It was just over two month ago in late November 2025, when Newcastle United and other Premier League clubs met in London, for a vote on whether to scrap PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules).
There was actually a series of votes, three big ones.
Whether to replace PSR and if so, what those new financial rules would look like, if voted through.
The idea of Anchoring was voted on first but received only seven votes in favour, with 12 against and one abstention.
Another one wasn’t contentious, on SSR (Sustainability and Systemic Resilience), all 20 Premier League clubs unanimously voted this through.
The big one though was SCR (Squad Cost Ratio), if this didn’t get voted through, then the whole exercise had been basically a waste of time and PSR would still rule.
If seven Premier League clubs had voted against SCR replacing PSR, then it would have been blocked and PSR still in place.
In the event, six Premier League clubs voted against and 14 in favour.
This week, SCR (Squad Cost Ratio) was back in the headlines, as Newcastle United CEO was talking about how it will be replacing PSR after the end of this current season.
David Hopkinson (pictured with Eddie Howe above) telling Talksport: “We are one of the clubs that voted for SCR. SCR is a regime that we prefer. I think the rules are an operating environment and environmental conditions kind of like ‘hey, it may rain today, ok we will figure that out’. Whilst those rules are perhaps hard on Newcastle, they are hard on a multitude of clubs. Everybody has to deal with the same set of rules. I’m coming from leagues like the NHL National Hockey League] where they have a hard cap. The rules are the rules and we will do the best we can, to help ourselves, in whatever regime exists.”
The truth is that Newcastle United were always voting for SCR to replace PSR.
This below is the real reason why United voted to get rid of PSR and it is very simple.
You only need to look at which way certain Premier League clubs voted.
Those six Premier League clubs voting against SCR and to effectively keep PSR were Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds.
Whilst amongst the 14 who voted in favour of scrapping PSR and adopting SCR, were Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs, Aston Villa and…Newcastle United.
These eight clubs were always voting that way, it would have been bizarre if they hadn’t done.
These eight Premier League clubs the ones who most expect/anticipate they will be regularly involved in European competition in the years ahead.
The thing is, UEFA has already been using SCR (Squad Cost Ratio) for a while and so those clubs competing in European competition in recent years, have had to comply with PSR for Premier League limitations AND comply with UEFA’s SCR limitations.
The Premier League version of SCR is going to work a little differently but basically very similar to UEFA’s.
So no way were Newcastle United and those other seven clubs going to vote to continue having to comply with both.
A number of people connected to Newcastle United, including the CEO, as well as others elsewhere, have claimed that Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) will allow NUFC a far better chance of competing on and off the pitch, a huge improvement on PSR and so on.
I just don’t see it.
Maybe it will be slightly better when SCR replaces PSR, but when the basic principle still remains that what you are allowed to spend on transfer fees and wages depends absolutely on how much money you currently bring in from matchday, broadcasting and commercial revenues, the fact remains that clubs such as Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal and Man U all generate at least double the Newcastle United revenues (as per the latest Deloitte 2026 report).
This is the official Premier League explanation of SCR and how it will work with/alongside the UEFA rules.
How does SCR align with UEFA’s financial regulations?
‘UEFA’s Squad Cost Ratio limits a club’s on-pitch spending to a maximum of 70% of its total revenue. All Premier League clubs in European competitions will still have to adhere to this limit, while clubs not competing in Europe will have a higher threshold of 85%. This is to allow clubs that do not regularly participate in European competitions to have sufficient headroom to compete for qualification for UEFA Club Competitions against incumbents who receive additional European revenues. The additional 15% also helps support transition for clubs who fail to qualify in any given year for a UEFA Club Competition. This reduces the need for a club to take short-term cost action and allows a club to plan and invest over multiple seasons without being forced into sudden, destabilising cuts.’
What is included in the squad-related costs?
‘Squad costs cover player and head coach wages, agents’ fees and amortisation or impairment of transfer fees.’
What is covered under the SCR spending limit?
‘All contracted players and head coaches are included. Staff outside of the playing squad, such as administrative or commercial personnel, are excluded – as are assistant coaches and other coaching team members.’