silverguide.site –

Premier League clubs are increasingly unhappy at the Independent Football Regulator’s (IFR’s) rising costs and uncertainty about how much each club will be made to pay.

Premier League and EFL clubs have repeatedly asked the IFR for an update on its operating budget, which is believed to have risen significantly from the annual £10m projected by the previous government, and been frustrated by the limited response.

Their concerns are understood to have been increased by the IFR’s appointment of the US firm Boston Consulting Group to assist it, which was communicated to the clubs last week.

The Premier League’s operating costs and legal expenses have increased significantly over the past five years and its clubs, who posted combined operating losses of £1.65bn in the 2024-25 season, do not welcome the additional financial commitment related to the IFR, though the levy imposed on them will be a tiny fraction of their revenue.

The IFR is currently paid for by the government through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but that central funding will run out at the start of the 2027-28 season, when the clubs will be asked to foot the bill.

When the Football Governance Bill was introduced two years ago by the Conservative government the budget was estimated at £100m over 10 years, and the clubs have not been updated.

The IFR chair, David Kogan, and chief executive, Richard Monks, are understood to have been interrogated by clubs at the Premier League’s shareholders’ meeting last month, and faced similar questions when attending the EFL’s AGM, without providing firm answers.

The budget is due to be set by the IFR board, with sources indicating it is developing and reviewing the costs.

The IFR has confirmed its operating costs will be met by a levy on the 116 clubs in the top five men’s divisions from the Premier League to the National League, but the precise nature of the levy has not been disclosed.

There is a widespread acceptance that the Premier League clubs will foot most of the bill but it is unclear whether all 20 will have the same levy, or whether those in the Champions League, for example, will be forced to pay more.

The IFR is planning a public consultation this year, speaking to the clubs and all stakeholders, to determine the levy’s methodology, which will consider each club’s financial circumstances.

Premier League clubs opposed the creation of the IFR, which was first recommended by Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review in 2021, and the uncertainty over costs is the latest manifestation of their irritation.

The appointment of Boston has increased their concerns over spiralling costs, with one club executive claiming that the American firm is among the most expensive management consultancies in the market.

Boston’s primary role will be to conduct the State of the Game report, billed as a forensic report on the football industry that will inform the IFR’s stance on a new financial settlement between the Premier League and EFL.

The issue of rising administrative costs has been a growing bone of contention for Premier League clubs in recent years, particularly among those found guilty of profitability and sustainability rule breaches.

The Premier League’s operational expenses, divided equally among the clubs, have increased by 30% over the past five years. Legal costs in particular have soared owing to the Premier League’s prosecution of Manchester City, Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester for alleged rule breaches, increasing by 325% from £11.3m in 2022-23 to £48.1m in 2023-24, before dipping slightly to £44.6m last season.

An IFR spokesperson said: “The IFR exists to improve the financial sustainability of clubs, the resilience of the leagues and to protect the game’s rich heritage for fans. We are in the process of setting our budget and will be proportionate and cost effective in our approach and will communicate this with clubs at the earliest opportunity.”