UEFA financial sustainability regulations 2025: what the June 2026 enforcement round means for English football
On 30 June 2026, UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) published the outcomes of its club monitoring process for the 2025/26 season. Fourteen clubs across European football were sanctioned. Four were from the Premier League. This is what happened, what it means and what clubs need to understand about the framework that produced these outcomes.
This is the first article in our UEFA Financial Sustainability series. To view the whole series, click here.
What the UEFA CFCB decided on 30 June 2026
The UEFA Club Financial Control Body's First Chamber published its finalisation of club monitoring outcomes for the 2025/26 season on 30 June 2026. Across European competition, fourteen clubs were sanctioned. The English clubs affected were Aston Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest. All four breached the Squad Cost Rule under UEFA’s cost control requirements, with Newcastle additionally failing to comply with the Football Earnings Rule. In the 2025 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations, the Football Earnings Rule is set out in Article 91, with its calculation and acceptable deviation addressed in Articles 87 and 88; the Squad Cost Rule is addressed in Articles 93 to 95 and Annexes K and L.
The specific outcomes, drawn from UEFA's published decision, were as follows.
The inclusion of Strasbourg is notable because the French club forms part of the BlueCo multi-club structure with Chelsea. UEFA’s public statement lists Chelsea and Strasbourg separately under the Squad Cost Rule, and does not expressly state that their financial positions were assessed on an aggregate group basis. The Strasbourg outcome should therefore be treated as a clear multi-club compliance risk indicator, rather than as express confirmation of group-level aggregate monitoring in the published UEFA release. Strasbourg received a €25 million fine, of which €12 million was conditional and €13 million was unconditional.
The two rules that drove these sanctions
The CFCB's 30 June decisions turned on two distinct provisions of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations 2025. Understanding both is essential to understanding what the sanctioned clubs did wrong and what compliance now requires of them.
The Squad Cost Rule sits within UEFA’s cost control requirements and is addressed in Articles 93 to 95 of the 2025 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations, with further detail in Annexes K and L. It requires a club’s squad cost ratio to be no greater than 70%. The numerator captures employee benefit expenses for relevant persons, amortisation and impairment of relevant persons’ costs, and agent/intermediary/connected-party costs where those costs are not already included elsewhere. The denominator is not simply ordinary revenue: it includes adjusted operating revenue plus net profit or loss on disposal of relevant persons’ registrations and other transfer income/expenses. For 2025/26, the assessment was conducted on the calendar year 2025. All four Premier League clubs fell above the threshold in that period.
The Football Earnings Rule is set out in Article 91 of the 2025 regulations, with the calculation of football earnings addressed in Article 87 and acceptable deviation addressed in Article 88. It measures a club’s financial sustainability across a multi-year monitoring period. The acceptable deviation is €5 million. It may increase up to €60 million where the excess is entirely covered by contributions or equity, and may increase further by up to €10 million per reporting period where the club satisfies UEFA’s additional financial-health conditions. A club is not in compliance with the Football Earnings Rule if its aggregate football earnings deficit exceeds the applicable acceptable deviation. Newcastle’s Football Earnings Rule breach related to the monitoring cycle covering financial years ending in 2023, 2024 and 2025. UEFA described this as the first assessment of the Football Earnings Rule on a three-year aggregate basis in the 2025/26 season.
The Squad Cost Rule is assessed annually. The Football Earnings Rule is assessed on a three-year rolling basis. A club can be compliant on one measure and in breach of the other simultaneously, as Newcastle's position in June 2026 demonstrated.
What the UEFA CFCB took into account
UEFA's published statement on the four Premier League clubs revealed the specific mitigating and aggravating factors the CFCB applied. On Aston Villa and Chelsea, the statement noted that both clubs had already been sanctioned in the previous season's cycle and were operating under existing settlement frameworks. The CFCB explicitly acknowledged an improving trend in their squad cost ratios between 2024 and 2025, in line with the projections submitted as part of their settlement agreements. That improving trend is why the conditional element of each fine -- €15 million for Villa, €2 million for Chelsea -- is suspended rather than immediately payable.
