When Fenway Sports Group first came into English football back in October 2010 there was a significant amount of hope thrown behind the emergence of Financial Fair Play regulations helping them to deliver success without having to partake in the transfer market rat race.

The years before their arrival as owners of Liverpool had seen Manchester City start to put the wheels in motion to build their own footballing dynasty following the purchase of the club by the Sheikh Mansour, and before that there had been the relentless transfer spending of Roman Abramovich, whose time at Chelsea reshaped the landscape of English football forever.

After taking over the Boston Red Sox in 2002 and winning the World Series in two years, the Major League Baseball team’s 86-year wait for a title was ended.

The ownership group, which included John Henry and Tom Werner, was enthralled with the idea of using data analytics to uncover value that others missed in order to create a winning team and culture.

They repeated the feat in 2007.

The ‘Moneyball’ approach that was made so famous by Billy Beane at the Oakland Athletics, one that was turned into a Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt as Beane, was an approach that chimed with FSG’s plans to be the smartest guys in the room.

Henry valued the approach so much that they engaged Bill James, the man who first brought statistical analysis to the fore as an option in baseball through his books on sabermetrics, as a senior advisor to the Red Sox in 2003. Henry would fail in his attempts to lure Beane to Fenway Park, something that was dramatised in the movie.

It was a calculated risk that weighed the possible rewards against the risk when FSG made the decision to play for Liverpool.

FFP gaining more teeth, where spending to succeed would have limitations, was one of the main things that FSG believed would work in their favor.

This would allow those who tried to think about success in terms of data and marginal gains to flourish.

When they acquired the club in 2010 they set about piecing together a team that could deliver on the strategy.

Data pipelines were to be created from academy to first team and the way that they analysed their recruitment was to be far more granular in detail.

Instant results weren’t expected, nor did they arrive, and the team tasked with building the strategy were given time to get it up and running and functioning as it should, with the likes of former head of research, Dr Ian Graham, key to that process.

But FFP didn’t have the kind of impact that FSG felt it would, and clubs continued to spend.

A plan that has been in place since 2015 was realized thanks to data investments and the appointment of world-class manager Jurgen Klopp. As a result of the Premier League’s increased globalization, media rights have boomed, driving up values and revenues and sending Liverpool’s wage bill skyrocketing.

But spending heavily on player transfers was never in the plan, certainly not in terms of going blow for blow in the market.

Liverpool have shelled out huge sums of money on players, but in terms of their net spend, the marker that has taken on significance among ‘Football Twitter’ but doesn’t really show the true picture of investment in recruitment, the Reds have fallen short of their rivals in the last decade.

“You are right that there are ever-increasing financial challenges in the Premier League,” said Henry in an exclusive interview with the ECHO earlier this year.

“The league itself is extraordinarily successful and is the greatest football competition in the world, but we’ve thought for some time there should be limits on spending so that the league doesn’t go the way of European leagues where one or two clubs annually have little competition.

“Excitement depends on competition and is the most important component of the Premier League.”

Liverpool have won everything there is to win in club football under Klopp, at home and abroad. But the argument has remained that given the talent at their disposal, and if they would’ve taken more risks in the market at key times, they could have won more.

FSG had intended to take Liverpool, along with owners of five other of the Premier League’s biggest clubs and another half dozen around Europe, into a breakaway European Super League competition.

It was an idea rooted in greed and one that was rejected by the football community and beyond.

It won’t return in the guise in which it was presented, but the lack of desire to push that particular issue further will likely be borne from opportunity that exists in the growth of other areas, namely the Champions League’s expansion and significant growth and expansion of the FIFA Club World Cup in the coming seasons.

But despite all these opportunities, the requirement for FSG to continue trying to find ways for Liverpool to compete in the market while running the club in a sustainable manner were becoming increasingly challenging.

The arrival of Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital at Chelsea heralded new ground being broken in the market, with more than £1bn spent on transfer fees over the course of just three transfer windows. even by Premier League standards, an incredible expenditure.

FSG flirted with the idea of a Liverpool sale last year, briefly, but quickly pivoted back to retaining control long term and bringing on board a minority partner, Dynasty Equity, instead.

By making that move, they were addressing specific issues that they had wanted to address, namely the repayment of bank debt and interest that had accumulated from investments made in infrastructure projects like the repurchase of Melwood and the Anfield Road End.

Last year UEFA announced that they would be introducing tougher sanctions around financial fair play with a new squad cost ratio rule.

The Premier League, which has its own set of profit and sustainability regulations, are also posturing to show that they have teeth ahead of the proposed introduction of an independent regulator in the English game by 2025.

The first knockings of the Premier League wielding power have been seen this week.

In March, Everton were referred to an independent commission over an alleged breach of profit and sustainability rules.

Everton denied the allegations but after the commission sat and heard evidence last month, a ruling was handed down on Friday that the Toffees should be deducted 10 points after being found to be in breach.

A month before Everton’s charges, the Premier League hit Manchester City with a staggering 115 charges related to alleged financial breaches between 2009 and 2018.

The allegations concern revenue-related financial data, specifics about manager and player compensation, compliance with Premier League investigations, profitability and sustainability, and UEFA regulations.

An independent commission will also rule on that matter, although given the sheer volume of charges and complexity of the case, and the potentially huge ramifications that could arise from a guilty verdict, it is likely to be some time before the commission actually sits to hear the evidence.

This past week has seen Manchester City post record revenues of almost £713m, with commercial revenues up to £309m, a sum £62m higher than what Liverpool achieved commercially last season

Such figures, against the backdrop of their 115 charges for alleged breaches, and with Everton’s heavy penalty for their single charge, have seen the storm clouds start to gather on the horizon, with Chelsea also adding to the rumblings in the distance.

Chelsea may yet find themselves referred to a regulatory commission after leaked documents as part of the ‘Cyprus Confidential’ project, which saw millions of confidential documents provided to investigative journalists, showed that various payments were made to Abramovich-owned companies during his time as owner that directly benefited the club.

The new owners contacted the Premier League, UEFA and the FA to highlight that there were concerns about missing financial information relating to transactions between 2012 and 2019, but that doesn’t mean that they will avoid a harsh punishment should they be found guilty of being in breach of financial regulations.

Already it has been reported that clubs impacted by Everton’s situation, namely those relegated during the time the breaches occurred; Burnley, Southampton, Leeds United and Leicester City, could have a case for compensation from the Toffees should they be able to prove causation.

Should any legal action be successful then what route would that open up to other clubs impacted by Manchester City or Chelsea, should they be found guilty? Would there be cause to pursue a case in those circumstances?

What happens with Manchester City and Chelsea remains unknown, and will likely be so for some time. Ultimately, it will be the decision of an independent commission to rule on such matters.

But what it does suggest is that the landscape of the Premier League is set to change, and the kind of stricter enforcement of financial fair play regulations that FSG had hoped to see when they acquired Liverpool 13 years ago may not be starting to arrive.

The decision on Everton in terms of the severity of the penalty seemed harsh.

But it has now painted the Premier League into something of a corner. Such strong sanctions for proven breaches open the door to potential sanctions the likes of which English football has never seen before.

FSG are sticking around for the long term as they see the potential for far greater value creation with Liverpool. They may find that the initial hope for their time in charge may be coming to fruition more than a decade on.