Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea have not aligned on the proposals which have seen Premier League clubs agree in principle to a spending cap. Three clubs voted against the movement, Manchester United, Manchester City and Aston Villa.

Chelsea were the only team to abstain whereas Mikel Arteta and Ange Postecoglou’s side’s were part of the 16 teams in favour who helped push the vote to succeed. When looking at what these new rules entail, it certainly becomes rather clear as to why this is the case.

Clubs in England’s top flight will be anchored to spending around five times the amount the bottom club received in television revenue. After the vote was successful, it will now go to an Annual General Meeting before it can be officially passed.

At the meeting, further details of the proposed cap would be discussed including its size, potential punishments and when it would come into effect if it does indeed materialise. Why the north London clubs voted differently to Chelsea can be explained but not entirely.

Arsenal

From the Gunners' perspective, they have been one of the highest-spending sides in the league in recent seasons. They flirted with the boundaries of Profit and Sustainability Regulations last summer hence why David Raya arrived initially on loan and why no signings were made in January despite a successive title push in full flow.

Arsenal have managed to entirely restructure their squad, overhauling Arteta’s selection considerably whilst still maintaining a relatively level wage bill. In fact, the team which finished eighth under his management and was ripped up was understood to have a slightly higher wage bill than the squad which finished second last season.

That is no longer the case with the latest renewals and big-money arrivals like Kai Havertz and Declan Rice. However, when the latest accounts were published, Arsenal reassured onlookers that the club were indeed falling within the established regulations.

Unlike Chelsea whose massive spending has seen little return, Arsenal could not be more different. The Blues still need far more money to be pumped into their team whereas whilst the Gunners could do with improving their depth these new rules are unlikely to prevent them from doing what is required as opposed to their west London rivals.

Tottenham

When it comes to finances, if not silverware, in recent years Spurs are a tightly, well-run ship and chairman Daniel Levy has constantly spoken about preparing the club for the tighter financial spending restrictions that were going to come in. The Tottenham supremo has regularly mentioned the mega-rich, state-owned clubs and any chance to further restrict how much they can skew the game will have gone down well within Hotspur Way.

Interestingly, one person who was not too enamoured with the prospect of a salary cap, having worked under one in Australia, was Ange Postecoglou. With his club now playing their part in voting through the idea in principle, the Spurs head coach's thoughts on the matter will be fascinating to hear.

Much will depend on the finer details of the proposals and what is eventually voted upon, compared to this idea in principle. It could create greater competition and more financial safety for clubs in England, but it also in theory could put the Premier League at a disadvantage to other country's leagues if sides are unable to sign certain players due to nearing the cap as it could include wages, amortised transfer fees and payments to agents. Perhaps with Tottenham likely to come in under that cap, that is exactly what they want.