Newcastle’s position was different. UEFA’s public statement presents Newcastle’s three-year settlement agreement as relating to the Football Earnings Rule, with the club required to reach full compliance by the end of the 2028/29 season. The settlement includes a €10 million fine, of which €7 million is conditional. Newcastle was also fined separately for its Squad Cost Rule breach in the 2025 calendar year. Newcastle’s public statement confirmed that the Football Earnings Rule settlement followed an overspend against UEFA’s football earnings threshold, and that the separate €3 million SCR fine was imposed “in addition”.
Nottingham Forest’s €2.5 million Squad Cost Rule fine was listed by UEFA as entirely unconditional. UEFA’s public statement does not explain the reasons for the absence of a conditional element, so the safer conclusion is simply that the fine was unconditional and payable, without attributing a specific CFCB rationale that UEFA has not publicly given.
What the sanctions actually require clubs to do
A fine is the most visible consequence of a CFCB finding, but it is rarely the most operationally significant one. Each of the sanctioned clubs now carries forward specific obligations that will govern their financial and recruitment decisions for the next one to three seasons.
For Aston Villa, the most immediately consequential measure is the restriction on the registration of new players on List A for the 2026/27 UEFA club competition season. UEFA confirmed that clubs marked as having committed a significant Squad Cost Rule breach are subject to that List A restriction. Aston Villa must therefore manage its UEFA competition squad and transfer activity within those constraints.
Aston Villa also remains subject to the relevant obligations arising from its existing UEFA settlement framework. UEFA’s public statement specifically links the conditional element of the June 2026 fine to Villa continuing to significantly decrease its squad cost ratio in 2026. UEFA’s public release does not set out a new three-year Villa monitoring period through 2027/28.
For Newcastle, the Football Earnings Rule settlement agreement is a three-year compliance programme with annual intermediate targets. The €7 million conditional element may become payable, in whole or in part, if Newcastle fails to meet those targets. Newcastle’s publicly announced financial exposure is €13 million: a €10 million Football Earnings Rule settlement fine, of which €7 million is conditional, plus a separate €3 million Squad Cost Rule fine for the 2025 calendar year. Future compliance will need to be managed across both the Football Earnings Rule and the Squad Cost Rule.
For Chelsea and Strasbourg, the position creates an obvious multi-club compliance risk because Strasbourg forms part of the BlueCo structure with Chelsea. However, UEFA’s public decision lists Chelsea and Strasbourg separately under the Squad Cost Rule and does not expressly state that it assessed the group on an aggregate basis. The safer practical point is that multi-club ownership can create connected financial planning risks, particularly where transfer strategy, squad cost ratios and UEFA settlement obligations may need to be managed across more than one club.
What this enforcement round signals for the broader market
Three things stand out from the 30 June 2026 decisions for clubs that are not among the fourteen sanctioned but are monitoring this environment carefully.
First: the Squad Cost Rule is a real-time constraint, not an end-of-season accounting exercise. Because it is assessed on a calendar-year basis, every wage commitment made in the summer 2026 transfer window that exceeds the club's headroom is a live compliance risk before the season begins.
Second: the Football Earnings Rule's three-year rolling assessment means clubs need a three-year financial model -- not an annual budget -- to manage their UEFA compliance position.
Third: multi-club ownership structures create heightened compliance risk. The Strasbourg-BlueCo outcome is a clear warning that clubs in multi-club structures need to model UEFA financial sustainability exposure across the wider ownership group, even where UEFA's published decision lists the clubs separately.
What comes next: monitoring for 2026/27
All fourteen sanctioned clubs from the 2025/26 cycle carry forward monitoring obligations into 2026/27. For the four English clubs, that means continued monitoring of the 2026 Squad Cost Rule position, compliance with any club-specific conditions attached to settlement agreements or player registration restrictions, and continued engagement with the CFCB under the applicable monitoring framework. Newcastle will also need to manage its Football Earnings Rule settlement targets across the settlement period, with full compliance required by the end of the 2028/29 season.
The summer 2026 transfer window, which closes for Premier League clubs at 23:00 BST on 1 September 2026, is the most immediate operational test. Every transfer-in, every relevant agent/intermediary cost and every wage commitment made in this window can affect the squad cost ratio for calendar year 2026, depending on the timing and accounting treatment. Clubs operating under settlement agreements with improving-trend requirements have a direct financial incentive to manage that window with their UEFA compliance position in the room.
