Home Sports Manchester City launch legal action against the Premier League over its financial rules in move which could help club defend their 115 alleged breaches of top flight regulations

Manchester City launch legal action against the Premier League over its financial rules in move which could help club defend their 115 alleged breaches of top flight regulations

0 comments
Manchester City has started a

Manchester City has launched “unprecedented legal action” against the Premier League in a dispute that is shaking the top flight of English football.

City are still awaiting the outcome of 115 charges of alleged breach of financial rules, which the club strongly denies, with a hearing scheduled for November.

However, while they await the hearing, which is expected to last six weeks, the Premier League champions have reportedly taken legal action against the division.

According The timesCity are seeking to end the league’s associated party transaction (APT) rules, which they say are illegal.

It was reported in February that City were warning of the threat of legal action against the league’s APT rules and the outlet confirmed that the club went ahead with it, with a hearing date now set for June 10.

Manchester City has initiated “unprecedented legal action” against the Premier League

City seeks to end associated party transaction (APT) rules, which they say are illegal

City seeks to end associated party transaction (APT) rules, which they say are illegal

The city has already been investigated over its dealings between 2019 and 2023, where it was forced to pay an £8.6 million fine over the findings.

The city has already been investigated over its dealings between 2019 and 2023, where it was forced to pay an £8.6 million fine over the findings.

The rules, introduced in December 2021, are designed to maintain competitiveness by preventing top-flight clubs from inflating commercial agreements with companies linked to their owners.

However, in a 165-page legal document, City claim the rules have been passed by rivals to stifle their on-field success as a “tyranny of the majority”.

The club accused rivals of “discrimination against Gulf ownership” after the rules were implemented shortly after the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United.

City also claim that the rules were “deliberately intended to stifle the commercial freedoms of particular clubs in particular circumstances and therefore to restrict economic competition”.

The Times report further claims that City are suing the Premier League for damages and argues that the system requiring at least 14 clubs to vote on an issue gives “the majority unacceptable levels of control”.

However, rival clubs say City’s appeal could destroy the competitiveness of the English top flight by allowing rich clubs to spend unlimited amounts on squads and infrastructure.

If the league champions are successful with their audience, it could allow the league’s richest clubs to value sponsorship deals without the need for an independent evaluation.

The outlet claims that the Premier League’s own legal department has had to shift its focus from the hearing on City’s 115 charges to this one.

As well as having a huge impact on the league itself, City’s appeal could have a huge effect on their impending hearing into their alleged financial charges.

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola (second from left) with club owner Sheikh Mansour (right).

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola (second from left) with club owner Sheikh Mansour (right).

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has been instrumental in the case.

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has been instrumental in the case.

City are still awaiting an outcome of the 115 charges, which include failing to provide accurate financial information between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons, failing to provide accurate details of payments to players and coaches during the same period, and alleged breaches. of the financial rules of the Premier League and UEFA.

A total of 35 relate to failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations into the matter between December 2018 and February 2023.

Sponsorship deals linked to their owners’ companies have become the center of allegations brought against the Manchester giants.

However, City now claim that “there is no rational or logical connection between the financial unsustainability of a club and the receipt of income from entities linked to the properties.”

The first alleged breach, and the breach for which City faces the most charges, claims that in each season from 2009-10 to 2017-18, the Manchester team failed to follow rules stating that member clubs must provide financial information. precise to the league.

This allows the FFP to have a “true and fair” view of a club’s income, which includes sponsorship deals, and its operating costs, which involve player salaries.

Manchester City – 115 FFP charges
Type of non-compliance Number of charges related to non-compliance trial date Decision date
Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009-10 to 2017-18 54
Failure to provide accurate financial reporting for player and coach compensation from 2009-10 to 2017-18 14
Failure to comply with UEFA regulations, including UEFA Club and Licensing Regulations and Financial Fair Play 5 Fall 2024 Summer 2025
Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability standards from 2015-16 up to and including the 2017-18 season 7
Failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 to present 35
Manchester City deny wrongdoing in relation to regulatory breaches dating back to 2009

Manchester City deny wrongdoing in relation to regulatory breaches dating back to 2009

Each Premier League club signs a compliance code, which essentially means clubs agree to behave and provide the league with accurate and up-to-date accounts that are expected to be audited each year.

Over recent years, City have been accused of inflating the value of their ownership-related sponsorships.

Another charge City faces is that they were not truthful in reporting the compensation they gave to outgoing coaches over several seasons.

They also face accusations of undercutting the cost of player and coach salaries by introducing a third party to pay a portion of the salaries.

You may also like