As football’s economy has expanded dramatically over the past two decades, two clear trends have emerged both within UEFA and across national licensing systems.
The first is the introduction of increasingly clear and practical financial criteria. The second is the willingness of regulators to monitor these criteria more closely and impose significantly more serious sanctions when clubs fail to comply.
In an article published on 30 March 2026 titled “The Premier League’s Sanctions on Chelsea: Turkish Football Needs a Foreign Regulator”, I discussed one example of this changing regulatory environment and argued that what Turkish football really needs is not foreign referees or foreign VAR officials, but an independent regulator capable of implementing international standards.
This article takes that discussion one step further.
From the 2026/27 season onwards, the Premier League will operate under a new financial regulatory framework. Without going too deeply into the technical details, I will examine the core principles of these rules and ask a simple question:
What would the financial picture look like if Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe were competing under Premier League regulations?
What would the financial picture look like if Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe were competing under Premier League regulations?
The calculations below are based on the financial statements disclosed by the respective clubs through Türkiye’s Public Disclosure Platform, KAP.
The Premier League’s New Financial Rules
Premier League clubs approved the new financial framework in November 2025, replacing the previous Profitability and Sustainability Rules, commonly known as PSR.
The new system consists of two main components:
- Squad Cost Ratio Rules, SCR
- Sustainability and Systemic Resilience Rules, SSR
The Squad Cost Ratio framework was approved by 14 clubs, with six voting against it, while the Sustainability and Systemic Resilience Rules were approved unanimously.
Squad Cost Ratio Rules
The Squad Cost Ratio measures a club’s annual spending directly related to the playing squad against its football related revenues.
The relevant squad costs consist of three main categories:
- Player and coaching staff remuneration
- Amortisation of transfer fees
- Agent and intermediary fees
Certain expenses are excluded from these calculations, including academy expenditure, women’s football expenditure, administrative staff costs, stadium and infrastructure investments and other activities unrelated to the first team.
Interestingly, revenues generated through academy and women’s football activities can still contribute to the club’s overall football income, while the associated costs are excluded from the squad cost calculation.
Eligible revenues include matchday income, commercial and sponsorship income, broadcasting revenues, competition income and net profits generated through player transfers.
The formula can therefore be summarised as:
Squad Cost Ratio = Player and Coaching Costs + Transfer Amortisation + Agent Fees / Football Revenues + Net Transfer Profit
The Limits
All Premier League clubs must maintain a Squad Cost Ratio below 85 percent.
For clubs participating in UEFA competitions, the applicable limit is 70 percent.
Sanctions
If a club records a Squad Cost Ratio above 85 percent but below 115 percent, it faces a financial penalty.
The amount exceeding the permitted limit is multiplied by the percentage by which the club has breached the threshold.
For example, if a club reaches a Squad Cost Ratio of 90 percent and the amount above the limit corresponds to €10 million, the fine would be:
€10 million × 5 percent = €500,000
If a club exceeds a Squad Cost Ratio of 115 percent, the consequences become considerably more serious.
The club receives an automatic six point deduction, followed by an additional one point deduction for every £6.5 million of further excess spending.
Importantly, these sanctions apply during the season in which the violation occurs.
Galatasaray’s Squad Cost Ratio
Based on Galatasaray Sportif A.Ş.’s consolidated financial statements for the 2025/26 season, disclosed to KAP on 11 August 2026, the calculation is as follows.
Squad Costs
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Player salaries | 8,122 |
| Coaching staff salaries | 1,313 |
| Transfer amortisation | 4,062 |
| Agent fees | 1,027 |
| Total Squad Costs | 14,524 |
Relevant Revenues
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Football revenues excluding merchandising turnover | 14,438 |
| Gross profit from merchandising^1 | 3,676 |
| Net transfer profit | 7 |
| Total Relevant Revenue | 18,121 |
This produces the following Squad Cost Ratio:
14,524 / 18,121 = 80.15 percent
Galatasaray would therefore remain below the Premier League’s general threshold of 85 percent.
However, the club would exceed the 70 percent threshold applicable to clubs participating in UEFA competitions.
There is another important issue.
