Arsenal and other Premier League clubs have voted to introduce a new set of financial rules, which will come into effect from the start of the 2026/27 season.
At the shareholders’ meeting on Friday, it was decided that Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) and Sustainability and Systematic Resilience (SSR) proposals will be introduced.
However, the Gunners and several other sides are believed to have voted against the implementation of top-to-bottom anchoring.
Based on the figures at the end of the 2023/24 season, Arsenal Insider explained that Arsenal would have a spending cap of £545 million if these new rules were brought in.
Now that it’s official, GRV Media’s Head of Football Finance and Governance Content, Adam Williams, has explained what the decision means for the Premier League leaders.
How the new FFP system will impact Arsenal as Premier League clubs agree to introduce new rules
It’s never easy for a common fan to fully understand the impact of new financial rules on their clubs, and that is once again the case following Friday’s Premier League Shareholders’ meeting.
To make it simple for everyone, we asked Williams for his insight on the new Financial Fair Play system.
Firstly, for those wondering what the two new rules are designed to do, SCR will regulate the on-pitch spending of every club to 85 per cent of their football revenue and net profit or loss on player sales. SSR rules, on the other hand, will assess every club’s short, medium and long-term financial health.
Explaining the impact of the above on the Gunners, Williams exclusively told Arsenal Insider: “Arsenal will be looking at this through two different lenses: 1) How it affects them directly, and 2) how it affects their competitors and the wider financial ecosystem.
“The first thing to note a similar SCR system is already in place at European level. But under the UEFA system, the cap is 70 per cent, not 85 per cent. So by virtue of playing in European competition pretty much every season, Arsenal are virtually guaranteed to pass the Premier League test every season.
“There is a chance that they could exceed that 70 per cent cap in one season or the next, but it’s very hard to imagine a scenario whereby they exceed it by 15 per cent or more.
“In terms of SSR – the new system that focuses on short and long-term capital requirements, which, at its core, is ensuring clubs have enough cash to meet their obligations to players, creditors and so on – will be a breeze for them.
“We will need to see the full details of the rules to get the whole picture, but Arsenal have one of the game’s richest owners and, by extension, a very good credit rating. They will have access to debt at good rates, and there is little to no danger of them not having sufficient capital to meet obligations in the near or distant future.
“I think the most significant thing to take away from these new rules is how they will affect Arsenal’s competitors. Chelsea and Aston Villa have already failed UEFA’s SCR test, for example. They have more grace under the Premier League’s 85 per cent cap, but there are clubs who will need to tailor their models to get within that cap.
“I think the clubs who you might call the nouveau riche – Newcastle, Villa, Forest and so on – might have it hardest. For Arsenal, that’s a good thing. More relaxed rules would give them more rivals for Champions League places and the revenue which comes with that.
The potential reasons behind Arsenal voting against top-to-bottom anchoring
Along with SCR and SSR, top-to-bottom anchoring was also up for a vote, but unlike the other two rules, this did not pass.
Arsenal are believed to be one of the clubs who voted against this proposal, and Williams has detailed the possible reasons behind that decision.
He said: “The fact that Arsenal appear to have voted against the top-to-bottom anchoring proposal is interesting.
How much would you like to see Arsenal spend in January?
“The departure of Tim Lewis is seen by some to have been a signal that the club are reassessing their philosophy when it comes to PSR.
“I think you can read it one of two ways: A) Arsenal want more headroom to be able to spend more, or B) they thought the anchoring proposal was likely to encounter legal problems, so rejected it on that basis.
“The Premier League has had huge legal bills in recent years, which all clubs have to pay for.”
Receive a digest of our best Arsenal content each week direct to your mailbox
