Chelsea charges: FA hand Blues 74 charges relating to agent regulations and third-party investment in players
Chelsea hit with 74 charges related to alleged breaches of agent regulations by the FA; charges relate to period between 2009 to 2022, when Roman Abramovich owned club; charges primarily relate to events between the 2010/11 and 2015/16 seasons; Chelsea have until September 19 to respond
Chelsea have been handed 74 charges by the Football Association.
The charges relate to alleged breaches of the FA’s agent regulations and third-party investment in players.
The FA said the charges span the period between 2009 and 2022, when the club were owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, and primarily relate to events which occurred between the 2010/11 and 2015/16 seasons.
The FA said the west London club had until September 19 to respond to the charges.
An FA statement said: “The Football Association has today charged Chelsea FC with breaches of Regulations J1 and C2 of The FA Football Agents Regulations, Regulations A2 and A3 of The FA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries, and Regulations A1 and B3 of The FA Third Party Investment in Players Regulations.
“In total, 74 charges have been brought against Chelsea FC. The conduct that is the subject of the charges ranges from 2009 to 2022 and primarily relates to events which occurred between the 2010/11 to 2015/16 playing seasons.
“Chelsea FC has until 19 September 2025 to respond.”
Chelsea shortly responded to the FA’s announcement with a club statement expressing its “gratitude” to the FA after “self-reporting” the alleged charges, and they hope the matter will be concluded “as swiftly as possible”.
A club statement said: “Chelsea FC is pleased to confirm that its engagement with The FA concerning matters that were self-reported by the club is now reaching a conclusion.
“The club’s ownership group completed its purchase of the club on 30 May 2022. During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions and other potential breaches of FA rules. Immediately upon the completion of the purchase, the Club self-reported these matters to all relevant regulators, including The FA.
“The club has demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process, including by giving comprehensive access to the club’s files and historical data. We will continue working collaboratively with The FA to conclude this matter as swiftly as possible. We wish to place on record our gratitude to The FA for their engagement with the club on this complex case, the focus of which has been on matters that took place over a decade ago.”
Explained: Why Chelsea self-reported alleged breaches
These charges have come about as a result of Chelsea’s owners, BlueCo, discovering potential breaches of the rules when they were carrying out due diligence when they bought the club in 2022.
As soon as they bought Chelsea in May 2022, they self-reported the potential historical breaches to the FA, the Premier League and UEFA.
Due diligence during the takeover process is believed to have uncovered payments connected to transfers to offshore companies and players’ families and representatives. The payments are believed to be millions of pounds and were not registered in accounts submitted to the FA, the Premier League and UEFA.
Chelsea’s new owners withheld £100m of the £2.5bn they paid for the club to cover “unforeseen liabilities”.
In July 2023, Chelsea agreed to pay UEFA £8.6m (€10m) as a settlement for incomplete financial reporting between 2012 and 2019 during the period when Abramovich owned the club.
Over the past three years, Chelsea have been co-operating fully with the investigations and have handed over all the files and data they have been asked to provide.
Regarding possible punishment, a sporting sanction would punish present owners and players who were not at the club when the potential breaches occurred. It could also discourage others from self-reporting potential breaches.
For those reasons, a financial penalty could be a more appropriate sanction.
Listen to top Radio Stations in Abia State CLICK HERE
Support Afnews Independent Journalism
At Afnews, we are dedicated to providing accurate, insightful, and timely news coverage. Our commitment to journalistic integrity ensures that you receive trustworthy information, unfiltered and unbiased. To maintain our independence and continue delivering quality content, we rely on the support of our readers.
If you value the work we do, please consider making a contribution. Your support enables us to keep bringing you the stories that matter.
Donate today and help us keep independent journalism alive. Thank you for your support!
