UEFA fined Marseille and Roma over financial rules, seven clubs exit the settlement regime
UEFA's First Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body, known as the CFCB, has completed its assessment of clubs that, in the 2025/26 season, had to meet specific financial targets from earlier settlement agreements. According to UEFA's announcement of 17 June 2026, the toughest decision was issued to Olympique de Marseille, which received a total fine of €10 million and a restriction on the registration of new players on List A for UEFA competitions in the 2026/27 season. The club from southern France failed to meet the final settlement target because, according to the CFCB's assessment, it was not compliant with the football earnings rule for the period covering the financial statements ending in 2023, 2024 and 2025. At the same time, UEFA stated that, when determining the measures, it took into account the limited extent of the breach, but also the substantial and unexpected fall in revenue from domestic television rights affecting French clubs in the 2025/26 season and continuing into the 2026/27 season.
The decision is important because it represents not only a financial sanction, but also a warning about sporting consequences if the situation does not improve. According to UEFA, Marseille faces exclusion from the next UEFA club competition for which it would qualify in the next three seasons if, in the 2026/27 season, it fails to meet the target linked to football earnings. That measure is conditional, which means the club has not, at this moment, been automatically expelled from European competitions, but it enters the next monitoring cycle with a clear financial threshold it must reach. The additional restriction on the registration of new players on List A directly concerns the possibility of registering the squad for European matches, so it could affect transfer-window planning and the structure of the playing staff.
Marseille punished on two grounds
In the case of Olympique de Marseille, the penalty consists of two separate elements. According to UEFA's announcement, the First Chamber of the CFCB imposed a €6 million fine on the club for failing to meet the final target from the settlement agreement and for non-compliance with the football earnings rule. That rule, according to UEFA's explanation of the financial sustainability system, replaced the earlier concept of the break-even requirement and examines the relationship between relevant income and relevant expenses during the monitoring period. A club may have a surplus or a deficit, but the deficit must remain within the permitted deviation or be covered in the manner provided for by the rules. For Marseille, the CFCB concluded that the final settlement target had not been achieved.
The second part of the sanction concerns the squad cost rule. UEFA stated that, for the 2025 calendar year, Marseille reported a squad cost ratio above the permitted 70 percent, for which it received an additional fine of €4 million. Under UEFA's club licensing and financial sustainability regulations, the squad cost ratio must not exceed the set limit of 70 percent. According to UEFA's public explanations, this ratio includes the costs of player and coach wages, transfer expenditure and agent fees in relation to the club's income. The rule was introduced gradually after the reform of financial monitoring: the threshold was 90 percent in the 2023/24 season, 80 percent in the 2024/25 season, and from the 2025/26 season a permanent limit of 70 percent applies.
Such a structure of the fine shows that the CFCB did not hold only one deviation from the plan against Marseille, but rather a combination of an unmet earnings target and an excessive share of squad costs. In practical terms, the club must work simultaneously on improving its financial result and reducing expenses linked to the playing squad. This may mean more cautious investment in new contracts, greater emphasis on player sales, a different distribution of transfer obligations or strengthening revenue, but UEFA did not prescribe in its announcement any specific business steps the club must take. The key measurable condition is compliance with the football earnings target in the 2026/27 season, because it is precisely that condition to which the possible ban from participating in one European competition is attached.
Roma received a total fine of €6 million
AS Roma also remains under the scrutiny of UEFA's financial monitoring, although its case was described more mildly than Marseille's. According to the CFCB announcement, the Roman club slightly exceeded the intermediate target set for the financial year ending in 2025 and was therefore fined €2 million. In addition, UEFA determined that Roma had reported a squad cost ratio above 70 percent for the 2025 calendar year, so it was given an additional fine of €4 million. The total fine therefore amounts to €6 million.
