Manchester City leading opposition to Premier League’s £1.5bn EFL proposal
Manchester City are leading opposition among Premier League clubs to a proposed £1.5bn financial settlement with the English Football League, ahead of a vote by the 20 top-flight clubs on Thursday. The Premier League hopes to resolve the long-running dispute before the new season begins, but City have drawn up a counterproposal amid concerns over how the package would be funded, with several other "Big Six" clubs sharing similar reservations, though it remains unclear how many are willing to back City publicly.
The offer would see the Premier League pay an average of £150m a year over 10 years, funded partly by raising the levy on transfer fees from 4% to 6%, a change that would hit the bigger-spending clubs hardest. An initial £100m payment would be made this season if approved, rising in subsequent years to 2035-36, with 80% of funds allocated to Championship clubs, 12% to League One and 8% to League Two. The Premier League needs 14 votes to pass the proposal and says it is "cautiously optimistic", though EFL chair Rick Parry is reportedly holding out for a larger deal, and City remain isolated after irritating other clubs with late rule-change amendments in June, all while awaiting an independent tribunal's verdict on its 115 alleged Financial Fair Play breaches.
- Man City leads resistance to Premier League's £1.5bn EFL funding proposal
- Clubs vote Thursday; City has submitted a rival counterproposal
- Deal funded via higher transfer levy; EFL chair wants more money
New here? Start with this
The English Football League comprises the three divisions below the Premier League. For years, these lower-league clubs have struggled with finances whilst Premier League sides grow wealthier from broadcasting deals, creating mounting pressure for a fairer distribution of football's revenues.
The proposed settlement would require the Premier League to share more money with the EFL, but how to fund it remains contentious. A higher levy on transfer fees would cost bigger-spending clubs more, which is why such proposals often provoke resistance from the wealthiest sides.
Resolving this long-running dispute could improve stability across professional football by ensuring lower-league clubs have sustainable finances. However, finding terms that satisfy both the richest Premier League clubs and struggling lower-league clubs remains notoriously difficult.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Premier League has a structural responsibility to maintain the English football pyramid, which provides its talent supply and competitive ecosystem. This settlement offers a concrete, 10-year commitment to EFL stability far superior to ad-hoc assistance, with a progressive funding mechanism where clubs with the greatest spending power bear proportionately more. The transfer levy increase is a reasonable way to ensure solidarity—those ambitious clubs spending most should contribute most—and the distribution formula ensures vulnerable Championship and lower-league clubs receive substantial support.
The case against
The transfer levy increase from 4% to 6% represents a permanent cost that directly constrains club investment in playing squads and creates an unfair penalty on sporting ambition. The proposal does not address the structural causes of EFL financial instability and risks creating dependency rather than genuine health; meanwhile, alternative funding sources such as regulatory cost controls, broader commercial arrangements, or wider industry support remain unexplored. Bigger clubs already contribute significantly through existing mechanisms, so concentrating the entire burden on this single levy is disproportionate and inefficient.