Everton and their 10 points deduction – fair or unfair?

Last week, the Premier League announced their decision to hit Everton with a 10 points deduction for exceeding financial fair play rules by £20 million.

Toffees boss Sean Dyche said of the punishment: “I think like everyone in these parts is, we’re shocked. Seemingly, the wave of noise after that was most people in football were shocked. The enormity of it. Disproportionate is a word that has been used by the club.”

Dyche clearly appears correct in his assessment of the reaction given the significant majority of those who have covered the issue have agreed that the punishment is harsh.

Before Everton hosted Manchester United at Goodison Park, BBC Radio 5 Live spoke at length about how entirely unfair the 10 points deduction is.

This included an interview with Greater Manchester mayor and Everton season ticket holder Andy Burnham, who has written to both the Premier League and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

There was no attempt by anyone on BBC Radio 5 Live to present the opposite argument, that Everton have been caught and the punishment fits the crime.

Likewise, analysis on Sky Sports has almost all followed the same course of the Toffees being badly treated with very little counter to that view.

It looks beyond doubt that Everton have run a very effective PR campaign since the punishment was announced to make this appear to be the mainstream view. If only they had run their finances and their football decisions with the same aptitude.

There are undoubtedly valid arguments in support of the deduction being harsh. One is that it is a punishment unprecedented in Premier League history with no club ever before deducted 10 points.

Yet it is inline with the standard nine point deductions made to a number of clubs for going into administration over the past 20 years, including Portsmouth when they were in the Premier League.

As for financial fair play, Birmingham City were deducted nine points in the Championship for overspending by £10 million between 2015 and 2018.

Another argument is that a 10 points deduction for breaching the rules by “only” £20 million makes little sense compared to the spending sprees of the likes of Chelsea and the two Manchester clubs.

Many will now be waiting to see what happens with the conclusion of the 115 charges faced by Manchester City for their conduct between 2009 and 2018. It should be said, however, that these charges are arguably less provable and more subjective.

There will also be an increased focus on how Chelsea are going to treat their accounts to justify Todd Boehly’s assertion that the Blues are within financial fair play limits despite spending over £1 billion in transfer fees inside of 12 months.

The £20 million figure itself has been used by Jamie Carragher amongst others to argue against the deduction. Speaking on Sky Sports, Carrager said: “I think it’s excessive, we’re talking about £20 million – it is a small figure when you think of the Premier League now and transfer fees.”

Other pundits have pointed out that the Toffees have seen little benefit from their £20 million overspend because of how poor Everton’s recruitment has been.

The £25 million wasted on defensive midfielder Jean-Phillipe Gbamin has been widely quoted. Gbamin made six appearances – almost all as a substitute – before being released on a free.

Whilst in full acceptance that there are valid arguments on Everton’s side, there are equally valid arguments that this punishment is absolutely justified and maybe even too light.

Brighton supporters can happily watch this debate with complete detachment. The Albion continue to go from strength-to-strength under the ownership of Tony Bloom, steering clear of the relegation battle whilst making a healthy profit.

But if one supported a club relegated over the past two seasons when Everton were overspending, I can imagine raging at the situation.

Had Everton taken four less points in 2021-22, they would have been relegated instead of Burnley. Two fewer points in 2022-23 and the Toffees go down with Leicester City surviving.

Burnley, Leicester and other relegated sides are talking about taking legal action against Everton. No doubt they will all point out that a 10 points deduction applied to the seasons when the offences took place would have relegated Everton.

Applying the punishment in 2023-24 is likely to simply move the Toffees from mid table to a lower position without causing them to fall into the Championship.

The £20 million breach being on players who made little to no contribution to Everton surviving is an argument which should not cut much ice either.

Had Burnley or Leicester not stuck within financial fair play rules, spent £20 million extra like Everton and had the Albion’s eye for talent, they could have bought three Moises Caicedos and paid his salary over the same period.

Five Kaoru Mitomas for £20 million would have provided the goals and assists to keep the Foxes and the Clarets clear of danger. So too 400 Evan Fergusons (although if rumours of Bohemians having a 10 percent Ferguson sell on clause are true, they could soon become the richest club in Ireland).

Suddenly, the 10 point deduction – given the difference £20 million can make in the right hands – becomes lenient rather than excessive.

Overall, are three conclusions to be drawn from the Everton points deduction. The first is that a more advanced definition of financial fair play rules and punishments is needed.

This admittedly is difficult to put down in writing due to circumstances which could impact individual cases, such as Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine – both cited by the Toffees in their defence.

Secondly, there has to be a timelier assessment process. The Everton case should have been dealt with by last season at the latest.

Thirdly, any significant watering down of Everton’s punishment on appeal needs to be avoided. Some pundits have said the deduction should be dropped to three points.

That would bring it more inline with the minimal punishment Red Bull faced for exceeding the Formula One budget cap.

Such a minimal punishment would completely defeat the object of spending limits and leave clubs deciding to ignore any such rules and requirements.

Peter Finn