El club del oeste de Londres no ha recibido una sanción demasiado severa a pesar de sus movimientos en la ventana de traspasos.
La decisión de la Premier League de multar a Chelsea con 10 millones de libras por haber generado 47,5 millones de libras en pagos de transferencias en secreto ha sido condenada como “demasiado generosa” por uno de los exejecutivos del club.
Christian Purslow desempeñó el cargo de director de actividades comerciales en Chelsea entre 2014 y 2017, lo que le sitúa en Stamford Bridge durante gran parte del periodo cubierto por las infracciones. Asegura que su función no le dio visión de los pagos, pero afirmó estar “impactado al ver la magnitud de la actividad” cuando se publicaron los hallazgos.
Su veredicto sobre el castigo fue: “Creo que esto es lo más grave que se ha quebrantado en la Premier League en mucho tiempo,” declaró al podcast The Football Boardroom. “El nivel de mitigación que se ha aplicado aquí es mucho demasiado generoso y, en mi opinión, muy inconsistente con casos y sanciones regulatorias anteriores.”
Lo que hace que la crítica de Purslow sea especialmente contundente es su amplia experiencia en la gobernanza del fútbol. Exdirector general de Liverpool y director ejecutivo del Aston Villa, ha visto el interior de los clubes de la Premier League desde múltiples ángulos, y cree que la sentencia contra Chelsea se siente incómoda junto a casos anteriores.
Everton y Nottingham Forest recibieron deducciones de puntos por infracciones de la Regla de Rentabilidad y Sostenibilidad en años recientes.
El propio lenguaje de la Premier League en esos casos fue muy claro: “Una penalización económica para un club que cuenta con el respaldo de un propietario adinerado no es suficiente como castigo.” Las deducciones de puntos, argumentaba el organismo en su momento, eran necesarias para “vindicar a los clubes cumplidores” y proteger “la integridad del deporte.”
Chelsea’s breaches were categorised in the ruling itself as “obvious and deliberate”, involving “deception and concealment in relation to financial matters”, language significantly more damning than that applied to Everton or Forest.
Yet while those clubs suffered sporting punishment, Chelsea escaped with a fine and a suspended transfer ban.
“This is essentially a litany of offences related to how you conduct transfer business, so a transfer ban makes sense,” Purslow said. “But to see that ban suspended in full, again, seems extremely lenient. That must really rankle with clubs like Everton and Forest who I don’t think have had much credit in the past where they have co-operated.”
Ventaja deportiva obtenida
The mitigation accepted by the panel centred on the fact that the breaches occurred under former owner Roman Abramovich, with new owners BlueCo receiving credit for voluntary disclosures and what was described as “exceptional co-operation.” Chelsea said the club had “treated these matters with the utmost seriousness, providing full cooperation to all relevant regulators.”
Purslow did not accept that as sufficient justification, particularly given the players Chelsea were able to sign during the period, Eden Hazard, Samuel Eto’o, Willian, Ramires, David Luiz and Nemanja Matic among them, as the club won two Premier League titles and the Champions League between 2011 and 2018.
“Sporting sanctions first came into the frame as an acknowledgement that sometimes punishing with a fine just didn’t fit the crime,” he said. “When football clubs had gained meaningful football advantage, you needed to sanction with sporting penalty to compensate. It is blindingly obvious that sporting benefits were attained through this transfer activity.”
The £10m fine is the largest the Premier League has ever handed down. Whether it is large enough — and whether the absence of a sporting sanction can be justified — is a question that will not be going away.
