AliousEverton faced significant challenges last season, including an eight-point deduction due to Premier League PSR breaches.
Despite this, the club managed to stay in the top flight and has since been working to strengthen their squad, as evidenced by recent signings like Jake O’Brien from Lyon.
The club’s strategy to avoid further PSR sanctions involved making strategic sales, such as that of Lewis Dobbin.
However, this approach contrasts sharply with the situation at Manchester United, who reportedly received an “exceptional allowance” of £40 million for COVID-related issues in 2022.Financial expert Stefan Borson revealed on talkSPORT that Manchester United would have failed PSR assessments if not for two factors: the £40 million COVID allowance and an additional £35 million allowance related to the share sale to Jim Ratcliffe.
This information has raised concerns about fairness in the Premier League’s financial regulations.
The disparity in treatment between clubs like Everton and Manchester United is striking. While Everton had to make difficult player sales to comply with PSR, Manchester United received significant allowances.
This situation has sparked outrage among Everton supporters and fans of other clubs like Nottingham Forest.
The principle at stake is the equitable treatment of all Premier League clubs. If similar allowances had been granted across the board, teams like Everton might not have needed to sell promising young players to meet financial regulations.
The £40 million allowance given to Manchester United could have significantly improved Everton’s financial and competitive position.
This revelation highlights a perceived unfairness in how Premier League clubs are treated financially, despite competing in the same league.
It raises questions about the consistency and fairness of the league’s financial regulations and their application across different clubs.
Alious
