Manchester City legal case has power to tear down Premier League home | city ​​of manchester

This week, at an unspecified location in central London, the latest stage of the Premier League's civil war will begin to unfold. The arbitration is expected to last two weeks. case presented by Manchester City against the competition of which they are champions will be dry, their technical verdict. The consequences, however, will likely be just the opposite.

City, owned by Sheikh Mansour, vice president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, will argue before a panel of three independent lawyers that the first division You are breaking UK law.

The breach in question relates to the rules on Associated Party Transactions, or APT, and the need for clubs to ensure that any deals they make with companies that have “Material Influence over the Club or an entity in the same group of companies than the Club.” They are set at fair market value. The city argues that this is against competition law. That's the dry part.

The case will be heard privately and there will be no public recognition of any outcome, or the reasons behind it. However, thanks to the Times's reporting, we know something about the contents of the City's legal filing, and by all accounts, it seems pretty extraordinary. The action brought against the Premier League board under obscure Rule x.5.4 could almost be seen as a Trojan horse calling into question the entire existing structure of the competition.

The city is reportedly not only challenging APT rules, but is also seeking damages for deals that were affected or lost as a result. Those damages would have to be paid by the League, whose shareholders are its 20 member clubs.

City also allege that the rules were designed to hinder owners from Gulf states and members of multi-club ownership groups (something that applies to City in both cases) and were only put in place due to the desire of rivals. to “safeguard its own commercial advantages”. .

In fact, City argue that the Premier League itself has a strong interest in limiting APTs, as it is a rival in terms of sponsorship income and if the rules are not changed, the newly crowned champions could be forced to limit spending in community projects and in the women's team.

Finally, City argue that any competitive restrictions are supported by the Premier League voting system. That no rule can be changed without 14 of its 20 clubs agreeing is, according to City, succumbing to the “tyranny of the majority.” In total, the claim is 165 pages long.

This legal filing was made in February, immediately after the Premier League approved new, stricter rules around APTs (the City's dissatisfaction with the rules predates this amendment). In legal terms, it is not related to the 115 charges brought against City for alleged financial irregularities. In political terms, the calculation is very different.

What does it mean for the world's first soccer league to be in recurring dispute with its champion of six of the previous seven seasons? At the very least, it means uncertainty about the rules, which are being directly challenged, and about the league's ability to regulate its own competition.

In this way, City's challenge is only to hit an existing bruise. Last season, the rules, whether VAR or PSR, came under constant criticism and pressure. At the same time, the Premier League has spent time and resources trying to defend itself from the arrival of an independent regulator of the game, insisting that football can take care of itself. As time goes by this argument seems more and more biased.

Some critics of the Premier League see the APT rules as a classic example of bad governance, a hastily put together mechanism to address a short-term problem (a new focus on APTs began after Newcastle was bought by the Investment Fund Public of Saudi Arabia). .

They also point out that the league was forced to amend plans to introduce new financial rules, the so-called top-down anchoring proposals (ironically, TBA for short), after they failed to properly consult with external stakeholders including the PFA. , the players union. . Critics argue that this is a trend and that the city's actions only advance the government's case.

A more sympathetic reading, however, might find the Premier League's position odious. It faces challenges from all sides, not only from national regulation and from traditional competitors in other leagues and sports, but also from the governing bodies of UEFA and FIFA, which are expanding their own competitions in a way that not only makes them direct rivals for streaming money, but also puts pressure on them. in the internal calendar.

Meanwhile, its shareholder clubs are divided into growing factions, with multiple opposing perspectives; from those that are part of a group that owns multiclubs, let's say, to those that have been acquired by investment funds with very different perspectives from those of sovereign funds.

Manchester City has the profile and financial weight to make things very painful for the Premier League. Their resort to legal action, whether sincere or simply provocative, suggests a club intent on changing the current order of things.

And this is perhaps the biggest concern that has arisen lately. One of the key factors behind the success of the Premier League throughout its 32-year history has been collective centricity, from the way the league is marketed (“anyone can beat anyone on any given day”) to the way power and money are distributed. shared.

City's actions suggest the champions no longer share this way of thinking and wish to change it. It may seem unlikely, but it could be a change that brings down the entire house.