable spending actually looks like. The existing PSR framework remains deeply unpopular with many clubs, who argue that it disproportionately penalises smaller teams such as Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester while enabling the commercial giants of the ‘big six’ to spend more freely due to their significantly larger profit margins. The Premier League is therefore caught between two imperfect systems – one that caps losses, and one that caps spending power – with no clear consensus on which path leads to a fairer and more competitive future.
Whatever happens on the 21st of November, the outcome will reshape the relationship between clubs, players and the wider football labour market. The Premier League’s global strength has always depended on its ability to attract, retain and fairly compensate elite talent, and any new financial framework will have to balance sustainability with the reality of remaining competitive on a world stage. In the months ahead, agents, players, lawyers and clubs alike will be navigating a rapidly shifting regulatory landscape. At arch.law sports, our combination of specialist representation and first-class legal expertise means we are well positioned to advise and support our clients, ensuring their interests remain protected in an industry that is evolving at speed.