Manchester City has accused the Premier League of providing a “misleading” summary regarding the outcome of a pivotal legal case on commercial deal regulations. The dispute revolves around the Premier League’s associated party transaction (APT) rules, which govern sponsorship deals involving companies linked to a club’s ownership. In a letter seen by the BBC and sent to top-flight clubs and the league, City’s general counsel, Simon Cliff, criticized the league’s representation of the arbitration panel’s ruling, claiming it contained “several inaccuracies.”
The clash between the reigning Premier League champions and the governing body highlights the complexities of the APT rules and the legal interpretations that followed the tribunal’s decision.
A Disputed Outcome
Manchester City, owned by the Abu Dhabi-backed City Football Group, took legal action against the APT rules, contesting their fairness and arguing that certain aspects of the regulations were unlawful. The tribunal upheld some of City’s complaints, deeming two elements of the APT rules to be unlawful. In response, City declared that their legal challenge had “succeeded.”
However, the Premier League has also presented the ruling in a positive light. The league welcomed the tribunal’s findings, stating that it rejected the majority of City’s challenges and “endorsed the overall objectives, framework, and decision-making of the APT system.” The Premier League’s position is that the tribunal’s decision supports the rules’ broader purpose of ensuring fairness in commercial transactions, particularly when sponsorship deals involve companies associated with a club’s ownership group.
The Associated Party Transaction (APT) Rules
The APT rules were introduced by the Premier League to ensure that sponsorship deals involving clubs and companies linked to their ownership are in line with fair market value. The intention is to prevent clubs from artificially inflating their revenues through lucrative commercial deals with associated companies, which could potentially undermine financial fair play regulations.
For Manchester City, whose ownership by the City Football Group includes links to various commercial partners, the APT rules have been a point of contention.
Manchester City’s Response amid Issues
In the letter sent to other Premier League clubs, City’s general counsel, Simon Cliff, outlined the club’s frustration with the Premier League’s handling of the verdict. According to City, the league’s summary misrepresents key aspects of the ruling, particularly in how the tribunal’s findings have been communicated to the wider footballing community.
City emphasized that the tribunal had sided with them on crucial points, notably by ruling that two elements of the APT rules were unlawful. This, according to City, validates their legal challenge and calls into question the fairness and effectiveness of the APT regulations as currently implemented. The club also raised concerns about the transparency of the Premier League’s decision-making process and the accuracy of its public statements regarding the case.
By accusing the Premier League of providing a “misleading” summary, Manchester City has not only questioned the league’s interpretation of the verdict but also drawn attention to broader concerns about governance and fairness within English football.
Premier League’s Position amid APT Rules
In response, the Premier League has maintained that the tribunal’s ruling largely supports the APT rules and their enforcement. From the Premier League’s perspective, the ruling strengthens its ability to regulate sponsorship deals and ensure that they comply with fair market value standards.
The Premier League views the APT rules as a critical mechanism for preserving competitive balance in the league and upholding financial fairness. By enforcing these regulations, the league aims to prevent clubs from gaining an unfair financial advantage through inflated commercial revenues linked to their ownership structures.
Also Read:
