What are Chelsea's 74 charges and how could they be punished?

Chelsea have been charged by the Football Association with 74 alleged rule breaches - but what are they about, and what are the potential punishments?

The alleged breaches involve payments to agents between 2009 and 2022 - during Roman Abramovich's time as owner.

The charges are primarily focused on transfers that happened between the 2010-11 and 2015-16 seasons, including deals for Eden Hazard, Samuel Eto'o and Willian.

There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of those players.

Chelsea had until Friday, 19 September to respond to the charges, which came after they reported the potential rule breaches to the FA.

The alleged rule breaches concern agents, intermediaries and third-party investments in players.

It is understood the transfers of Hazard from Lille, and Willian and Eto'o from Russian side Anzhi Makhachkala are central in the case.

The Premier League has confirmed to BBC Sport its separate investigation remains ongoing.

In 2023, Chelsea were fined £8.6m by Uefa for "submitting incomplete financial information" between 2012 and 2019.

The club are now owned by a consortium led by American investor Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital.

Russian oligarch Abramovich was in control of the club from 2003 to 2022, before selling for £4.25bn in 2022.

While completing due diligence on the deal, the new ownership said they found "incomplete financial reporting" during the Abramovich era, and reported that to the FA, Premier League and Uefa.

Following the FA's charge, the club said they had "demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process" and given "comprehensive access to the club's files and historical data".

Chelsea have been as open and transparent as they believe they can be about the charges.

The statement released by the club gets to the heart of their defence - that this happened under Abramovich.

They feel they have laid themselves bare and have been fully cooperative with all the authorities.

The club also say the process is nearing its "conclusion".

There is an acceptance from Chelsea that they deserve some punishment but that it should be proportionate given they would not be punishing anyone involved.

There is almost no-one left at the club from the Abramovich era, and there is a debate about how much Chelsea benefited.

Abramovich was sanctioned by the UK government in March 2022 over alleged links to Russian President Vladimir Putin - something he has denied.

He was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the sale.

The 58-year-old said funds from the sale would be donated via a foundation "for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine", which would include those in Russia.

The £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale. Abramovich does not have access to the money but it still legally belongs to him.

It does not appear so at this stage, but ultimately this will depend on the outcome of the respective cases.

The sheer number of accusations that Chelsea are facing - unprecedented in scale for the FA - draws inevitable comparisons with the catalogue of more than a hundred charges levelled at Manchester City in 2013 for alleged breaches of Premier League rules. City deny wrongdoing and are await a ruling from an independent commission that held a hearing last year.

Both cases are very serious for the clubs concerned, covering multiple years, with both facing the possibility of a points deduction, depending on the outcome. Chelsea's owners say they reported themselves after discovering "incomplete financial information" had been submitted. Similarly, some of City's charges relate to an alleged breach of rules requiring clubs to provide "accurate financial information."

There are key differences, however.

City are contesting their charges, while Chelsea are not thought to have challenged theirs, although they could appeal against any punishment.

Chelsea's alleged wrongdoing is narrower in scope; namely relating to agents payments across six seasons. City's is more extensive, including allegations of failing to provide full details of revenue, its 'related parties', and its operating costs, including player and manager pay. It also stands accused of breaching Uefa financial fair play rules, and profit and sustainability rules across nine seasons.

The FA charges against Chelsea relate to a previous era at Stamford Bridge, when Abramovich owned the club. In contrast, the charges City are facing relate to their current Abu Dhabi ownership.

Furthermore, Chelsea claim they have shown "unprecedented transparency" by self-reporting the matter to regulators when discovering it, then "giving comprehensive access to the club's files and historical data".

In contrast, City's allegations only emerged after internal documents were leaked, and they have been charged with multiple counts of failing to co-operate with the Premier League's investigation.

City strongly deny the charges and we do not know the outcome of the hearing that took place in front of an independent commission between September and December 2024.

All this has resulted in different sanctions from Uefa. While European football's governing body threw the book at City in 2020 with a two-year ban (albeit subsequently overturned after an appeal, with a 30m euro fine reduced to 10m euros), they fined Chelsea £8.6m in 2023.

While some believe City could be looking at a considerable points deduction if found guilty on the more serious charges they are facing, Chelsea are confident the FA will take into account their co-operation and a sporting sanction will be avoided.

With the Premier League continuing to investigate Chelsea, what if any wrongdoing by the club is found to have helped it get round PSR?

Could that mean further Premier League charges, and the possibility of the kind of points deduction that both Everton and Nottingham Forest have suffered in recent seasons?

Chelsea are relaxed about that, believing they would have still complied with PSR even if all the agent payments concerned had been submitted. They hired a leading accountancy firm to conduct an assessment of the agent payments and it is believed to have concluded that Chelsea did not gain a sporting advantage as a result. That analysis has been passed to the regulatory authorities.

Chelsea also say they have factored in a potential fine, and that this should not affect their ability to comply with PSR going forward. However, with the club having already been fined £26.7m by Uefa in July for a breach of its spending rules in a separate case, this has already proved an expensive period at Stamford Bridge.

This article is the latest from BBC Sport's Ask Me Anything team.

Ask Me Anything is a service dedicated to answering your questions.

We want to reward your time by telling you things you do not know and reminding you of things you do.

The team will find out everything you need to know and be able to call upon a network of contacts including our experts and pundits.

We will be answering your questions from the heart of the BBC Sport newsroom, and going behind the scenes at some of the world's biggest sporting events.

Our coverage will span the BBC Sport website, app, social media and YouTube accounts, plus BBC TV and radio.