Could Football's Differing Financial Controls Discourage Investment in Women's Teams?

One football pyramid, three financial treatments

A sponsor approaches a professional football club with an offer to back its women's team. The agreement is commercially credible, the income is recognised in the accounts and the money could help fund a growing operation.

Whether that sponsorship also improves the club's permitted spending capacity on its men's squad depends, in part, on which division the men play in.

Under the financial regulations introduced for 2026/27, the Premier League, the Championship, and League One and Two under the SCMP apply materially different treatments to income generated by women's football. The distinction is clearest between the Championship and the lower EFL divisions on sponsorship, and between the Premier League and Championship on the wider revenue generated by women's teams. The Premier League can recognise qualifying women's-team revenue on a gross basis, subject to its reporting-perimeter and eligibility provisions. The Championship also recognises qualifying women's sponsorship, including sponsorship specific to the women's team, but excludes women's-only matchday income, broadcasting revenue and central distributions. League One and Two exclude revenue attributable to the women's operation, including its allocated share of joint commercial agreements.

This is not a difference in the women's competitions themselves. It arises from the financial controls governing their affiliated men's clubs.

That matters because a women's team is often part of a wider football business. Owners may evaluate its commercial development alongside stadium utilisation, sponsorship, facilities and the men's first-team budget. The regulations do not determine those investment decisions, but they can alter the financial incentives surrounding them.

The Premier League: women's revenue can count

The Premier League's new Squad Cost Ratio framework, introduced for 2026/27, limits regulated squad expenditure by reference to football revenue and player-trading results, with a headline ratio of 85% and a separate allowance mechanism.

Its treatment of women's football is explicit. Appendix 2, Rule A.1.19(a)(iv) includes gross revenue from a club's own women's football team within Commercial Revenue, provided that operation falls within the club's defined Reporting Perimeter. Gross-revenue treatment means qualifying income is recognised without first deducting the operating costs attributable to generating it — and the same definition treats other football teams within the reporting perimeter differently, generally on a net-profit basis.

The regulated squad-cost definition, meanwhile, concerns the specified players and manager of the men's first team. Women's-team operating costs are not automatically added to that men's squad-cost numerator. Consequently, a Premier League club with a qualifying women's operation can benefit from the revenue it generates when calculating the financial capacity available for its men's squad.

That does not mean every receipt automatically qualifies. The reporting perimeter, accounting treatment, associated-party rules and other restrictions remain relevant, and clubs do not receive a guaranteed spending increase equal to 85% of each additional pound of income — the precise effect depends on their wider calculation. Nevertheless, the direction of the rule is clear: qualifying women's-team revenue is recognised as part of the football business.

The Championship: sponsorship counts, but much else does not

The Championship's new Squad Cost Rules adopt a narrower approach.

Annex A, paragraph 5.0.27 expressly excludes gross revenue attributable solely to a club's women's team, identifying women's matchday income, central distributions from the Women's Super League or equivalent competitions, and women's broadcasting income among the excluded categories.

There are two important exceptions. Paragraph 2.1.20 permits sponsorship revenue generated by a women's team within the club's Reporting Perimeter, including sponsorship shared with the men's team, and paragraph 5.0.27(b) reinforces that treatment. Separately, paragraph 5.0.27(a) permits net profit from hosting women's matches at the men's first-team stadium to be included under paragraph 4.1.3.

The distinction produces an unusual result. A Championship club may be able to count a sponsorship agreement signed specifically for its women's team, yet exclude ticket receipts generated by that same team playing its own home fixtures. If those fixtures are staged at the men's stadium, the relevant stadium-hosting profit may qualify instead. These are different measures of economic activity, with different consequences for the spending calculation.

The rules also contain safeguards. Sponsorship attributed to teams outside the reporting perimeter can be excluded or reduced, and associated-party transactions are subject to fair-market-value controls. The Championship therefore recognises some of the commercial value created by women's football, but not its wider revenue base.

League One and Two: an explicit exclusion

The Salary Cost Management Protocol, which governs League One and League Two, is more restrictive. Annex A, paragraph 1.13 of the 2026/27 rules states that all revenue attributable to a club's women's team and operations shall be excluded.

The provision also addresses commercial agreements involving both the men's first team and the women's team. Clubs must identify the amount allocated to each operation, and where the agreement makes no allocation, the EFL applies its own. The practical effect is that a League One or League Two club cannot count the portion of a joint sponsorship agreement attributable to its women's team within Relevant Turnover, nor count a women's-only sponsorship agreement simply because the sponsor is willing to pay.

That matters because SCMP limits men's player and manager expenditure partly by reference to Relevant Turnover and permitted owner funding. For 2026/27, League One's standard expenditure percentage was reduced from 60% to 50%, with specific provisions for clubs relegated from the Championship, and the framework permits qualifying owner injections to support expenditure within defined limits.

The women's-revenue exclusion is therefore not an absolute barrier to spending on the men's team. Owners have other mechanisms available. But growth in a women's team's commercial income cannot directly increase the turnover component of the SCMP allowance.

The regulatory difference at a glance

Revenue source	Premier League	Championship	League One & Two
Women's-only sponsorship	Qualifying gross revenue included	Qualifying gross revenue included	Excluded
Women's matchday receipts	Qualifying gross revenue included	Excluded; specified stadium-hosting profit may count	Excluded
Women's broadcasting income	Qualifying gross revenue included	Excluded	Excluded
Women's league distributions	Potentially included if qualifying	Excluded	Excluded
Joint men's/women's sponsorship	Subject to applicable rules	Qualifying sponsorship may count	Women's allocated share excluded

The Premier League and Championship both recognise qualifying women's sponsorship. Their principal difference is the treatment of other women's-team revenue. All inclusions remain subject to the applicable reporting-perimeter and eligibility rules.

