(Credit: Imago)

James Murray

Mon 23 March 2026 12:15, UK

Follow us on Google Discover

Chelsea were “very fortunate” to avoid a sporting penalty following their historic financial breaches. 

That is according to former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson, who exclusively told Football Insider it has to be assumed the Blues were looking to gain a sporting advantage. 

Chelsea have been handed a £10million fine and a suspended transfer ban after admitting to making £47m worth of secret payments to agents and third-parties linked to deals between 2011 and 2018 when Roman Abramovich was in charge.

The London giants also received an immediate nine-month academy transfer ban and a further £750,000 fine due to offences committed between 2019 and 2022.

However, Chelsea escaped a points deduction despite suggestions that could have been a possibility. 

How Chelsea committed ‘serious’ breaches

The secret payments were made around the transfers of Eden Hazard, Samuel Eto’o, Willian, Ramires, David Luiz, Andre Schurrle and Nemanja Matic. 

The transactions were discovered during BlueCo’s takeover from Abramovich in 2022, leading to Chelsea self-reporting themselves to the Premier League, Uefa and the FA. 

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider, Borson discussed whether the Blues should have landed a sporting penalty.

“I think most people would say they were very fortunate,” said Borson.

“In some ways, the real surprise is that the sort of conversations that were had before the Premier League came to their conclusion weren’t taken more seriously.

“I certainly had analysed that it seemed obvious on the face of it that these were matters that were serious, involved deception, concealment, and these are all words that are used in the sanction agreement.

“The sporting advantage element, that doesn’t appear in the decision, but that clearly has to be considered as something that should, if not simply proved because it’s difficult to prove because nobody really knows what would have happened had the payment not been paid, so it’s very hard to model out what that counterfactual situation would have been. 

“But it should therefore have been inferred, which is exactly what they do in the PSR cases.” 

How Chelsea were seeking sporting advantage

Everton were deducted eight points for two separate profit and sustainability (PSR) breaches, while Nottingham Forest were docked four points and Leicester City are appealing their recent six-point penalty.

Borson suggested Chelsea’s case should have been approached in the same way as the PSR breaches.

“If you were to read the PSR cases, the sort of starting point and the assumption that’s made without good evidence is that a breach of PSR, and likewise in this scenario I would argue a breach of these rules, should be assumed effectively to infer a sporting advantage,” said Borson. 

“The theory there really is, you have to assume there was a reason for doing these things, whether it was PSR or not PSR, you have to assume there was some reason why they’d go to the trouble of doing this.

“Therefore, you have to assume that they were trying to seek some kind of advantage. I think really the burden in something of that nature would have to switch to the other side to say, ‘Well, no, we did it for the following reasons and, therefore, there wasn’t any sporting advantage’.”