No one is immune from the relentless churn of Chelsea’s player trading model, but it would feel like a landmark moment if BlueCo were to cash in on Enzo Fernandez.
Until Liverpool’s bombastic summer spending spree, Fernandez was the Premier League’s record signing, with Chelsea paying Benfica £107m for the midfielder on deadline day in the winter of 2023.
The 25-year-old, who serves as captain when Reece James is unavailable, has been one of very few ever-presents in blue since. Under Liam Rosenior, that will continue.
But while Fernandez leaving before the deadline in the current transfer window is a very, very remote possibility, he has been linked with both Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain of late.
Who would you like to see replace Enzo Fernandez if he leaves Chelsea this summer?
The World Cup winner has been linked to Real Madrid and PSG! 🇪🇸 🇫🇷
Enzo Fernandez of Chelsea celebrates scoring
Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
In conversation with Chelsea fan media account CFC Gem, journalist Ben Jacobs has suggested that BlueCo would demand a new British-record transfer fee for the player.
That record currently stands at £125m, the upfront sum Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Alexander Isak in September.
Chelsea FC v Pafos FC - UEFA Champions League 2025/26 League Phase MD7
Photo by Chris Lee – Chelsea FC/Chelsea FC via Getty Images
But there is another factor to consider when discussing Fernandez’s future: PSR.
Or, more accurately, UEFA’s equivalent: Financial Sustainability Regulations, the successor of Financial Fair Play (FFP).
Could Chelsea’s UEFA settlement force them to sell stars like Fernandez?
While Chelsea have so far circumvented Premier League PSR with a number of cute accountancy tricks, UEFA’s regulations are less porous.
In July, Chelsea announced that they had been fined about £27m (with a further £52m suspended) and entered into a four-year settlement agreement with UEFA for breaching financial rules.
Under the terms of the settlement, Chelsea have estimated their losses for 2025-26 and must not exceed that target. From there on out, the measures are more stringent.
In 2026-27, Chelsea are allowed to lose no more than around £4m. That can increase up to about £52m if the owners underwrite the losses.
BlueCo have lost over £1bn since Chelsea takeover
Is this sustainable? What's Clearlake's masterplan to claw back these losses?
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
In 2027, Chelsea must break even financially. Or, if they overperform in the preceding season, the club are allowed to lose up to £52m across both 2026-27 and 2027-28.
Finally, in 2028-29, Chelsea must either be in profit or within the “acceptable deviation” range, which takes into account the targets set in the previous three seasons.
It’s a complex agreement. And there are restrictions in terms of player registrations too, with Chelsea required to record a positive player trading balance – which includes fees and wages – in 2025-26 and 2026-27, potentially into 2027-28 and 2028-29 depending on how the club has performed financially up until that point.
That latter restriction informed Chelsea’s transfer strategy in the summer, with a huge volume of players leaving the club not necessarily for football reasons.
There are other features of the UEFA settlement too, but the long and short of it is that Chelsea – whose annual operating losses have been in excess of £200m in the last two published accounting period – are having to re-think their financial strategy.
Chelsea FC v Pafos FC - UEFA Champions League 2025/26 League Phase MD7
Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images
“What is not being picked up is that Chelsea are under financial sanctions from UEFA,” University of Liverpool football finance lecturer tells the Chelsea Chroniclewhen asked whether the UEFA settlement could factor into the club’s decision on the future of Fernandez.
“Because one of the conditions that they have to meet is having a negative net spend in the transfer market, it frees up capital – if they get a decent price for Fernandez – to spend elsewhere.
“They want to rinse and repeat with players coming in and out of the club. This is where they ultra-long contract strategy comes to the fore because they can recoup all the value for Enzo Fernandez.
“If you have shorter contracts, as we’ve seen with Trent Alexander-Arnold, Marc Guehi and others, you run the risk of the player’s value as a commodity tapering down in the final 12 months.
“The contract length and the value they might recoup will be used by Chelsea as a justification for their overall transfer strategy.”
Join Our Newsletter
Receive a digest of our best Chelsea content each week direct to your mailbox