Manchester City have mounted another legal challenge against the Premier League’s associated party transaction (APT) rules.
I am not a lawyer, but I have published on competition
policy in the past and it is always been my view that the rules of football
leagues, in particular the Premier League, may not be compatible with
competition law. At least they need to
be tested in court to see whether a de facto cartel is operating.
One thing is certain: expensive lawyers are making a lot of money out of both the Premier League and individual clubs, not least City. The Premier League's legal bill last season was £48m, six times the budget and a lot of that was spent on City who have deep pockets.
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive,
informed the top-flight clubs on Thursday that the reigning champions have
initiated a fresh arbitration challenge to the amendments that were voted
through in November. Masters’
letter to clubs, which was first reported in The Times, read: “On January 20,
2025, Manchester City FC began a further arbitration to challenge the APT
rules.
“As you will see, the new challenge relates to the
amendments to the APT rules that clubs approved at the 22 November 2024
shareholders’ meeting. Manchester City FC seeks a declaration that the
amendments approved by clubs in November (and therefore the current APT rules
in force) are unlawful and void.
“The Premier League remains strongly of the view that the
amendments passed in November were lawful and the APT rules comply with all
competition law requirements.
“We consider that the new arbitration must be resolved as
soon as possible and, to that end, have agreed that the same tribunal should be
appointed to hear the new case. The parties are currently corresponding in
relation to further directions.
“The APT rules remain in full force and effect and clubs
remain required to comply with all aspects of the system.”
Despite the fresh legal challenge, the existing APT rules
will remain in place and deemed lawful.
City’s view is that the new rules are discriminatory and
face the same legal issues as the previous iteration because, the club believe,
the existing shareholder loans are still not scrutinised in the same way as
other commercial deals.
They feel those loans should have been subjected to fair
market value tests at the time and should now be subject to them
retrospectively as commercial agreements from 2021 to 2024 are scrutinised.
City’s belief is that the new rules allow teams to keep that advantage which
is, in their view, unlawful and in line with what the independent panel ruled
in November.
City also believe that they are still supported in their
stance by the teams that voted with them in October — Newcastle United,
Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa.
In June last year, Manchester City’s arbitration with the
Premier League regarding the APT rules led to an independent panel finding
some aspects of the regulations to be unlawful,
This led to the Premier League consulting with its clubs for more than a
month regarding making amendments to the APT rules. In November, 16 clubs voted
through the changes, with only Manchester City, Newcastle, Forest and Villa
voting against the proposed changes.
Comments
Post a Comment