Training Rights in England: The EPPP, Fixed Fees and the Controversy with Small Clubs
By Futbol CV| Series: Training Rights in Football
This article is part of ourGlobal Guide to Training Rights in Football. Here we analyze the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) — the English system that revolutionized and polarized the training compensation model.
The English system of training rights is one of the most debated in the world. TheElite Player Performance Plan (EPPP), implemented in 2012, replaced the previous case-by-case court-based system with a fixed fee structure based on academy category. The intention was to modernize and standardize compensation. The result has been one of the most polarizing reforms in the history of English football.
The pre-EPPP system
Prior to 2012, training compensation disputes in England were resolved before aindependent tribunalwhich evaluated case by case: quality of training, player potential, infrastructure of the training club, etc. The resulting amounts could be significant – there were cases reaching hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The problem was uncertainty: each case was different, the processes were long and expensive, and there was no predictability for the clubs.
The EPPP: structure and operation
Categorization of academies
The heart of the EPPP is a system of categorization of football academies into four levels:
| Category | Description | Main requirements |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elite | First-class facilities, full-time program, minimum coach-to-player ratio, full medical department |
| 2 | High quality | Substantial program, good facilities, lower investment than Cat. 1 |
| 3 | Development | Partial program, basic facilities |
| 4 | Basic | Minimum program |
The vast majority of clubs in thePremier Leaguehave academiesCategory 1. The clubs ofChampionshipyLeague Oneusually have Categories 2 and 3. Football clubsLeague Twoand lower leagues typically operate in Categories 3 and 4.
Compensation fees
The most controversial aspect: the rates arefixedand are based on the category of thetraining academy(not the acquiring club, as in FIFA). The approximate amounts are:
| Player age | Category 1 | Category 2 | Category 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-11 years | £3,000/year | £2,500/year | £2,000/year |
| 12-16 years | £40,000/year | £25,000/year | £12,500/year |
| 17-18 years | Additional compensation | Variable | Variable |
Additional compensation for professional appearances
In addition to the base rates, the EPPP establishes additional compensation when the player debuts or accumulates appearances in professional teams, up to amaximum cap of £1,300,000per player.
Fundamental difference with FIFA
In the FIFA system, compensation is calculated according to the category of theacquiring club(the one who hires). If a UEFA Category I club signs a player, they pay €90,000/year regardless of who trained them. The EPPP reverses this logic: what determines the amount is the category of thetraining academy. If a Premier League club signs a player from a Category 3 academy, they pay the Category 3 fee — significantly lower.
The controversy: why the EPPP is so criticized
The "vacuum cleaner" effect of the Premier League
The main criticism of the EPPP is that it allows the richest clubs in England – those in the Premier League with Category 1 academies – to recruit youth players from smaller clubs atridiculous prices.
A concrete example: if a League Two club (Category 3) trains a player from 9 to 16 years old (7 years of training) and a Premier League club signs him, the total compensation is approximately:
- 9-11 years (3 years × £2,000): £6,000
- 12-16 years (4 years × £12,500): £50,000
- Total: £56,000
£56,000 for 7 years of training for a player potentially worth millions. It is a price that any Premier League club pays without batting an eyelid.
Closing of academies
The impact has been concrete. Several lower league clubs haveclosed or drastically reducedits youth training programs citing that the EPPP makes them economically unviable:
- Hereford United:He closed his academy.
- Wycombe Wanderers:Significantly reduced its program.
- Yeovil Town:He closed his academy.
The logic is simple: why invest in developing young players if a Premier League club can take them for a fraction of the real training cost?
Structural inequality
The EPPP creates a vicious cycle: large clubs, with more resources, can invest in Category 1 academies, which allows them to recruit better talent. Small clubs, with fewer resources, are placed in lower categories with lower fees, receive less compensation, have fewer resources to invest... and so on.
Reviews from the Football Supporters' Association
TheFootball Supporters' Association (FSA)has been one of the most critical voices of the EPPP, arguing that the system disproportionately favors elite clubs and undermines the economic viability of community club training programs.
EPPP Defenses
Defenders of the system argue that:
Improve quality:The categorization forces clubs to invest in higher training standards to access better rates.
Predictability:Fixed rates remove the uncertainty of the previous court-based system.
Facilitates mobility:Young players can access better training programs without prohibitive costs blocking their development.
The £1.3M cap:Additional compensation for professional appearances can generate significant amounts if the player is successful.
The EPPP in the European context
Compared to other European systems, the EPPP is unique:
| Appearance | EPPP (England) | France | FIFA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fare basis | Trainer Category | Trainer Category | Category of the acquirer |
| Maximum amounts | £40,000/year + bonuses | €90,000/year + bonuses + 20% sell-on | €90,000/year |
| Sell-on | Not as a separate mechanism | 20% | 5% (solidarity) |
| Performance bonus | Professional appearances (up to £1.3M) | Selection + debut (up to €1.5M) | No |
| Controversy | High | Low | Average |
| Impact on small clubs | Negative | Positive | Neutral |
The future of the EPPP
There is a growing debate about the need to reform the EPPP. The most discussed proposals include:
- Increase base ratesfor all categories, so that compensation more closely reflects the real cost of training.
- Implement a solidarity mechanismFIFA rate of 5% for domestic transfers, complementing fixed rates.
- Introduce sell-on feesmandatory French style (20%) to guarantee recurring income to training clubs.
- Create a redistribution fundwhere Premier League clubs contribute proportionally to a pool that is distributed among the lower category academies.
EPPP lesson for other countries
The EPPP teaches thata system with fixed rates based on the category of the trainermay end up hurting smaller clubs — precisely the ones who need the compensation the most. If the fee depends on who trained (and small clubs have low categories), the economic incentive to train is reduced at the base of the pyramid.
The FIFA model — where the fee depends on who hires — is more equitable in this sense: a large club always pays a high amount, regardless of how small the training club is.
→ Return to the Global Guide to Training Rights
Futbol CV — Specialized content for soccer professionals.