Chelsea's cheating - was a fine too lenient?
The Premier League says it applied leniency on the grounds that Chelsea's new Clearlake ownership self-reported rule-breaches committed under a previous era , and that the current hierarchy displayed "exceptional" levels of co-operation. It has also made clear that the secret payments did not mean profit and sustainability rules limiting losses would have been broken. "It is worth remembering that...
this sanction is because of activities that happened under the previous Chelsea regime," Richard Monks, the chief executive of the Independent Football Regulator, told the BBC on Tuesday. "It's not the current owners or executive group. What we'll be doing is working with the Premier League to understand if there's anybody involved in that case still involved in football, and if necessary we can investigate if we thought they were unsuitable to continue to be in football.
" For those former Chelsea executives who have since left the game, that will be of little concern. And some rivals undoubtedly feel that for a club with a squad worth £1. 5bn - the most expensively assembled in football history - a £10m fine is insufficient.
And while the current ownership was in no way to blame for the wrongdoing, they have arguably benefited from the considerable success achieved during the Abramovich era, which has only increased the value of their asset. "Galling" is how one former senior Manchester United executive - who was at Old Trafford during that period - described the Chelsea situation to BBC Sport. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they claimed that "United lost out on players, Hazard most prominently [in 2012], due to their actions.
" They added: "I have sympathy for the change of ownership point, but it's hardly a deterrent if you can sell before you get caught... some actual transfer ban would have been appropriate. " Chelsea were handed a nine-month academy transfer ban and a £750,000 fine over the registration of academy players between 2019 and 2022.