Club comparison
Compare clubs
Different seasons use different financial rules. PSRwatch separates current Squad Cost Ratio views from historical Old PSR/P&S views — this page shows one rule model at a time, never both in one table.
Viewing 2024/25 · Old PSR / Profitability & Sustainability model — the loss-based rule that applied that season. Allowance basis shown per club.
Model updated: 29 Jul 2026
Comparing 3 clubs — pick 2 to 5.
| Club | Modelled position | Allowance basis | Baseline result | Source-backed result | Max-funded scenario | 3-year result | Revenue | Wages | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chelsea | £8m room | Source-backed funded allowance | −£82m | +£8m | +£8m (scenario) | −£97m | £491m | £359m | Tight modelled position Three-year losses in the window |
| AFC Bournemouth | £136m room | Source-backed funded allowance | +£46m | +£136m | +£136m (scenario) | +£31m | £182m | £158m | Clear on the modelled numbers Profitable three-year window |
| Liverpool | £71m room | Baseline allowance | +£71m | no eligible equity found | +£161m (scenario) | +£56m | £703m | £428m | Clear on the modelled numbers Profitable three-year window |
PSRwatch model from filed accounts and public data, before undisclosed/private adjustments — not an official league finding. Old PSR allows higher losses only where secure funding/equity is evidenced — baseline £15m over three years, rising toward £105m only with verified owner equity (owner loans excluded). Share this comparison: psrwatch.com/compare?clubs=eng-chelsea,eng-bournemouth,eng-liverpool&season=2024-25