Manchester City and the Premier League have both claimed victory after the champions challenged the league’s rules on commercial deals.
City launched a legal action against the associated party transaction (APT) rules earlier this year on the grounds they were anti-competitive.
The Premier League said on Monday afternoon City were “unsuccessful in the majority of (their) challenge” and that the tribunal had determined the APT rules were necessary and pursued a legitimate objective.
The APT rules are designed to ensure commercial deals with entities linked to a club’s owners are done for fair market value.
City released a statement saying the tribunal had declared the APT rules “unlawful” and that the league had abused a dominant position under competition law.
Both parties published the 175-page ruling from the arbitration panel.
The Premier League said the tribunal had supported the legitimacy of the rules and said it had found them essential to make the profitability and sustainability regulations (PSR) effective, and agreed with the Premier League that if a transaction is evidently not at fair market value, that would distort competition within the league.
The league also said the panel had rejected City’s argument that the purpose of the rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the Gulf region.
The league said the panel found in favour of City in “two respects only” – that shareholder loans should not be excluded from APT rules and that a “limited number of amendments” to the APT rules made earlier in this year would be necessary.
Manchester City claim the panel found the APT rules were “structurally unfair” and that the panel had set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the club.
City said the panel had found the Premier League had reached those decisions in a “procedurally unfair” manner and said there was an unreasonable delay in the league’s fair market value assessment of two of their sponsorship transactions.
The club also suggested they could look to seek damages based on the panel’s decision.
The Premier League concluded its release by saying that beyond the inclusion of an assessment of shareholder loans in its rules, and the need to amend changes made to the rules earlier this year, its rulebook had been found compliant with competition and public law standards.
The panel’s conclusions were set out in paragraphs 592 to 602 of the 175-page document.
The first refers to City’s challenge to the APT rules as first adopted and the rules as amended earlier this year. It found the exclusion of shareholder loans unlawful but stated “all other challenges fail”.
On City’s claim that the rules were procedurally unfair, it also said “all other challenges fail” except for the fact City were not allowed to comment on the comparable transaction data relied upon by the Premier League before it makes a decision on fair market value.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here