Quite brilliant takedown by Aston Villa fan of not fit for purpose PSR that unfairly restricts competition | OneFootball

(Our thanks to Aston Villa fan Warren Michael Holmes for this excellent article on how PSR isn’t fair and reasonable when it comes to the finances of Premier League clubs, with Villa and Newcastle United the chief casualties.

Here at The Mag we spotted Warren commenting on Villa social media and asked if we could share what he was having to say about the issues involved.

Our thanks to him for agreeing to that.

This particular article from Warren Michael Holmes was prompted by something that the (woeful!) Rory Smith wrote for The Observer.

Smith is very supportive on a regular basis of the status quo, giving his support to the financial gulf that exists between the usual suspects and those trying to close that yawning divide. The Observer journalist in this case declaring; ‘PSR is not perfect, but the alternative would be ruinous’

This is the excellent response from Aston Villa fan Warren Michael Holmes to Smith’s lame piece.)

The Rory Smith defence of PSR in the Observer perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with the current regulatory mindset

His argument – that ambitious clubs should simply “sell better” – reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how these rules operate in practice and whom they truly benefit.

Rory dismisses the concerns of Aston Villa and Newcastle United by pointing to our spending since promotion.

This misses the point entirely. The issue isn’t historical spending – it’s the regulatory ceiling that prevents sustained competition with the established elite.

Rory suggests Newcastle and Villa’s problems stem from poor selling. This ignores the brutal reality: when regulations force you to sell your best players to comply, you’re not “trading well” – you’re dismantling what you’ve built.

Aston Villa qualified for the Champions League then had to sell Luiz, Diaby, and Duran.

Newcastle qualified for Europe, then faced identical pressures. This isn’t poor trading – it’s systematic dismantling disguised as financial responsibility.

Meanwhile, Chelsea spend £300+ million by “selling” assets to themselves. The regulations don’t prevent spending – they favour those sophisticated enough to exploit loopholes while punishing straightforward investment.

Rory’s dismissal of the “Red Cartel” theory ignores reality. When Villa qualified for Europe, UEFA’s SCR rules immediately kicked in, limiting us to 70% of revenue on squad costs while non-European clubs face no such restrictions.

The system literally punishes success.

UEFA’s own settlement with Villa proves the point: £20 million or more in potential fines, transfer restrictions that require selling before buying, and 3 years of financial monitoring. For what? Investing to compete.

The regulations aren’t revenue-neutral. They’re rigged toward clubs with established commercial advantages.

Chelsea’s London location generates £546m annually versus Villa’s £310m. That £236m difference creates massive PSR headroom before considering player sales.

When regulations tie spending to revenue, they entrench existing hierarchies. Villa can’t outspend Manchester City because we can’t out-earn them – and the rules ensure we never will.

Rory argues regulations protect competition, but they’ve achieved the opposite. Look at the Premier League’s top six the last decade. The same clubs, in marginally different orders, year after year.

The Leicester City 2016 title proved competition was possible. Current regulations ensure it never happens again. That’s not protecting sport – it’s preserving sporting cartels!

Rory’s F1 comparison – F1 introduced cost caps to improve competition, but crucially, they applied equally to all teams. Premier League PSR creates different rules for different clubs based on revenue and European qualification.

Imagine F1 saying Mercedes could spend £200m because of their commercial success, while Williams were limited to £50m. That’s exactly how football operates now.

Nobody advocates unlimited spending. But current rules need fundamental reform:

Revenue-based limits that account for owner investment Equal treatment regardless of historical commercial advantages Regulations that encourage competition, not entrench monopolies Transparent enforcement that doesn’t favor accounting creativity over sporting investment

Aston Villa and Newcastle United aren’t demanding to “replace the elite” – we’re demanding the right to compete with them. The current system ensures that remains impossible.

His article concludes that “sport decided by chequebook is not sport at all.” He’s absolutely right. But sport decided by spreadsheets and accounting loopholes isn’t sport either – it’s a rigged game masquerading as competition.

The Premier League failure to explain these regulations isn’t accidental btw. When your rules prevent the very competition they claim to protect, silence becomes the only defensible strategy.