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...