Sky Sports News football correspondent Rob Dorsett breaks down the predicament West Brom finds itself in after being charged with an alleged breach of the English Football League's Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). The club was required to submit its accounts for the 2024/25 financial year by 31 December, the same deadline that applied to the other 71 EFL clubs. What has transpired since that filing deadline remains largely opaque.
According to Dorsett, the club has likely been engaged in extensive negotiations with the EFL’s Club Financial Reporting Unit over which items can be classified as allowable expenditure for PSR purposes. Typical areas under scrutiny include costs associated with the women’s team, infrastructure projects and, most prominently, interest payments on loans taken out during the tenure of former owner Guochuan Lai. The crux of the dispute appears to centre on whether the interest accrued on a sizeable loan – reportedly over £20 million – should be counted as club expenditure in the PSR calculation.
The new owners claim they have paid roughly £5 million in interest during the accounting period and argue that this liability belongs to the former owner personally, not to the club’s operating budget. The EFL, however, maintains that the interest is a genuine outlay for the club and therefore must be incorporated into the sustainability test. Dorsett has been told that, should the independent commission conclude that West Brom has indeed breached the PSR, the violation would be characterised as marginal rather than flagrant. In practice this would likely translate into a modest points deduction – perhaps three points – rather than a harsher six‑point penalty like the one imposed on Leicester City earlier in the season.
The exact size of any sanction remains uncertain, as does the timetable for the commission’s meeting, which has not been disclosed. Both the EFL and West Brom have refrained from commenting publicly while the investigation is ongoing. A ruling could be issued before the season concludes, but any decision may be subject to appeal.
Recent history shows that appeals can alter outcomes: Everton successfully challenged a ten‑point deduction after the commission was found to have made legal errors, although the club later withdrew a further appeal against an additional two‑point penalty. The EFL’s rulebook is clear that sanctions for PSR breaches are normally applied in the season immediately following the offending accounting period. This principle is intended to preserve sporting integrity by ensuring clubs that break the financial rules are penalised as soon as practicable.
The 2024/25 accounts were submitted at the end of December, meaning the current campaign is the one in which any punishment should be enforced, according to the guidelines. When exactly the "end of the season" is defined, however, remains a matter of interpretation. Is it the moment the final whistle blows on the last matchday, or the day before the fixture list for the next season is released?
Dorsett suggests it is unlikely that a decision will be delayed until after the championship’s final round, as all parties are eager to resolve the matter swiftly. The timing of a potential points deduction is especially concerning because five clubs are currently locked in a battle to avoid the two remaining relegation spots: West Brom, Leicester City, Oxford United, Blackburn Rovers and Portsmouth.
None of these teams knows precisely where West Brom truly stands on the table. Officially the Baggies sit on 46 points, two clear of the drop zone, but if a three‑point deduction were applied their total could fall to 43, thrusting them into danger. The scenario creates a precarious situation for a club already hovering near the bottom of the league. A late‑season deduction would not only jeopardise West Brom’s own survival hopes but could also reshuffle the entire relegation picture, potentially sending Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester City or even West Brom themselves down to League One.
The core of the disagreement between the club and the league revolves around the treatment of loan interest. The new ownership argues that the interest is a personal liability of the previous owner and should be excluded from the club’s PSR calculations. The EFL counters that the interest reflects money the club has effectively spent and still owes, and therefore must be counted. No official statements have been released by either West Brom or the EFL on the specifics of the case; all information comes from secondary sources.
In simple terms, if the interest is included, West Brom is in breach of the 2024/25 PSR; if it is excluded, the club would be compliant. A late‑season points deduction would be an ugly sight for the league’s credibility, but Dorsett believes it is unlikely to happen after the final round of matches.
The EFL is under pressure to finalize the decision quickly, yet it remains at the mercy of the independent commission’s schedule. It is worth noting that the EFL does not itself impose sanctions; it merely brings charges via its financial reporting unit. The clubs voted for a system that mandates immediate punishment for PSR breaches, which creates tight deadlines for a complex investigative process. In contrast, if a club enters administration, a predefined 12‑point deduction is applied instantly, unless the administration occurs after the fourth Thursday in March – a safeguard designed to protect the competition’s integrity.
No comparable cut‑off exists for PSR violations. West Brom has publicly insisted that it has complied fully with the P&S rules. In a statement released on Monday the club said: "The club considers that it has fully complied with the P&S rules.
The club will continue to co‑operate with the EFL's Club Financial Reporting Unit and looks forward to resolving this matter." The outcome of this case will have significant ramifications not only for West Brom’s league standing but also for the broader conversation about financial governance and competitive fairness in English football.