With Galatasaray’s current wage structure, a scenario in which UEFA revenues decline significantly, or the club fails to qualify for European competition, could have a substantial impact.
Even without considering the resulting reduction in matchday revenues, the Squad Cost Ratio could potentially rise above 96 percent.
There is also another figure that deserves attention.
Galatasaray recorded approximately TL 1.027 billion in agent fees, equivalent to around €20 million per year under the exchange rate assumptions used in the analysis.
Regardless of the broader financial discussion, this is a remarkable level of expenditure on intermediary services.
Fenerbahçe’s Squad Cost Ratio
Applying the same methodology to the financial statements disclosed by Fenerbahçe Futbol Yatırımları A.Ş. for the 2025/26 season produces a very different picture.
Squad Costs
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Salaries | 9,705 |
| Coaching staff salaries | Included within salaries |
| Transfer amortisation | 4,381 |
| Agent fees | 571 |
| Total Squad Costs | 14,657 |
Relevant Revenues
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Revenue excluding merchandising | 9,283 |
| Gross profit from merchandising | 2,782 |
| Net transfer profit | 2,190 |
| Total Relevant Revenue | 14,255 |
The resulting Squad Cost Ratio is:
14,657 / 14,255 = 102.8 percent
Under the Premier League framework, this level would exceed the permitted 85 percent threshold and would therefore result in a financial sanction.
The contrast between the two clubs is significant.
Galatasaray remains below the general Premier League limit but above the UEFA related threshold, while Fenerbahçe would already be well above the Premier League’s domestic limit.
Galatasaray remains below the general Premier League limit but above the UEFA related threshold, while Fenerbahçe would already be well above the Premier League’s domestic limit.
But squad spending represents only one part of the new regulatory environment.
Sustainability and Systemic Resilience Rules
Alongside the Squad Cost Ratio, the Premier League is introducing Sustainability and Systemic Resilience Rules designed to evaluate the overall financial health of clubs.
These rules look beyond salaries and transfer spending and assess whether clubs have the financial strength to survive short, medium and long term challenges.
The framework contains three main tests.
Working Capital Test
The first test focuses on short term liquidity.
Every month, a club must demonstrate working capital of more than £12.5 million.
This is assessed using:
Projected cash balance + Qualifying working capital funds > £12.5 million
Qualifying funds include available credit facilities, receivables and other cash resources that can be accessed within 28 days.
The principle is simple.
A football club should have sufficient liquidity to meet its immediate financial obligations rather than constantly depending on new financing, extraordinary income or emergency asset sales.
Liquidity Test
The second test focuses on the medium term and asks whether a club could remain financially stable over approximately two seasons if it experienced a significant financial shock.
Such shocks could include relegation, failure to qualify for UEFA competitions or the loss of a major sponsor.
The framework also considers a percentage of the market value of the playing squad, recognising that players can represent an important financial asset if a club is forced to generate liquidity through transfers.
The resulting liquidity headroom must remain at least zero for both the current and following season.
Galatasaray
Using Galatasaray’s financial information:
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Current assets | 4,853 |
| 40 percent of squad value | 7,106 |
| Current liabilities | 19,374 |
| Stress test amount | 3,112 |
The squad valuation is based on an estimated Transfermarkt value of €323 million, an exchange rate of 55 TL per euro and a 40 percent valuation factor.
The stress test amount reflects Galatasaray’s UEFA revenues during the 2025/26 season.
Based on these assumptions, Galatasaray’s liquidity headroom would be approximately:
Negative TL 10.527 billion
This represents a highly concerning position under the Premier League’s financial resilience criteria.
Fenerbahçe
For Fenerbahçe:
| Item | Million TL |
|---|---|
| Current assets | 7,260 |
| 40 percent of squad value | 7,304 |
| Current liabilities | 12,795 |
| Stress test amount | 1,100 |
The squad valuation is based on a Transfermarkt value of approximately €332 million, again using an exchange rate of 55 TL per euro and the 40 percent valuation factor.
Because Fenerbahçe did not have a comparable level of UEFA income in the relevant period, approximately €20 million, equivalent to TL 1.1 billion, was assumed as the potential revenue shock.
