The two clubs meet in court over a dispute dating back to the 2021-22 season.
The case, opening today at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, centres around Everton’s breach of the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), and Burnley’s claim that it led directly to their relegation.
Burnley are seeking damages believed to be up to £60 million and have argued that they lost out on crucial Premier League revenue after Everton escaped the drop by just four points. The Merseyside club later admitted to a £19.5 million overspend during that season, a breach that resulted in a six-point deduction in the 2023-24 campaign. Burnley contend that had the punishment been applied at the time, it would have changed the relegation picture.
Everton’s breach, initially punished with a 10-point deduction (later reduced to six on appeal), was deemed serious enough that an independent commission said it had provided a “sporting advantage”. Burnley now hope to prove that advantage cost them their Premier League status.
Under PSR rules, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105 million over a three-year period, though allowances were made during the Covid-19 pandemic. Everton breached this limit in the cycle ending in 2021-22 which was the same season Burnley went down.
The key legal argument Burnley are expected to make is based on a “loss of a chance” doctrine. They don’t need to prove definitively that they would have survived, only that Everton’s breach denied them a reasonable opportunity to do so.
Burnley’s accounts highlight the financial cost of relegation - their TV income fell from £104.9m to £47.8m, commercial revenue dropped by over £3m, and their transfer and wage strategy was significantly altered.
Can Burnley truly link Everton’s overspending with their own failure to secure safety? Everton may also point to the timing, as the breach was only confirmed after the season concluded, and theoretically could have been rectified before the accounting deadline.
A successful outcome for Burnley could trigger a wave of similar claims.