The Professional Footballers' Association has launched High Court legal action against the English Football League in a dispute over new salary restrictions imposed on League One clubs this season.
The row centres on amendments to the Salary Cost Management Protocol, voted through by third-tier clubs in May as part of a broader plan announced by the EFL to replace the Profitability and Sustainability framework with Squad Cost Rules from the 2026-27 season. Under the revised rules, League One clubs have seen the proportion of turnover they can spend on player wages cut from 60% to 50%. Clubs relegated from the Championship, who previously could spend up to 75% of turnover on wages in their first season back in League One, now face a reduced ceiling of 65%.
The changes also bring managers' salaries under the wage cap framework for the first time, and limit clubs to spending no more than 50% of any cash injection from owners on player wages.
The PFA's central objection is procedural. The union insists the rule changes were pushed through without proper consultation via the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, the body that includes the EFL, Premier League, Football Association and PFA, and which is supposed to reach agreement on matters affecting players' employment terms.
A PFA spokesperson said: "The PFA have begun High Court action against the EFL in relation to new wage restriction rules adopted by clubs in League One and introduced this season. We believe that the process through which clubs have voted to bring in these new measures, which will artificially restrict and tighten what clubs can spend on player wages, was not in line with the consultation and agreement process required by the EFL's membership (alongside the PFA, FA and Premier League) of the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee."
The union has also written to its members warning that most footballers have only a short window to earn from the game, and that any restrictions affecting wages, squad sizes or contract lengths should not be imposed without genuine agreement from players.
The EFL has pushed back firmly, saying it was "concerned and disappointed" by the legal challenge and disputing the PFA's account of the consultation process. "The proposed changes have been discussed at length through the PFNCC process, including with the PFA, and the EFL has taken those discussions into account," the league said, adding that it does not accept the union's position that full agreement was required before implementation.
EFL chief executive Trevor Birch defended the reforms as necessary to protect the long-term health of the division, stating that "financial sustainability and player protection are not competing objectives – they go hand in hand," and that "stable clubs are better placed to honour contracts, pay wages on time, invest in facilities and create long-term opportunities for players." He warned that mounting losses and reliance on owner funding were creating risk throughout the game, and argued that with the Independent Football Regulator now active, football needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself rather than have solutions imposed from outside.
The league said it would continue to engage with the PFA and other stakeholders but stressed it could not delay action given the financial pressures facing clubs.
This is not the first time such measures have been contested. A previous attempt to introduce salary caps in League One and League Two was scrapped in 2021 after an independent arbitration panel ruled in the PFA's favour, deeming the proposed caps unlawful and unenforceable.
The practical impact of the current rules is already being felt. Oxford United were hit with a registration embargo last month for failing to comply with the new framework, leaving them unable to sign players, including on loan or free transfer, with the club saying it may take months to meet the requirements.
Based on reporting from Independent Football and BBC Sport.