Skip to main content

City sue Premier League

Manchester City’s legal case against the Premier League’s associated party transaction (APT) rules will begin on Monday, June 10.  City are suing the league in an attempt to have the rules — which they claim are unlawful — abolished in a two-week private arbitration hearing.

The regulations are in place to guard against clubs using sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners to inflate revenue streams and allow more room for spending.  In February, Premier League clubs voted to toughen rules on associated party transactions.

City now argue that they are the victims of “discrimination” in a 165-page legal document justifying their case. City are also arguing the league’s democratic system of requiring at least 14 clubs, or two-thirds of those who vote, to implement rule changes should be abolished to guard against decisions being made by “the tyranny of the majority”.

It is arguable that many Premier League rules are not compatible with compeition law, specifically the 1998 Act.

If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

While The Times knows of at least one club who have submitted a witness statement in support of City for next week’s arbitration hearing, sources believe more than half have sided with the Premier League. 

Their rivals believe that what City are doing will actually destroy the competitiveness of the world’s most popular league, allowing clubs with super-rich owners to spend unlimited amounts of money on their playing squads and infrastructure and nullify Financial Fair Play rules.

Millions are being spent on legal fees to fight this case. One senior club source says the Premier League’s legal bill has more than quadrupled in the past year, from about £5million to more than £20million. They also point to the fact that since February the Premier League’s own legal department has been forced to shift its focus to this claim when it is also trying to prepare for the hearing into City’s 115 charges. 

City also complain that, when it comes to negotiating any form of sponsorship agreement, clubs in the north are at a disadvantage to those in London, who, they say, can charge higher ticket prices. However, rival clubs estimate that, based on median ticket prices at the Etihad Stadium and the seven Premier League clubs in London, City are ranked third.

City blame the Premier League for not regulating spending when clubs such as Manchester United were more dominant, arguing they have been prevented from monetising their brand in the way United did. City also say the rules penalise clubs who have “lower-profile sporting histories”.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fulham requires big funding from owner

After lengthy delays, Fulham’s shiny, new Riverside Stand has finally opened, creating “a unique Thameside destination with first class facilities for supporters and partners on match days, as well as for the wider community year-round”. This ambitious project has increased Craven Cottage’s capacity by around 4,000 to 29,600, while it has also taken advantage of the club’s fantastic location and wealthy catchment area by including two Michelin star restaurants, a rooftop swimming pool, corporate hospitality and event space, all benefiting from views of the Thames. Chief executive Alistair Mackintosh observed, “Fulham is the sort of club that can have a business class or first class and have fans that turn left on a plane.” Indeed, there is also an exclusive members club – with a football season ticket as an optional extra. It’s fair to say that “the times they are a-changing”, as this is a long way from the traditional pie and a pint. However, in a world where clubs face the tw...

It's no deal say Spurs insiders over Taiwanese takeover

Senior figures at Tottenham Hotspur insisted on Friday that they had not been informed of any deal to sell Daniel Levy’s stake in the club. A business group, Eight Sports Capital — which is said to include a billionaire Taiwanese financier — claimed that it had an agreement in place to buy a 24.99 per cent stake in ENIC, the club’s majority owners, from Levy, who owns 29.88 per cent. The Times has been told Ng Wing Fai and Brooklyn Earick form part of the group, having both been linked previously to potential takeovers of the Premier League club. The Taiwanese businessman, Richard Tsai, is also said to be part of the consortium. He is reportedly worth £7 billion.  Last year Earick, the former DJ and tech entrepreneur, was part of an attempted £4.5 billion takeover, which was “unequivocally rejected” by Spurs.  An ENIC spokesperson said: “We can confirm that neither ENIC nor THFC are aware of any sale by Daniel Levy’s Family Trust of its minority stake in ENIC, THFC’...

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s...