Questions answered on the hot topics at Leicester City, looking at the reasons behind the failed PSR appeals, why their agent spending was at odds with their transfer activity, and more
leicestermercury
Jordan Blackwell
10:11, 10 Apr 2026
Leicester City paid an agent to help get Wout Faes out of the club in January
View 2 Images
Leicester City paid an agent to help get Wout Faes out of the club in January(Image: Franco Arland/Getty Images)
Leicester City’s long dispute over Profit and Sustainability Rules seems to finally be over after an appeal board threw out both theirs and the Premier League’s arguments. The six-point punishment remains.
Here are the ins and outs of what happened in the appeal hearing, as well as look at some other big questions around the club right now.
Q: On what grounds did City appeal and why did they fail?
There were three grounds on which City appealed, but really only two that mattered.
The first was that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to sanction City because the rule used to deduct the points did not grant the power for a club to be punished retrospectively.
Sky Sports, HBO Max, Netflix and Disney+ with Ultimate TV package
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Content Image
£44
Sky
Get the deal here
Sky has upgraded its Ultimate TV and Sky Sports bundle to now include HBO Max, Netflix, Disney+, discovery+ and Hayu, as well as 135 channels and full Sky coverage of the Premier League and EFL.
Sky broadcasts more than 1,400 live matches across the Premier League, EFL and more with at least 215 live from the top flight alongside Formula 1, darts and golf.
City argued that, as this rule, W.52.10, was added to the Premier League’s rulebook in March 2025, and that the club were being judged on finances that concluded in June 2024, there was not the jurisdiction there.
But the appeal board agreed with the initial commission that for City to successfully argue that point, they would have to show they were told explicitly by the Premier League that the rule could not be applied retrospectively. City could not prove that.
Secondly, City argued that the starting position for the points deduction should have been five points rather than seven.
In the first hearing, the calculations over City’s finances put their losses at a seven-point deduction, but with one point added back because of a positive trend in the third year of the three being assessed, hence settling at a six-point deduction.
The calculations were made through the EFL’s sanctioning guidelines, but adjusted as a percentage, as for two of the three seasons being judged City were in the Premier League, and so the club are afforded a greater loss limit than would be the case if all three years were in the Championship.
City’s argument at the appeal hearing was that the precedents of the Premier League’s disciplinary commissions should be adopted because they were a Premier League team at the time of the charge, and that the charge was brought by the Premier League.
The appeal board dismissed that, saying it was “highly material” that City’s breach was for a season when they were in the EFL, and so the original commission was right to use the EFL’s sanctioning guidelines.
The third appeal proved to be immaterial. Had the points deduction not been adopted as the punishment, City would have been fined £9.6m. The club argued at the appeal that the fee was too heavy, but it did not matter anyway, as the points sanction stood.
Q: On what grounds did the Premier League appeal and why did they fail?
The Premier League wanted City to be punished for a late filing of their accounts. It was deemed by the original commission that City had broken the rules by filing their accounts after the deadline, but that it was not an offence worthy of a further points sanction.
The Premier League felt it was, and wanted an extra point docked from City. However, their appeal was also dismissed.
The appeal board ruled that the original commission did take late filing of the accounts into consideration when weighing up aggravating and mitigating circumstances, hence why they did not give any points back to City for good behaviour.
The appeal board deemed it appropriate that the commission believed “there was no exceptional cooperation but neither sufficient net aggravation to warrant a further one-point deduction”.
Q: Is this the last we’ve heard of PSR?
It seems so. When City published their accounts for the 24-25 season, they said that they had filed a compliant PSR assessment.
The doubt was that when the appeal for the 23-24 case was over, a new charge for 24-25 would be announced.
That’s what happened previously. When the appeal over the 22-23 case was finalised, the decision was announced and City were charged over 23-24 in the same breath.
But it’s been over 24 hours since the 23-24 appeal case was finalised and made public and there’s no word yet that any further charges are heading City’s way.
Leicester City chairman Aiyawatt 'Top' Srivaddhanaprabha at the club's Seagrave training base
View 2 Images
Leicester City chairman Aiyawatt 'Top' Srivaddhanaprabha at the club's Seagrave training base(Image: Plumb Images/Leicester City FC via Getty Images)
Q: How did City spend so much on agent pay?
City spent £5.9m in agent fees from February last year to February this year, despite making the second-fewest number of signings of the clubs in the division. That’s the third highest in the Championship behind Ipswich and Southampton.
It’s not just City’s relatively few signings that make the figure confusing, but that all of the deals were free transfers or loans, and so not those that would usually be associated with big agent payments.
However, it’s not just incoming signings that lead to agent pay. New contracts for players, managerial appointments, and occasionally outgoing transfers also see agents paid.
While Luke Thomas is the only senior player to receive a new deal in those 12 months, the club did also register higher-profile youngsters to new contracts, such as Jeremy Monga, Louis Page and Jake Evans.
The 12-month period also included the arrival of Marti Cifuentes, with agent fees paid for deals to bring him and to bring his assistant Xavi Calm to the club.
And the FA’s filings also show that City paid agents to help move Wilfred Ndidi and Wout Faes out of the club, with the Nigerian midfielder leaving for Besiktas last summer, and the Belgian defender joining Monaco on loan in January.
But, the number of transactions that required agent spending at City stood at 33. That’s just below the average of 34 for Championship clubs.
And so to finish as the third-highest spenders, City were still paying significantly more per deal than most other Championship sides.
Q: Has Gary Rowett improved City?
This is a tricky one because Rowett was brought in to get results, and so nine games in with nine points earned, with only one win and with City still in the relegation zone, he arguably hasn’t improved the club.
For his points-per-game ratio to be better than Marti Cifuentes’ at City, Rowett needs 10 points over City’s final five matches. Manage that and survival will surely be achieved. But that many points seems like a tough ask.
However, he has definitely made City harder to beat, with just two losses in his nine games. While defensive issues are nowhere near being solved entirely, City have restricted opponents to fewer chances, leading to two clean sheets, and they have contested and won more duels around the pitch.
For the past three games (and arguably in Rowett’s debut against Stoke too), City have created enough chances to perhaps deserve victory on the balance of play, with 67 shots to 20 against Watford, Preston and Sheffield Wednesday combined.
Their finishing, and excellent opposition goalkeeping, has let them down, with just three goals scored from 6.7 expected goals.
It’s difficult to think of any matches under Cifuentes where City were unfortunate to draw or lose. It was usually the other way around, where a poor performance has been bailed out by an individual moment of quality.
Ultimately, Rowett’s tenure will be judged on City’s survival. And so with City still in the bottom three, improvements are needed.
Article continues below
Do you think Rowett has improved City? Click HERE to have your say.