The Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Masters, believes the visa system introduced by the Football Association after Brexit contributed to the record £815m spent by Premier League clubs during the January transfer window and has called for it to be tweaked. The points-based government body endorsement (GBE) system that came into force on 1 January 2021 prevents English clubs from signing foreign players until they are 18. But Masters, despite acknowledging it was introduced in an attempt to increase the number of England-qualified players in the Premier League, insisted that the regulations meant clubs had been forced to pay a premium to sign the best emerging stars. “We think it needs a bit of a tweak because it’s a very tight system that is much tighter than other sports in this country,” Masters told the Financial Times’s Business of Football Summit. “While we’re totally committed to developing young, homegrown players and we want Gareth Southgate to be successful, when you have a limited supply of players you can go for and you’ve got lots of demand, then it’s slightly inflationary. That’s certainly not the only reason why lots of money and records are being broken in the Premier League transfer window but it’s a contributing factor. “We have generated an earned advantage over our European competitors and a lot of that earned advantage goes to those European competitors in transfer fees for players that we can no longer buy at a younger age. It’s partially to do with the GBE system.” Chelsea’s outlay of more than £300m on players in January doubled the previous record and took their spending to more than £600m under their American owners. Masters hinted the Premier League would be watching carefully to ensure they adhere to its financial fair play regulations but expects they will look to balance the books by selling players in the summer. “The new owners have owned the club for less than a year,” he said. “They’ve had two transfer windows. You need to judge the football club after three or four years. They might have bought, but they would probably argue they have a different transfer policy to the previous regime with younger players, longer contracts and lower wages. Within our rules it’s a test over a 12-month period, so the question is whether they are going to sell some of their existing players in the next window. I am not here to defend them but you have to judge these things over a period of time.” A record 85% of Premier League clubs’ outlay in January went to foreign leagues, with only 3% was spent on players from the EFL, whose chairman, Rick Parry, is adamant the redistribution of media income is the only way to help bridge the gap. “We’re much less dependent on transfer revenues than we were even five years ago,” he said. “That’s why what we are looking for is redistribution of the media revenues because that is the only way to get a level playing field.” Parry said he was optimistic of striking a deal with the Premier League after the publication of the government’s white paper last month but warned that parachute payments were making the Championship less competitive. “They’re not parachute payments, they’re trampoline payments because the teams just bounce straight back,” he said. “If you look at the two clubs at the top of the table at the moment and Norwich creeping up then we could have three parachute clubs back up this year and that is not healthy for the Premier League. What the Premier League needs is more Brightons and Brentfords who are getting up there, providing variety and staying up.” Parry added: “This is not about us trying to put our hands in the Premier League’s pocket. I’m not Oliver Twist. This is about a proper rethink and a proper reset. We’ve been trying to get redistribution for three years and for us the fan-led review was the only game in town. So we’re optimistic at the moment but it’s not about tinkering – this is a chance to get things right for the next 30 years. It’s not about a few more crumbs from the table.”