The difference between Marseille and Roma is important for understanding the severity of the decision. Marseille failed to meet the final settlement target and received a conditional threat of exclusion from one European competition, while Roma, according to UEFA's wording, exceeded an intermediate target and remains a club that will continue to be monitored in the coming period. That does not mean the penalty for Roma is insignificant: the additional €4 million for breaching the squad cost rule shows that UEFA is applying the new system of control over squad expenditure with increasing determination. For clubs that want to be competitive in European competitions, the greatest challenge is no longer only to cover total losses, but also to prove that the growth of wages, transfer amortisation and related costs remains in a reasonable relationship with revenue.
Roma will therefore have to balance sporting ambitions and financial restrictions in the coming period. UEFA did not state in its announcement any player-registration ban or conditional exclusion for the Roman club, but it clearly indicated that the First Chamber of the CFCB will continue to monitor clubs that remain under settlement agreements during the 2026/27 season. In practice, such monitoring means that financial results, squad expenses and fulfilment of agreed targets will not be assessed only retroactively, but also as a condition for exiting the settlement regime. For clubs with large wage bills and constant pressure for results in domestic and European competitions, this is becoming one of the key elements of management.
Seven clubs fulfilled their obligations and exit the settlement regime
With the same decision, UEFA also confirmed positive outcomes for seven clubs that had been under settlement agreements. According to the CFCB, AC Milan, AS Monaco, Beşiktaş, FC Internazionale Milano, Paris Saint-Germain, Royal Antwerp and Trabzonspor met the final settlement target because they complied with the football earnings rule in the 2025/26 season, for the monitoring period covering the reporting years ending in 2023, 2024 and 2025. As a result, these clubs exited the settlement regime. For them, this does not mean the end of UEFA's financial monitoring as a whole, because the financial sustainability rules still apply to all clubs participating in UEFA competitions, but it does mean they are no longer bound by the specific targets from previous settlement agreements.
Such an outcome is especially important for clubs with major European ambitions because exiting the settlement regime removes an additional layer of monitoring and potential sanctions linked to earlier non-compliance. Milan, Inter and PSG are among the globally best-known clubs included in this group, while Monaco, Beşiktaş, Royal Antwerp and Trabzonspor represent different financial and market models of European football. UEFA's decision shows that the settlement regime is not applied only to the biggest leagues, but also to clubs from different national systems that, through European competitions, enter the same regulatory framework. In that sense, the CFCB's assessment is one of the instruments through which UEFA seeks to harmonise minimum rules of financial conduct in competitions under its authority.
The exit of the listed clubs from the settlement regime also sends the message that CFCB agreements are not necessarily a permanent restriction, but rather a time frame within which a club must demonstrate a return to compliance. Under the CFCB procedural rules, settlement agreements may include targets, sporting restrictions, deadlines and disciplinary measures, and their purpose is to bring the club into line with licensing and financial sustainability regulations. When a club meets the agreed targets, it can exit that regime. When it does not meet them, as in the case of Marseille and partially Roma, the CFCB may activate or impose additional measures.
What UEFA's financial sustainability system actually measures
UEFA presented the new financial sustainability framework as the successor to the previous financial fair play system, with an emphasis on solvency, stability and cost control. According to UEFA's explanation, the rules have several aims: to encourage clubs to operate on the basis of their own revenues, protect creditors, increase transparency, limit excessive spending and protect the long-term sustainability of European club football. The CFCB is the body that supervises the application of these rules, and its decisions may include warnings, financial penalties, withholding of revenue from UEFA competitions, restrictions on player registration, bans on registering new players, exclusion from competitions and other disciplinary measures provided for by the rules.
The football earnings rule examines relevant income and expenses during the monitoring period, while the squad cost rule sets a limit on the ratio of the most sensitive sporting expenses to revenue. These two rules work together. The first is aimed at broader business stability, and the second at controlling the fastest-growing costs in professional football. A club may have strong revenue, but if too large a share of that revenue goes on wages, transfers and agent fees, it may breach the squad cost rule. Conversely, a club may be more cautious with squad costs, but still fail to meet the football earnings target if the overall structure of income and expenses is not sustainable.