For a detailed explanation of how the Squad Cost Rule is calculated and how transfer window decisions drive compliance risk, see the next article in this series on the Squad Cost Rule. For an overview of UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations 2025, see Lagom Sports Compliance's complete guide to the 2025 regulations.
UEFA financial sustainability compliance requires ongoing management, not reactive response.
Lagom Sports Compliance advises football clubs on compliance with UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations 2025, alongside the IFR's operating licence framework and EU Regulation 2024/1624.
The firm’s UEFA licensing support covers the Squad Cost Rule, the Football Earnings Rule, ownership and licensing obligations, and the interaction between UEFA licensing requirements and the IFR’s governance and financial plan conditions.
Get in touch with us today to see how we can help and assist your club.
Frequently asked questions: UEFA financial sustainability enforcement June 2026
-
Four Premier League clubs were sanctioned by UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body on 30 June 2026: Aston Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest. All four breached the Squad Cost Rule. Newcastle also failed to comply with the Football Earnings Rule.
Aston Villa received the largest English-club Squad Cost Rule fine: €22.5 million in total, of which €15 million was conditional and €7.5 million was unconditional. Chelsea were fined €3 million, of which €2 million was conditional and €1 million was unconditional. Nottingham Forest were fined €2.5 million, listed as unconditional. Newcastle received a €10 million Football Earnings Rule settlement fine, of which €7 million was conditional, plus a separate €3 million Squad Cost Rule fine.
-
The Squad Cost Rule is set out in Articles 93 to 95 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations 2025, with further detail in Annexes K and L. It requires a club’s squad cost ratio to be no greater than 70%.
The numerator includes employee benefit expenses for relevant persons, amortisation and impairment of relevant persons’ costs, and agent/intermediary/connected-party costs where not already included elsewhere. The denominator includes adjusted operating revenue plus net profit or loss on disposal of relevant persons’ registrations and other transfer income/expenses.
A ratio above 70% is a breach. A ratio above 90% is one route to a significant breach, but repeat-breach history can also make a breach significant even where the ratio is below 90%.
-
The Football Earnings Rule is set out in Article 91 of the 2025 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations, with the calculation of football earnings addressed in Article 87 and acceptable deviation addressed in Article 88. It replaced UEFA’s old break-even style assessment with a football earnings calculation across a multi-year monitoring period.
The acceptable deviation is €5 million. It may increase up to €60 million where the excess is entirely covered by contributions or equity, and may increase further by up to €10 million per reporting period where UEFA’s additional financial-health conditions are met. A club is not in compliance with the Football Earnings Rule where its aggregate football earnings deficit exceeds the applicable acceptable deviation.
Newcastle’s breach in the June 2026 cycle related to the monitoring period covering financial years ending in 2023, 2024 and 2025. UEFA described this as the first assessment of the Football Earnings Rule on a three-year aggregate basis.
-
A settlement agreement is a negotiated compliance framework entered into between a club and the UEFA Club Financial Control Body where UEFA considers a structured resolution appropriate following non-compliance with UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability requirements.
Under a settlement, the club may accept financial disciplinary measures, commit to annual intermediate targets, accept conditional or unconditional sporting restrictions, and be subject to enhanced monitoring over the settlement period.
Failure to meet intermediate targets can result in conditional financial or sporting measures being applied, including stricter List A registration restrictions and, ultimately, exclusion from the next UEFA club competition for which the club qualifies.
-
UEFA confirmed that Aston Villa would face a restriction on player registrations for the 2026/27 UEFA Champions League campaign, with the specific terms to be published shortly after the 30 June decision. In UEFA competitions, clubs register players for European competition on List A (typically up to 25 players including a minimum number of locally trained players) and List B (under-21 players). A List A restriction limits the number of players a club can register for UEFA competition, creating constraints on squad composition and potentially on transfer window activity if bringing in new senior players would push the club above its List A limit.
-
Yes. According to UEFA’s published decision from 30 June 2026, 14 clubs in total were sanctioned across European competition. In addition to the four Premier League clubs, Strasbourg received a €25 million Squad Cost Rule fine, of which €12 million was conditional and €13 million was unconditional. Strasbourg was also marked as having committed a significant Squad Cost Rule breach and was therefore subject to a List A registration restriction for the 2026/27 UEFA club competition season. Juventus entered a three-year settlement agreement for non-compliance with the Football Earnings Rule.