The Political Economy of Football V2

There has been considerable speculation about the consequences of the findings against Manchester City both for the club and football more generally.   The one confident prediction I am prepared to make is that lawyers, and particularly sports lawyers, can look forward to several years' lucrative work. The Swiss Ramble has undertaken his usual forensic analysis of the financial consequences for City, although until we know what the sanctions are going to be, this is necessarily speculative.   However, he covers a range of scenarios on his Substack page. He also looks at some of the possibilities for law suits.  As he admits, it is not clear which clubs might actually pursue a claim against City.  Only four clubs have preserved their right to compensation under the Premier League rulebook’s section W, namely Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham, If these four clubs go ahead, they would be relying on the same rule under which Burnley made a s...

Prime minister Andy Burnham has said he would be “really concerned” to lose Manchester City’s owners as a result of the club being found guilty of more than 100 breaches of Premier League rules. The new Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has the power to oblige an owner to sell the club if they are found guilty of serious wrongdoing. It is also possible that Sheikh Mansour, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates who is the owner of City, could decide to sell as a result of the scandal. City’s owners invested heavily in Manchester, where Burnham was mayor before becoming prime minister, and he told BBC News: “I would be really concerned to lose them [City’s owners]. They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is. “I can’t intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that. It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all ...

The number of potential litigants in the wake of the Manchester City judgment increases every day, confirming my view that the real winners are top rank lawyers. Etihad Airways has said it is considering legal action against the Premier League, claiming the judgment published this week against Manchester City incorrectly suggests the club’s principal sponsor has been “involved in improper commercial arrangements”.  In a statement issued to The Times, Etihad “categorically rejects” that claim, complaining that at no point did “the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad” as part of the process.  Etihad, which is Abu Dhabi’s state-owned airline and is valued at about £4billion, has been City’s principal sponsor since 2009, with the deal worth hundreds of millions to the club. In a strongly worded statement on Wednesday, it said: “Etihad Airways has reviewed the Premier League Commission’s published opinion relating to the disciplinary proceedings involving Manche...

Manchester City’s Emirati chair was granted diplomatic immunity six years ago in a move that could complicate any legal action resulting from findings that the Premier League club artificially inflated its finances by more than £900mn.  Khaldoon al-Mubarak, a senior Abu Dhabi official who has chaired City since 2008, was placed on the UK’s official list of approved diplomats in 2020. This automatically confers immunity from any criminal investigation and in most cases shields the person from civil proceedings on UK soil.  City strongly denies the charges made against it and will appeal against the decision.  The findings, if upheld, could open the door to further legal proceedings, which has been a source of concern for City, according to two people familiar with the situation. This could include civil action from other Premier League clubs that believe they have lost out on the pitch as a result of City’s actions. There is also the potential for criminal investigations...

In all the discussion of the possible consequences of the findings against Manchester City by the Premier League, it interests me that there has been no reference to competition law.  I am not a lawyer, but I have studied competition policy in various jurisdictions over the year (principally the UK, US, Canada and the EU).   I have written up the results of interviews and documentary searches in various publications (including ones on football) and no one has said my interpretations are invalid. Governance arrangements in football ran foul of EU competition policy.   After some heavy lobbying by Tony Blair among others, a settlement was eventually reached.   One consequence was the introduction of windows for transfers. Britain is no longer in the EU, but we have our own quite stringent competition policy.   Largely created in its present form under New Labour, it drew on American anti-trust legislation but had to be compatible with EU policy...

Simon Kuper is an outstanding football journalist who has co-authored one of the best books on the economics of football.  So it is interesting to read his controversial views on the Manchester City affair in the Financial Times. He is not saying that City should not be sanctioned if, at the end of the process, it is established that they have broken the Premier League's rules.   But he does think the 'misguided' rules should themselves be scrapped. 'Owners should be free to spend their own money on football. Their funding has made the Premier League better and more competitive. English football has a different problem: brutal regimes and people owning clubs. The English game has been uniquely successful at attracting foreign buyers.   Foreigners own the vast majority of Premier League clubs.  Some — notably Sheikh Mansour and the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, who owned Chelsea until 2022 — put their own money into football, especially in the era befo...