Aston Villa should have been in an excellent position ahead of the new season which begins for them with a visit to the South Coast to play Brighton.
Having won the Europa League and qualified for the Champions League, Unai Emery’s side appeared to have established themselves among the leading clubs in English football.
Instead, they have spent the summer selling much of the team responsible for those achievements. Morgan Rogers has joined Chelsea, Youri Tielemans has moved to Manchester United and Lucas Digne has left for Paris Saint-Germain, while Ezri Konsa is joining Arsenal. And they may yet lose striker Ollie Watkins to Saudi football and Al-Hilal before the transfer window closes.
The reason is football’s financial rules. Despite their success on the pitch, Villa have been forced to reduce their spending in order to comply with the limits imposed on clubs. In effect, their ability to spend is determined largely by the revenue they generate, leaving them at a disadvantage compared with the established elite, whose far greater commercial and matchday income allows them to spend considerably more.
There is an obvious irony in that. Villa have done what ambitious clubs are supposed to do — invest, improve, win a European trophy and qualify for the Champions League. Yet, rather than being able to build on that success, they have been forced to break up much of the side that achieved it.
Arguably the new Squad Cost Ratio rules which allow clubs to spend a maximum of 85% of their football-related revenue and net profit from player sales on squad costs from the 2026/2027 season onwards create a level playing field.
Whilst that sounds reasonable in isolation, revenue is not evenly distributed. Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal and the other established giants generate vastly more commercial and matchday income than Villa, or other wannabes like Newcastle. Consequently, 85% of £600m is very different from 85% of £250m.
The rules may be designed to prevent clubs from spending beyond their means, but they also protect the existing hierarchy because the clubs with the greatest revenues are allowed to spend the most. And that does raise a fundamental question about the integrity of the competition.
If a club can reach the elite only to find that the rules make it difficult to retain the players who got them there, how realistic is the prospect of challenging the established order?
