All eyes are being drawn to Mexico City on the eve of the World Cup but, across the Atlantic, a footballing legal battle has concluded with a significant verdict.An independent commission ruled on Wednesday that Everton must pay Burnley £35.1million ($47m) after their breach of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) in 2021-22 was found to have given them a crucial sporting advantage.Everton stayed up and Burnley went down in that season but, four years, on there is now a big bill to settle. Everton, who said in a statement they were “surprised and angered” by the verdict, intend to fight on but the case is likely to have long-term implications.What was the basis of Burnley’s case against Everton and what were they seeking?This all dates back to the 2021-22 season, when Everton were found to have breached PSR with an overspend of £19.5m. Everton finished that campaign in 16th position but, importantly in this case, Burnley ended up relegated in 18th. The final gap between the two clubs was four points.Burnley have always felt wronged, believing that Everton’s breach resulted in them enjoying an unfair sporting advantage. The claim has consistently been made, all the way back to May 2023 with the first legal action involving Burnley, that Everton would have been relegated had they kept within spending rules.This case, heard over three weeks in London in the autumn, was Burnley’s attempt to claw back compensation from Everton through a principle known as “loss of chance”. Through the US-based legal firm King and Spalding, Burnley argued that relegation to the Championship had seen them miss out on £51.7m before interest and Everton should be liable for that sum.What was Everton’s defence?Everton, it is worth stating, have always been willing to accept that their PSR breach “conferred a sporting advantage”. They admitted as much when reaching an out-of-court settlement with Leeds United last year, a team they finished one place above in the 2021-22 Premier League season. That one position was worth in excess of £2m through the merit payment system.Everton have known their PSR breach carried implications but they have consistently disputed the “extent and effect” of the sporting advantage they held over Burnley. It was also argued that Burnley suffered no financial loss during their one season in the Championship, with Premier League football quickly returning to Turf Moor in 2023-24.Everton went on to highlight that Burnley’s relegation in May 2022 was settled before a PSR breach had been confirmed by their rivals at the end of the financial year, namely June 30, 2022. Burnley’s resulting losses, therefore, could not have been caused by Everton’s breach when there had still been the opportunity for compliance through player sales.Burnley were relegated from the Premier League in May 2022 (Lindsey Parnaby/AFP via Getty Images)Why did the panel find in favour of Burnley?A three-person panel of David Phillips KC, Alan Greenwood and Nick Igoe — the very same commission that had hit Everton with an initial 10-point penalty at their first PSR hearing with the Premier League in October 2023 — reached a pivotal conclusion after hearing all submissions.“We conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, Everton’s breach of the PSR caused Burnley to be relegated,” they wrote.That decision, in part, was reached after Burnley had put forward detailed statistical modelling to support their claims. Two academics, Dr Rob Wilson and Will Daniels, established a link between player-related expenditure and points won in the Premier League over 12 seasons and calculated that Everton’s overspend of £19.5m had resulted in a gain of between 7.13 points and 3.85 points.Everton had pushed back on those findings and questioned whether the £19.5m overspend ought to have been spread over the three-year PSR assessment period. Their own calculations, even when applying the whole overspend to 2021-22, found that the advantage enjoyed by Everton would not have bridged the eventual four-point gap they held over Burnley last season.