Under these assumptions, Fenerbahçe would record liquidity headroom of approximately:
Positive TL 669 million
This would be sufficient to satisfy the Premier League criterion.
Positive Equity Test
The third component of the SSR framework addresses long term financial sustainability.
The test is calculated using the following relationship:
Total Liabilities / Adjusted Assets
The permitted ratio becomes progressively stricter.
For the 2026/27 season, the ratio must remain below 90 percent.
For 2027/28, it must remain below 85 percent.
From 2028/29 onwards, it must remain below 80 percent.
An especially interesting element is the treatment of player market values.
When calculating adjusted assets, the Premier League framework takes the market value of the squad into consideration through an independent valuation process.
This is important because traditional accounting standards often fail to reflect the real economic value of football players.
Imagine a club developing Lionel Messi through its own academy and signing him to a professional contract. His accounting value could effectively remain close to zero.
The same applies when signing an elite player on a free transfer.
Even if the player represents one of the club’s most valuable economic assets, the balance sheet may not reflect that reality.
By taking independently assessed squad values into account, the Premier League is at least attempting to address one of football accounting’s structural weaknesses.
What Happens When a Club Fails the SSR Tests?
The Premier League’s approach is not designed to move immediately towards sporting punishment.
Instead, the process is gradual.
The first stage involves corrective measures.
A club may be asked to introduce a voluntary spending limit, raise additional equity or reduce its debt.
If the problems continue, the club must submit a detailed business plan explaining how it intends to return to compliance with the SSR requirements.
If the Premier League considers the business plan inadequate, particularly where the club has a history of irresponsible financial management, stronger measures can follow.
These may include requiring Premier League approval for every new player contract, imposing direct spending limits or applying additional sporting sanctions under the league’s disciplinary regulations, including fines or points deductions.
What Does This Tell Us About Turkish Football?
The Premier League’s new financial criteria represent serious, practical and increasingly sophisticated attempts to protect the profitability, liquidity and balance sheet strength of football clubs.
This evolution did not begin yesterday.
UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play in 2012, before the concept evolved into what is now described as Financial Sustainability. Across Europe, many national associations have also gradually strengthened their licensing requirements and financial supervision.
With every new version, the rules increasingly reflect the realities regulators have encountered in practice.
They are becoming clearer, more measurable and more difficult to circumvent.
And this is where Turkish football faces a much deeper problem.
While football regulators elsewhere continue to develop increasingly sophisticated systems to protect clubs from themselves, the Turkish Football Federation continues to fall further behind international practice in this area, despite the competence of many professionals working within the organisation.
At the same time, much of the public discussion surrounding Turkish football remains focused on daily controversies.
Transfer battles.
Refereeing decisions.
Who signed which star.
Who defeated whom in the transfer market.
Every day, countless television programmes and YouTube channels claim to be discussing how Turkish football can be saved.
Yet when a small number of well intentioned voices raise serious financial concerns during club general assemblies, those warnings rarely receive the same attention.
This creates a dangerous contradiction.
Supporters demand success today.
Boards feel pressure to respond today.
Transfers are expected today.
But the financial consequences arrive tomorrow.
And eventually, somebody has to pay for them.
Turkish Football Does Not Need Another Short Term Solution
The solution to Turkish football’s structural problems is not another foreign referee instructor.
It is not foreign referees.
It is not VAR.
And it is certainly not another wave of international star transfers.
What Turkish football needs is a regulatory structure capable of bringing international financial standards into the domestic game and applying them consistently, transparently and without exceptions.
A regulator that does not care whether the club involved is popular or unpopular.
A regulator that does not change its standards depending on public pressure.
A regulator that protects clubs not only from their competitors, but sometimes from their own decisions.
Because sustainable football cannot be built on transfer headlines.
It has to be built on rules, accountability and financial reality.
It has to be built on rules, accountability and financial reality.
And those rules must apply to everyone.
[1] Premier League Handbook 2026/27, page 305, section A.1.19(b): As explained in this section, gross profit from licensed merchandise activities is included as football revenue, rather than the full turnover generated from such activities.