If public comments are any indication, Aston Villa are growing ever more frustrated by Premier League and UEFA finance rules.
John McGinn said it best. Having made his feelings clear in an interview with John Townley during the summer tour in the United States, the Villa captain reacted to the sale of Jacob Ramsey in an Instagram post on Sunday.
McGinn paid tribute to his former teammate but, in closing, sent up another flare about football’s finance farce: “A sad day losing a top player and person and one of our own but it seems to be the way football is set up these days!”
Villa’s financial triple threat
Damian Vidagany, Villa’s director of football operations, posted on X to reiterate comments he made a year ago.
“Clubs need some rules to stick to, but PSR is making it very complex. The system is forcing the clubs to sell their academy players, this is the way to get more profit and be able to stick to the rules, and I think this is killing some spirit of football,” he said in 2024.
Villa are facing three sets of restrictions that are limiting their ambitions, to put it mildly.
The most high-profile are the profit and sustainability rules (PSR) set out by the Premier League, which limit clubs to £105 million allowable losses over any three-season period, albeit with the added mystery of some stuff counting and some stuff not.
Qualification for the Europa League means the club falls under UEFA jurisdiction too, and therefore subject to squad cost ratio rules. Very broadly, that’s a ratio of the cost of the club’s named European squad versus revenue but it runs from January to December. Villa breached this, not PSR.
As a result of the breach, Villa must now also comply with the terms of an agreed suite of UEFA sanctions which are both restrictive and potent. They directly affect what Villa can put on the pitch in European competition and, in the worst case scenario, whether they can set foot on the pitch at all.
Ramsey sale was Villa’s breaking point
Villa’s situation is Villa’s doing in both a negative and a positive sense. There have been mistakes in the transfer market and expensive contracts dished out when they shouldn’t have been. Under Unai Emery, Villa have succeeded on the pitch to the detriment of their regulatory situation.
The fact that Villa have a negative net spend over the last few years and yet still felt Ramsey had to be sold is a disgrace.
Whatever other circumstances influenced that decision, whatever contract offer Ramsey declined, it’s been made very clear in Villa’s collective response that the bottom line is that the club, ultimately, didn’t want to lose him.
McGinn and Vidagany laid it bare. Tyrone Mings hinted at it. Villa are angry.
Aston VIlla's Morgan Rogers and new Newcastle signing Jacob Ramsey are friends off the pitch
Action Images via Reuters/Jason Cairnduff
The club’s ambitions are being constrained but what this sale really shows is the awful human cost of compliance. It’s absurd that any club should be incentivised to sell successful academy products against their wishes, never mind a club regularly qualifying for Europe with a negative net spend.
Regulation is required
Increasing revenue is imperative for Villa. Low income compared to the summer’s big spenders is the anchor in every calculation the governing bodies are throwing at them and it is the only truly sustainable way to exist within the framework.
But the framework is utterly broken. Villa’s situation is ludicrous, whether you think it’s by accident or design.
The reasons the club has the ambitions it does are the wealth of the owners and their stated desire to invest more than they can in the team. Villa aren’t held back by a lack of money, just the inability to spend it.
As tempting as it is to advocate for total freedom in the market, for the club’s owners to be permitted to spend whatever they want in pursuit of silverware – and, by the way, the sustainable income that comes with success – football is supposed to be a sport.
The goal of any and all financial regulation in the game should have two objectives: protect the clubs and establish a level playing field.
I’m not in favour of free spending in football in the slightest. But which of those objectives is it achieving here, exactly?