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 2025/26 · 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 | £182m room | Source-backed funded allowance | +£92m | +£182m | +£182m (scenario) | +£77m | £514m | £382m | Clear on the modelled numbers Profitable three-year window |
| AFC Bournemouth | £237m room | Source-backed funded allowance | +£147m | +£237m | +£237m (scenario) | +£132m | £205m | £171m | Clear on the modelled numbers Profitable three-year window |
| Liverpool | £477m room | Baseline allowance | +£477m | no eligible equity found | +£567m (scenario) | +£462m | £831m | £462m | 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=2025-26