High Court action has been launched by the Professional Footballers’ Association against the English Football League following a dispute over updated League One salary cap regulations.

The legal challenge follows a vote by third-tier clubs in May to amend the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) rules, a move intended to cut financial losses and curb dependence on funding from team owners.

Under the revised framework, the proportion of revenue League One teams are permitted to allocate to player salaries has been lowered from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. Managers' pay has also been incorporated into the SCMP framework for the first time, while clubs are now restricted to spending a maximum of 50 per cent of any owner "equity injection" on squad wages.

However, the players' union claims the changes were pushed through without the requisite consultation across the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC), which comprises the EFL, Premier League, Football Association and the PFA itself.

Confirming the legal step, a PFA spokesperson stated: "The PFA have begun High Court action against the EFL in relation to new wage restriction rules adopted by clubs in League One and introduced this season.

"We believe that the process through which clubs have voted to bring in these new measures, which will artificially restrict and tighten what clubs can spend on player wages, was not in line with the consultation and agreement process required by the EFL’s membership (alongside the PFA, FA and Premier League) of the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC)."

Expressing its reaction to the lawsuit, the EFL said it was "concerned and disappointed at the position adopted by the PFA".

Addressing the union's claims, the league said: "The proposed changes have been discussed at length through the PFNCC process, including with the PFA, and the EFL has taken those discussions into account.

"The PFA has argued that the league cannot implement the changes unless there is full agreement through the PFNCC. The league does not accept that the PFA’s position is correct."

The governing body maintained that urgent action was required due to broader economic challenges in the sport, adding: "The EFL will continue to engage constructively with the PFA and other stakeholders. But it cannot ignore the financial pressures facing clubs or accept further delay when the risks to the game are increasing.

"Our priority is clear: a fair, competitive and financially sustainable league system that protects clubs, players, supporters and communities over the long term."

Emphasising the need for self-regulation, EFL chief executive Trevor Birch commented that "financial sustainability and player protection are not competing objectives – they go hand in hand."

Birch added: "Stable clubs are better placed to honour contracts, pay wages on time, invest in facilities and create long-term opportunities for players.

"But a rising tide of losses and growing reliance on owner funding increase risk for everyone.

"With the Independent Football Regulator now operational, the game needs to show it can take credible action on sustainability itself, rather than wait for solutions to be imposed externally."

In a direct communication sent to members and seen by the Press Association, the union cautioned that for most players a football career will not yield long-lasting security, leaving a limited timeframe to earn their value.

The message concluded: "We all want football to have a responsible approach to its finances, but restrictions on your wages – which could impact salaries, squad sizes and contract lengths – should not just be agreed and bought in by clubs without proper consultation and agreement with players."