🏅 Top traders

Having Checked league Rules Specifically
C.17, if any two or more Clubs have scored the same number of points, have the same Goal Difference and have scored the same number of goals in League Matches in the Competition during that Season, they shall be deemed to occupy the same position in the League Table.

In brief, during a season, the positions are determined by points won, goal difference, goals scored - in that order.

Both Liverpool (YES) and Bournemouth (YES) will resolve as being in the "Top 3".

Rationale

This decision is based on a strict interpretation of your market's criteria, and the official Premier League (PL) rules.

1. The Factual Tie: As of the snapshot time, both Liverpool and Bournemouth have identical records on all primary PL tiebreakers:

   • Points: 15

   • Goal Difference: +3

   • Goals Scored: 14

2. The Official PL Rule (Mid-Season): The official PL handbook (Section C) has a specific rule for this exact mid-season scenario. When teams are tied on points, goal difference, and goals scored, they "shall be deemed to occupy the same position."
   

Liverpool and Bournemouth level on points goal diff and goals for in 3rd place.
The next one is in points in games between them and liverpool won home match 4-2 so liverpool should be in 3rd?

or can you only differenciate that way after both games? I see Bournemouth ahead of Liverpool in table, is that just alphabetic order?

@ChristopherRandles according to tiebreaker rules, Liverpool should be ahead IMO since it’s won the game vs Bournemouth

Or if we go by the tiebreak criteria listed in resolution criteria, Liverpool and Bournemouth should both resolve yes

@Mochi
Ties are broken exactly as displayed on the table page (points, goal difference, goals scored, etc.);

I think the etc should indicate that we should use all rules that apply rather than just points GD GF.
The difficulty is that the tiebreaker rules might well just be for end of season position and both games will then be complete so it isn't clear whether points in games between them applies after just one of the games between the teams. Are there FA rules publicly available on this?

@ChristopherRandles source if truth is the premiere league table.

There, Liverpool is on 4th (not tied for 3rd).

@MRME If there are rules that say the tiebreaker rule of points and away goals in matches between the teams only apply at end of season then they are level on all measures that apply and according to this question's rules both resolve yes. That the table has to put them in some arbitrary order like alphabetic is not one of the FA rules and this question rules should take priority.

@ChristopherRandles criteria says:

Snapshot the Premier League table at 23:59 BST (UTC+1) on Monday 20th October 2025. Or earlier if all games are complete, The teams shown in Position 1 2 or 3 (“top”) and the teams shown in lowest positions 18, 19, 20 (“bottom”) at that time will resolve YES; all other answer options resolve NO. Later corrections or retroactive adjustments do not affect resolution.

It doesn’t say apply tiebreakers, it says look at the snapshot of the table.

@MRME Ties are broken exactly as displayed on the table page (points, goal difference, goals scored, etc.); if multiple teams are level, Those teams will resolve Yes

The end of the phrase mentions that if multiple teams are level after tiebreaks, then they should all resolve yes. Based on tiebreaks, Liverpool is ahead, but I believe the head to head games should only apply after they have played against each twice, because Liverpool won the home game.

Based on valid tiebreakers we have, both teams are level besides alphabetical order

@MRME yes but it then says
Considerations

• Ties are broken exactly as displayed on the table page (points, goal difference, goals scored, etc.); if multiple teams are level, Those teams will resolve Yes
  
  I take this as meaning if level on all measures that apply - points gd and gf (and pionts and away goals if these tiebreaker rules apply) then both teams resolve yes. It seems like they are not applying tiebreaker rules in creating table so presumably they don't apply.

@ChristopherRandles It seems to me that the considerations section is just for letting traders know how the positions in the official table will generally be calculated; the description is very clear that only the teams indexed 1, 2 and 3 on the table will resolve YES.

@klaus_f_roth teams indexed 1,2,3 on the table will resolve yes, based on available tiebreaks we know. Liverpool and Bournemouth are both indexed at 3rd place, there is no rule stating only 1 team can be 3rd.

@Mochi it’s sufficiently unclear that I’ve sold out of all my positions on both even at a small loss. I could see it going either way.

@klaus_f_roth If that were the case then it would be counterproductive to add the
"if multiple teams are level, Those teams will resolve Yes"
That could never apply if you just take the table order. So we have to assume it has some purpose and this situation look like it may be it.

@Mochi If they both appeared with index 3, I would agree. As of now, they do not.

@ChristopherRandles Perhaps it means level on ranking? If not, the rules might end up contradicting themselves.

@klaus_f_roth the current table is based purely on alphabetical order given the fact they are level on all valid tiebreakers, they are both indexed on the same position with all technicalities considered

@Mochi I think that would be a natural way to resolve the market, but the resolution criteria imply something different as of now.

@klaus_f_roth I don't think it should mean level on 'ranking number shown in table; based on this

Ties are broken exactly as displayed on the table page (points, goal difference, goals scored, etc.); if multiple teams are level, Those teams will resolve Yes

I think this is saying ties are broken according to official rules which include points GD GF and maybe other rules if they apply. If this leaves a possibility of ties then the table producers have to do something and the convention is to use alphabetic order (maybe they should show 3= rankings as well but they don't AFAIK). This is a table producers convention not an official FA rule (as it is unfair favouring early alphabetic order teams). So the paragraph in this question is saying use all official rules and if still tied both pay out as yes.

@ChristopherRandles I think that would be a better way to resolve in general, but right now Liverpool have a 4 next to their name on the official table, so are clearly not shown in the top 3 positions, which is the resolving criterion. It explicitly resolves based on where they are "shown" and not any other underlying information.

@klaus_f_roth That is possible the heading for Considerations is equal to that for Resolution criteria so perhaps that indicates the considerations are not part of the resolution criteria. It seems more natural to me to treat the considerations as part of the resolution criteria because it says what will be done in event of ties. According to this the considerations should ideally be smaller font or something to indicate it is still part of resolution criteria, but relying on such a small formatting issue seems somewhat pedantic relative to understanding the purpose of the considerations paragraph.

I am just expressing my opinion, and I could easily be completely wrong - it is up to silverpawn. I think I have overdone pushing my opinion now, so I should probably shut up.

@ChristopherRandles "I think I have overdone pushing my opinion now, so I should probably shut up." That goes for me as well haha

@ChristopherRandles thanks all for the comments, I'll look through them and review the position if I cannot separate them based on clear league rules then I will resolve them as yes. I will probably not be making any clarifications before the resolution as the games have already been played and it would just result in a race to adjust to the clarification.

I think Burnley cannot finish in bottom 3:
West ham can climb above with a 4-0 or better win, but as they are playing Brentford this would mean that Brentford would move below them keeping Burnley 4th from bottom..