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...