‘Golden Mitigation’ in football: Lessons from the Nottingham Forest's Profitability & Sustainability Regulations Appeal decision
![two footballers tackling two footballers tackling](https://www.lawinsport.com/media/zoo/images/two_footballers_tackling_2_eff24cc4d358ff41493b00fbf53c8fa2.jpg)
This article analyses the legal reasoning in the recent decision of an independent Appeal Board in Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited v The Football Association Premier League Limited. It goes on to consider whether (and, if so, to what extent) there exists a principle of ‘golden mitigation’ under the EPL Profitability and Sustainability Regulations, concluding with an assessment of possible future changes to financial regulation in football.
Article Highlights
- Introduction
- Understanding the PSR
- Forest’s breach and the first instance decision
- “Golden mitigation” or “near miss” argument
- The Board’s decision
- Was there ever “golden mitigation”?
- The future of PSR
- Future applicability of the Board’s guidance on mitigation under the new financial rules
- Conclusion
Introduction
The 2023/24 Premier League season will be long remembered by sports law practitioners as the season in which the league enforced compliance with its profitability and sustainability regulations[1] (“PSR”) with unprecedented vigour.
While a hearing of the 115 charges against Manchester City (relating to alleged breaches in 14 consecutive seasons) is awaited,[2] Everton were deducted 10 points on 17 November 2023 for an admitted breach of the PSR,[3] reduced to 6 points on appeal.[4] Everton were charged with, and on 8 April 2024[5] were sanctioned for, a second breach, resulting in a further deduction of 2 points. Nottingham Forest, meanwhile, were deducted 4 points by the decision of an independent Commission dated 18 March 2024.[6]
Although Everton withdrew their appeal against their second sanction,[7] Forest continued the fight. On 6 May 2024, less than two weeks before the final round of League matches, an eminent Appeal Board (comprising the Rt Hon Lord Dyson, David Phillips KC and Daniel Alexander KC) (“Board”) dismissed Forest’s appeal.[8]
This article examines the reasoning of the Board, considers whether (and, if so, to what extent) there exists a principle of ‘golden mitigation’ under the PSR, and contemplates the changing landscape of financial regulation in top-tier English professional football. Before embarking on that exercise, however, it is worth noting that the Board’s decision in the Forest appeal discloses an assumption on the part of the Board that such cases (i.e. charges relating to breaches of the PSR) are likely to increase in number.[9] That observation was made in the context of the Board’s indication that it will “rarely” be helpful to compare the factual similarities and differences between such cases for the purposes of constructing arguments as to sanction.
Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the latest Everton appeal, the authors respectfully agree that the number of such cases may well increase, but whether the recent spate of PSR charges becomes an inundation will depend largely on future changes to the model of financial regulation, as discussed below.
The first instance decision is available here[10] and the appeal decision is available here[11].
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Arbitration | Dispute Resolution | Finance | Financial Regulations | Football | PL Handbook | Premier League | Regulation | UEFA Financial Fair Play | United Kingdom (UK)
Related Articles
- Top Tips For Football Club Secretaries On Drafting Player Contracts
- An analysis of how multi-club ownership is regulated in France
- An analysis of Sandro Tonali's FA Betting Rules breach case & key takeaways for players
- Leicester City's legal challenge: Unpacking the EFL and Premier League allegations
- What clubs, players & agents need to know about HMRC’s new guidance on football agents’ fees and dual representation
- Manchester City's legal action & the Premier League’s regulations on Associated Party Transactions
Written by
Joseph Bryan
Joseph Bryan is a junior barrister specialising in sports, employment and commercial law. He practises from Littleton Chambers, where he is a member of the Sports Law Group. His sports-related practice includes advising and representing clients in proceedings in the IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal, the National Anti-Doping Panel and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as well as in arbitrations and civil litigation. He sits as a chair of the FA’s National Serious Case Panel and is a member of Sport Resolutions’ Panel.
Joel Wallace
Joel is a member of Littleton Chambers’ Sports Law Group. He is frequently instructed in football cases which attract significant public attention, but has acted for regulators, athletes, coaches and agents in a number of sports. Joel’s sports-dispute experience is equally broad, spanning from private regulatory proceedings and arbitration, to publicly attended civil court and tribunal disputes.
Alexander Bryant
Alexander specialises in sports, commercial, and employment law. He is a member of Littleton’s Sports Law Group. His sports-related practice has included acting as counsel in disciplinary proceedings, advising on selection issues, and assisting in investigations into sports governing bodies.