For fans and the player market, the most visible consequence of these rules is often restrictions during transfer windows. A List A registration restriction does not necessarily mean a club cannot bring in players, but it may mean that it cannot register all of them for UEFA competitions if it does not meet the conditions. In this way, a financial rule becomes a direct sporting issue: the coach and sporting department must plan the squad knowing that the regulatory framework can affect the number and profile of players available for European matches. In Marseille's case, this element is particularly emphasised because UEFA explicitly stated a restriction on the registration of new players for the 2026/27 season.
French television revenue as a mitigating circumstance, but not an exemption
A special part of UEFA's decision concerns the French football context. In assessing Marseille, the CFCB stated that it took into account the substantial and unexpected fall in revenue from domestic television rights affecting French clubs in the 2025/26 season and continuing into the 2026/27 season. According to reports from international media and industry publications, the French professional league has in recent seasons gone through an unstable period related to domestic audiovisual rights, including the termination or change of arrangements with the DAZN platform and a shift towards a different model of distributing Ligue 1 matches. UEFA did not analyse commercial contracts in detail in its decision, but it cited the fall in domestic revenue as a circumstance it considered when determining the measures.
That circumstance clearly influenced the tone of the decision, but it did not remove the club's responsibility. Marseille was still fined, received a player-registration restriction and a conditional threat of exclusion if it fails to meet the target in the 2026/27 season. This shows how the CFCB distinguishes external market shocks from the club's ultimate obligation to adapt to the rules. In European football, revenue from television rights plays a key role in planning budgets, wages and transfers, but UEFA's system does not provide for an automatic exemption because of a decline in a particular source of revenue. Instead, the regulator may take such a circumstance into account when setting the sanction, while the club must still prove the sustainability of its operations.
Why the decision matters for the European club market
The decisions on Marseille, Roma and the clubs that have exited the settlement regime come at a time when European football is facing wage growth, high inflation in transfer fees and widening gaps between leagues. UEFA's financial sustainability system seeks to limit the risk that sporting competitiveness is financed through long-term unsustainable losses. For big clubs, the rules mean that investment in the squad must be aligned with revenue, owner contributions and permitted deviations. For smaller and medium-sized clubs, they should reduce the pressure to follow the financial pace of richer competitors at the cost of their own stability.
The Marseille case shows that a sanction can combine a financial, sporting and conditional element. The Roma case shows that even a milder breach of an intermediate target can lead to multi-million sanctions, especially if the squad cost rule has also been breached. The examples of Milan, Monaco, Beşiktaş, Inter, PSG, Royal Antwerp and Trabzonspor show that clubs can exit the settlement regime if they meet the agreed targets. For UEFA, this is an opportunity to show that the system is not aimed only at punishment, but also at bringing clubs back into compliance.
The First Chamber of the CFCB announced that it will continue to monitor clubs that remain under settlement agreements during the 2026/27 season. For Marseille, that period will be decisive because failure to meet the target could activate a ban from participating in one UEFA club competition for which the club would otherwise qualify in the next three seasons. For Roma, the next monitoring cycle will be an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with intermediate targets and the squad cost rule. For the rest of the European market, the message is clear: financial rules are increasingly moving from the background of management into the centre of sporting planning, because they affect fines, player registration and access to the most important continental competitions.
Sources:
- UEFA – official announcement on the assessment of clubs under settlement agreements in the 2025/26 season (link)
- UEFA – overview of the role of the Club Financial Control Body, its powers and possible disciplinary measures (link)
- UEFA – explanation of the financial sustainability system, the football earnings rule and the squad cost rule (link)
- UEFA Documents – Article 94 of UEFA's 2025 Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations, with the 70 percent limit for the squad cost ratio (link)
- UEFA Documents – Article 15 of the CFCB procedural rules on settlement agreements and the consequences of their breach (link)
- Reuters / The Star – agency report on the sanctions against Marseille, the List A restriction and the context of European competitions (link)