It was introduced to protect clubs from bankruptcy, which was on the up in the proceeding years and has actually dropped considerably as a result, so the story goes.
I'd say its a questionable rule - maybe we should just let clubs spend whatever they like and then they can also crash and burn when it goes wrong. For fans who don't want an outside party to oversee the ruination of their club, you can see that doing something to discipline owners has some utility. The cost is paid by the clubs with the richest owners, who are restrained in a way that they probably don't need to be. If City, for example, want Etihad to pay them a billion pounds a year for five years, who are we to stop them? It's ironic that their own fans, who the rule is supposed to protect, probably resent it.
The question of whether Raheem Sterling is actually paid much more than they say he is would be the only real evidence that they haven't been restrained as intended by the rule.
Bookmarks