Chelsea was fined £27 million by UEFA for violating financial regulations with the threat of an additional £51.8 million penalty if it fails to meet its future financial targets. Aston Villa, Barcelona and Lyon were fined £9.5 million, £13 million and £10.8 million respectively as part of UEFA’s crackdown on clubs that violate the Governing Body’s financial rules. The Chelsea fine is the largest UEFA imposed on the club by UEFA.
The penalty results from a violation of two important UEFA regulations. This is associated with football revenue rules that replace financial fair play and are associated with clubs’ financial losses and squad cost rules that allow a portion of the revenue club to be spent on wages, transfers and agents’ expenses. This limit is currently set at 80% and will drop to 70% by the 2025-26 season.
Chelsea was fined £17.2 million for breaching football revenue rules and £9.5 million for exceeding the team’s cost limit. The villa’s fines were £4.3 million and £5.2 million for the same violation. Both clubs face future fines if they fail to meet the targets outlined in the newly agreed settlement agreement.
Under these settlements, UEFA is also imposing restrictions on Chelsea, Villas and Barcelona regarding their ability to register new players in the UEFA competition. Specifically, a club cannot add players to the list to the list unless the net balance of the transfer is positive (it is entitled to play in a UEFA club competition). This effectively means that new signatures can only be registered if they are financially offset by the player’s sales.
The violation followed widespread spending by Chelsea after the Todd Boley/Clear Lake Consortium took over the club in May 2022. The club’s aggressive transfer efforts have attracted the attention of UEFA, which implements stricter accounting standards than the Premier League after hundreds of millions of pounds. Unlike England’s top flights, UEFA does not allow clubs to count sales of assets to related parties as revenue. This stance meant that Chelsea could not include the proceeds from the sale of the women’s team’s parent company, selling the club-owned hotel to a sister company, £70.5 million.
UEFA said the Club Financial Control Agency (CFCB) has carefully scrutinized such transactions, particularly the sales of tangible and intangible assets, and excluded profits from these when calculating related income. The organization also reviews player swap transactions, including those between Chelsea and Aston Villa, and requires additional adjustments to the club’s financial valuation.
One such notable deal involved Chelsea’s £19 million signature from Villa, 18-year-old O’Mari Kellyman, despite minimal top-level experience. At the same time, Chelsea Academy alumnus Ian Matten moved in the opposite direction for £37.5 million. Such a deal raised doubts of creative accounting aimed at helping clubs adhere to profitability and sustainability rules in the Premier League, where these types of inter-relocation became common in the summer 2023 window.
All three clubs involved in the UEFA award, Chelsea, Villa and Barcelona, have signed a multi-year settlement agreement that imposes both financial penalties and compliance obligations. Chelsea’s contract lasts four years from the 2028-29 season, three years for Villa and two years for Barcelona. These settlements are designed to keep clubs within financial guidelines in the future, limiting flexibility in the transfer market unless they maintain a financial balance.
Importantly, UEFA has made it clear that fines imposed as part of these contracts will not count as part of the club’s financial losses in future UEFA valuations.
In response to the ruling, Chelsea has issued an official statement entitled the violation and confirming its cooperation with UEFA throughout the process. The club said it submitted full and transparent financial reports for 2022/23 and 2023/24 fiscal years. They accepted the penalty for exceeding the squad’s cost rate, which UEFA said was 80-90% in the reporting year in 2024.
Chelsea said they chose to assess their relationship with UEFA and quickly resolve the issue through settlement. The club also emphasized that their financial performance is currently on a strong upward trajectory, suggesting that corrective actions are already in effect.
Overall, UEFA’s decision marks a key moment in implementing financial sustainability regulations. Unprecedented fines, strict registration restrictions and multi-year settlement agreements have sent a clear signal to European organizations that creative accounting and excessive spending will be met with severe sanctions.
As elite clubs navigate these regulations, their ability to compete in UEFA competitions may increasingly depend on disciplined financial management and careful transfer activities.