The Premier League insists the “majority” of Manchester City’s legal challenge to its rules on commercial deals has failed as the champions declared victory in the case.
City launched a legal action against the league’s associated party transaction (APT) rules earlier this year on the grounds they were anti-competitive.
City issued a statement on Monday afternoon announcing the rules had been found to be unlawful by an arbitration panel and that the league had abused a dominant position. The club say they can now seek damages arising from the case.
However, the Premier League said there were just two findings in City’s favour on the rules and that City were “unsuccessful in the majority of (their) challenge”.
Crucially, the league said 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.
A judgement determining all APT rules as unlawful would have had huge ramifications for competition within the Premier League and made it easier for clubs with the wealthiest owners to strike deals linked to their ownership, and in the process benefit from higher revenues, strengthening their position in regard to the league’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
However, the Premier League’s position is that while the panel ruling will require some amendments to the rules, it does not call for them to be ripped up, which would in effect give clubs free rein over commercial deals.
Both parties released the 175-page judgement on Monday afternoon, but came to very different conclusions about what it meant.
The panel did find it was anti-competitive to exclude shareholder loans from APT rules and also called for changes to the rules which were adopted earlier this year to be amended.
However, 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.
The Premier League said the panel had agreed with it 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.
City said the panel had set aside decisions by the league related to two transactions involving City, on the basis that they were procedurally unfair.
The club have also suggested they could look to seek damages based on the panel’s ruling, and that other clubs may look to do the same.
The Premier League concluded its release by saying that beyond the two findings the panel highlighted, 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 of those 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 found it was unfair that City were not allowed to comment on the comparable transaction data relied upon by the Premier League before it makes decisions on fair market value, but that “all other challenges fail”.
PA understands the Premier League has called a meeting of its clubs for next week to discuss the panel ruling. It is understood the league has told the impact of any change to the rules to include shareholder loans will be minimal in reality.
This case is completely separate to the 115 charges laid against City by the Premier League for alleged breaches of its financial rules. City deny any wrongdoing, and a hearing in that case is ongoing.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel