Football sanctions explained — why Chelsea's punishment has sparked debate

Recent high-profile cases involving Chelsea, Everton and Nottingham Forest have reignited debate around the transparency and consistency of football's disciplinary processes. Comparisons between different sanctions can quickly lead to accusations of unfairness, particularly when clubs appear to receive very different punishments for different rule breaches.

However, disciplinary decisions in football are rarely straightforward. Different national governing bodies (NGBs) operate under different regulations, enforcement frameworks and decision-making processes, while most cases are resolved through the privacy of arbitration rather than in public court proceedings.

Speaking on Total Sport Merseyside, Head of Litigation and sports law expert Paul Lunt was asked to answer listener’s questions on why football's regulatory framework can be difficult to navigate, the legal principles that influence disciplinary outcomes and whether clubs may increasingly seek compensation from rivals following financial rule breaches.

Why different football authorities impose different sanctions

One of the biggest sources of confusion for supporters is that football isn't governed by a single disciplinary system.

Although fans may well view those running professional football as a single entity, the Premier League, the FA and the English Football League (EFL) each operate their own rules, procedures and enforcement mechanisms. This means that sanctions imposed in one competition or regulatory framework can't always be directly compared with those imposed elsewhere. As a result, similar-looking cases can produce very different outcomes.

How disciplinary panels decide on sanctions

Rather than following a rigid tariff system or formula, football regulators often have discretion when determining the appropriate punishment for a rule breach.

The Premier League's disciplinary framework, for example, provides a range of potential sanctions, from warnings and reprimands through to fines, points deductions and other sporting penalties.

When deciding which sanction is appropriate, disciplinary panels may consider factors including:

• The seriousness of the breach.
• Whether conduct was deliberate or accidental.
• Any previous disciplinary history.
• Mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Whether a club obtained a competitive or sporting advantage.

These factors mean that every case is assessed on its own facts. It’s rare that any two decisions are so similar as to facilitate a fair, direct comparison between different disciplinary outcomes.

Why the Chelsea & Everton cases aren't directly comparable

Comparisons between Chelsea's recent sanctions (no points deduction but a £10m fine and suspended transfer ban) and previous cases involving Everton (six points deducted) and Nottingham Forest (four points deducted), for example, have generated significant debate among supporters.

Aside from involving different legal rules (FA regulations on agency fees in Chelsea's case and Premier League PSR regulations in Everton's and Nottingham Forest's cases), there are factual distinctions to take into account. For example, findings relating to whether a club gained any sporting advantage can play an important role in determining both disciplinary outcomes and potential follow-on legal claims.

In the Everton case, a Premier League disciplinary commission found that the club had gained a sporting advantage through its breaches of Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). That finding was no doubt an important factor in subsequent compensation proceedings brought against Everton by Burnley.

By contrast, no equivalent finding of sporting advantage was made by the FA commission in relation to Chelsea. That may be one reason why — in contrast to Everton and Nottingham Forest — no sporting sanction was applied to Chelsea. 

Could more clubs seek compensation after financial rule breaches?

The successful compensation claim brought by Burnley against Everton has attracted considerable attention across professional sport and among sports lawyers.

The case is significant because it represents a relatively new and developing area of sports law. As is common for many first-instance decisions that establish new legal territory, the ruling is presently subject to appeal.

While the decision may encourage some clubs to explore similar claims, success in such claims is far from guaranteed.

For any claimant club, proving that a rule breach directly caused financial loss remains a significant challenge. Lawyers refer to this issue as ‘causation’ — demonstrating that a specific breach likely resulted in — or materially impacted — a particular outcome.

In sport, where results, league positions and financial consequences can be influenced by countless variables, proving causation can be particularly complex.

Why football disciplinary decisions aren't always made public

Another factor contributing to public confusion over the various disciplinary outcomes is the way that many football disputes are resolved.

Unlike court proceedings which generally operate under principles of open justice, sports disciplinary matters are generally determined through private arbitration processes.

This means that supporters, journalists and other clubs may not have access to all of the evidence, submissions and arguments that informed a particular decision.

As a result, comparisons between different cases are often made without a complete understanding of the facts considered by the relevant disciplinary panel.

In some circumstances, sanctions may be imposed without the level of public disclosure or understanding that many supporters might expect from a public court process.

Does football need greater consistency & transparency?

Calls for greater transparency around football regulation are unlikely to disappear.

Supporters increasingly want to understand how sanctions are determined and why particular clubs receive certain punishments (or why they don’t). Greater coordination between NGBs could help to improve clarity and consistency across the game.

However, football regulation remains a complex area. Different competitions, rules and disciplinary structures will inevitably make complete uniformity difficult to achieve.

As financial regulation, ownership scrutiny and governance reform continue to evolve, understanding the legal and regulatory framework underpinning disciplinary decisions will become increasingly important for clubs, stakeholders and supporters alike.

Talk to us

Our award-winning sports sector team brings together more than 35 lawyers from across multiple practice areas, providing access to specialist expertise whenever challenges arise.

We’re proud to support the likes of Liverpool FC and Wrexham AFC, with our work earning recognition from The Times Best Law Firms and Northwest Football Awards 2025, where we were named Best Business or Professional Services Organisation Serving Football.

We regularly advise elite clubs, NGBs, international federations and large sports agencies on:

• Sports regulatory and disciplinary matters.
• Commercial and contractual disputes.
• Governance and compliance issues.
• Arbitration and litigation proceedings.

Talk to our team by calling 0333 004 4488, emailing hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form.