The recent vote by Premier League clubs marks an absolute turning point in the governance of English football as months of intense debate and bitter internal wrangling, over the proposal for Top-to-Bottom Anchoring (TBA), a hard salary cap, was finally rejected.
This outcome was a victory for the league’s financial heavyweights, who successfully defeated a measure they viewed as stifling and fundamentally anti-competitive.
Premier League clubs defeat ‘Anchoring’
According to reports, the controversial TBA proposal, which aimed to cap spending at five times the lowest club’s central revenues, failed dramatically to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority (14 votes).
Instead, the motion reportedly garnered support from only seven clubs, primarily those in the lower half of the table who sought guaranteed stability and protection from the financial gap.
The clubs that reportedly voted against the anchoring mechanism were the ‘Big Six’, Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, and Chelsea, as well as other powerful or ambitious clubs like Newcastle United.
For these clubs, the vote was not just about budgets; it was about protecting their ambition and their ability to compete with European rivals.
Rightfully, they feared TBA would effectively handcuff their ability to sign global stars and maintain their standing in the UEFA Champions League, treating the Premier League as a closed shop and extinguishing the very aspiration that defines the game.
Lessons from Leagues with Salary Caps
The emotional argument against a hard cap like TBA gains significant evidence when looking at leagues that have adopted similar stringent financial mechanisms.
LaLiga in Spain, for instance, operates a form of salary limit (known as the “Límite de Coste de Plantilla” or Squad Cost Limit) that is strictly enforced.
While LaLiga’s system promotes solvency, its impact on competitive balance and European performance is often cited by critics.
This has led to dramatic situations where clubs, most famously FC Barcelona, were forced to offload star players, including Lionel Messi, or drastically cut wages simply to register their squads, regardless of their significant global revenue.
This created a sense of injustice and visibly hampered Spanish clubs’ competitiveness against the unfettered spending of English rivals in the transfer market.
Proponents of the free market in the Premier League argued: why adopt a rule that guarantees you cannot challenge Europe’s elite?
The Case for Rejecting the Cap
Ultimately, the rejection of the hard salary cap is widely seen as the best outcome for maintaining the Premier League’s unique global dominance.
By defeating TBA, the Premier League preserves its status as the world’s most competitive and highest-spending football league, which, in turn, fuels its record-breaking broadcast deals.
SCR and SSR Replace PSR from 2026/27
Instead of capping ambition, the clubs approved a major overhaul of financial regulations through the new Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) and Sustainability and Systemic Resilience (SSR) rules.
The SCR caps a club’s ‘football costs’ at 85% of its revenue (stricter at 70% for clubs in UEFA competition, aligning with the European body’s model). This system is superior because of the following reasons:
It is Pro-Growth: It links spending directly to revenue generation. If a club can generate more commercial income, it can spend more, rewarding success and ambition, rather than punishing high earners regardless of their financial performance.
It Promotes Stability: The accompanying SSR rules, which monitor Working Capital, Liquidity, and Positive Equity, mandate financial health across all horizons. This provides a crucial safety net against crippling debt without stifling competitive investment.
The new rules, slated for the 2026-27 season, allow the Premier League to maintain its spectacular commercial power while enforcing genuine, forward-looking financial discipline, that ensures clubs must earn the right to spend big.
Kehinde-Hassan Afolabi
