The outpouring of disbelief from the club, from the supporter base and no doubt several other Premier League clubs facing similar problems to Everton’s is palpable. A sporting sanction of 10 points for a breach of profitability and sustainability rules. A breach, admitted by the club albeit with significant mitigating factors – the stadium build and the technical accounting treatment of interest costs, the unique market conditions created by Covid-19 at a time when the club was in its investment stage of development, and of course, the treatment of player X and its consequential economic impact.
Evertonians will freely admit that for much of Farhad Moshiri’s tenure, money had been plentiful but common sense, good strategy and execution much less so. His desire to build a team capable of competing at the higher levels of the Premier League and his commitment to a new stadium was never at odds with the expansionist policies beloved and rewarded so handsomely by the Premier League. In a sense, Moshiri’s ambition was the embodiment of the Premier League.
However, for Everton, the execution was poor; appalling may be more accurate – that’s wholly acknowledged. That said, is it right that sporting sanctions be applied to a club due to its poor ownership and leadership as against a wilful attempt to cheat or deceive? The decision specifically notes no acts of dishonesty.
The commission and its processes have been a mystery, something for the Premier League to consider. After all, this was the first of its type. The nature of the charges against Everton were never disclosed until the decision. The process and the individuals involved in it were anonymous, too. Is this really the correct model in the world’s most valuable and watched football league?
I want to mention three points:
Prejudice – the reporting of a potential 12-point penalty by the media during the hearing. How can that not be prejudicial? The report was accurate, that was the penalty the Premier League was seeking.
Proportionality – how proportional is a 10-point penalty given the partial acceptance of some of the mitigating factors, but particularly the complexity of the case? More than 28,000 documents were included in the hearing bundle. This was not a simple case of dishonest dealings or a clear intent to cheat Everton’s competitors.
Presumptive punishment – the immediate imposition of the sporting sanction, the 10-point penalty, is surely presumptive? What if, on appeal, a second commission finds in favour of Everton, partially or completely? Does this not affect sporting integrity?
Each of these points alone are significant enough to question the validity of the commission’s decision. Combined, they provide a compelling case for it being harsh, or even for injustice.
There’s been much talk in the past of the Premier League’s treatment of the breakaway clubs and the European Super League – the clubs who threatened the Premier League and consequently the football pyramid. How proportional was their punishment (£3.3m each) relative to the potential impact of their plans? Plans that only served to enrich themselves and were in clear breach of Premier League rule B.15 – the obligation of utmost good faith.
after newsletter promotion
How does that compare with the effect of Everton’s breach and subsequent penalty? Perhaps most pertinently, paragraph 135 of the commission’s decision talks of the inappropriateness of a financial penalty for a club “that enjoys the support of a wealthy owner”. Why was the same standard not applied to the breakaway clubs, all of whom have wealthy owners? Where is the consistency of the approach to punishment?
Everton have been penalised for poor decision-making – poor governance playing a huge part. How ironic if the Premier League was, in turn, damaged, its reputation and integrity brought into question due to the poor decision and poor governance of this commission?
Paul Quinn is an Everton fan, writer and podcaster and a contributor to the Observer’s fans’ network. The Esk TheEsk.org; @TheEsk