Promotion changes the calculation, even when the women's team stays the same

The most striking consequence of the different frameworks emerges when a men's team changes division.

Consider a League One club with an established women's operation. Its women's team has secured a dedicated commercial sponsor, built a regular matchday audience and developed a modest broadcasting income stream. None of that revenue is included in the men's SCMP turnover calculation.

If the men's team wins promotion to the Championship, the club enters a different financial regime. Qualifying women's sponsorship can now contribute to Relevant Turnover, even though the women's team has not changed its commercial agreements, ownership or sporting position. If the men's team subsequently reaches the Premier League, qualifying revenue from the women's operation can receive broader recognition, including categories excluded in the Championship.

The reverse applies on relegation. A women's operation could retain the same sponsors, supporters, broadcasting arrangements and commercial ambitions while its treatment under the men's financial rules becomes progressively more restrictive. The regulatory value of that revenue changes because of the men's league position, not because of anything the women's team has achieved or failed to achieve.

There are qualifications. Reporting-perimeter requirements differ, and a change of division does not guarantee that every revenue stream will qualify automatically. The relevant calculations also use different expenditure measures and allowances, so the financial effects cannot be compared pound for pound. Nevertheless, the underlying discontinuity is real.

For an owner considering a multi-year investment in women's football, the extent to which that investment contributes to the men's regulatory spending capacity may depend on a promotion or relegation that has no connection to the women's operation. That is an unusual feature of a system in which clubs are increasingly encouraged to treat women's football as a sustainable commercial business.

Could this discourage investment further down the pyramid?

The concern is not that EFL clubs are prohibited from supporting women's football. They are not.

The question is whether the financial rules create an additional incentive for a Premier League owner to develop a women's operation that is unavailable, or materially reduced, for an owner in League One or Two.

Consider two clubs each contemplating an investment in their women's team. Both believe better facilities, recruitment and commercial development could eventually produce additional sponsorship, ticket income and broadcasting revenue. At the Premier League club, qualifying revenue from that investment can contribute to the financial base used to calculate men's squad expenditure. At the League One club, revenue attributable to the women's operation is excluded from the equivalent turnover measure. The economic return from the women's team itself may be identical. Its treatment under the men's financial rules is not.

For an owner who views the women's team as an independent sporting and commercial investment, that distinction may be irrelevant. For an owner assessing every investment partly through its effect on the men's first-team budget, it could matter.

This is a plausible incentive effect, not evidence of an established behavioural response. There is no basis, from the regulations alone, to conclude that lower-league clubs have withdrawn funding or rejected women's-team investment because of SCMP. Establishing that would require evidence from club budgets, sponsorship decisions and owners themselves.

There is a case for keeping the revenue separate

There is also a serious argument against simply importing the Premier League approach into the lower divisions.

Women's football needs income to finance its own development. Sponsorship, ticket sales and broadcasting distributions can support players, coaching, facilities, travel and medical provision. Allowing that revenue to expand the men's wage budget could create pressure to treat the women's operation as a means of increasing men's spending capacity rather than as a business requiring sustained investment.

An exclusion can therefore serve a protective purpose. It prevents a club from using women's revenue to justify a higher men's expenditure allowance, even where the women's team still needs that income. The distinction is particularly relevant lower down the pyramid, where operating margins can be narrow and women's teams may rely heavily on support from their affiliated clubs.

There is no automatic conclusion that inclusion is good for women's football and exclusion is bad. The policy question is whether the current rules strike the right balance between protecting women's resources and recognising the commercial value those teams create.

Should the EFL reconsider?

There are several possible approaches, none without complications.

The EFL could retain the exclusion, making clear that women's income should be protected for women's football. It could recognise specified commercial revenue, as the Championship does, while continuing to exclude central distributions and matchday receipts. Or it could move towards the Premier League's broader treatment, subject to safeguards designed to prevent women's operations being used principally to expand men's wage budgets.

Any change would need to address the reporting perimeter, the allocation of joint sponsorship, related-party valuations and the risk of double counting. It would also need to answer a more fundamental question: what is the purpose of recognising women's revenue in a financial system designed to control expenditure on men's football?

If the purpose is to reward genuine commercial growth across the club, the different treatments are difficult to reconcile without further explanation. If the purpose is to protect the finances of women's teams, the authorities should explain why the Premier League, Championship and lower EFL divisions have chosen different mechanisms.

The Bottom Line

The 2026/27 regulations reveal a clear divergence in how women's football revenue is treated across the professional men's game.

The Premier League can recognise qualifying revenue generated by a club's own women's team on a gross basis. The Championship recognises specified categories, particularly sponsorship, while excluding much of the remaining women's-only income. League One and Two exclude revenue attributable to women's teams altogether.

The distinction becomes especially difficult to explain when a club is promoted or relegated. The women's operation may be unchanged, yet its revenue receives different treatment in the men's financial calculation.

That does not prove lower-league clubs will invest less in women's football. Nor does it negate the argument that excluding women's revenue can protect it from being used to support higher men's wages. It does, however, raise a legitimate question about whether separately developed financial frameworks have produced an unintended difference in investment incentives.

If clubs are expected to develop women's football as a serious commercial operation, should the regulatory treatment of the value it creates depend on the division occupied by their men's team?