Real Madrid's struggles in the Champions League raise concerns as they face potential early exit. Experience Premier League with Exo ...
Robert Lewandowski joins great company in the Champions League century club alongside Ronaldo and Messi. Get your Football tickets at ...
Experience the drama of Liverpool's potential final chapter with key figures Trent, Salah, and Van Dijk. Get Premier League tickets ...
The legal battle between Manchester City and the Premier League over the rules governing commercial deals involving club owners has come to a conclusion. In a mixed outcome, the tribunal upheld some of City's complaints, deeming two aspects of the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules unlawful. However, the Premier League maintains that the tribunal rejected the majority of City's challenges and endorsed the overall objectives of the APT framework.
The case focused on APT rules, which regulate the value of sponsorship deals involving companies linked to clubs' owners. Though City succeeded in arguing that shareholder loans should not be excluded from APT regulations, the tribunal ruled that other aspects of the Premier League's amendments, made in February, should not be retained.
Importantly, this case is separate from the ongoing Premier League disciplinary commission that will hear 115 charges against Manchester City, alleging breaches of financial regulations dating back to 2009.
Several clubs were involved in the case. Chelsea, Newcastle, and Everton acted as witnesses for City, while Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Brighton, and West Ham supported the Premier League. Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolves wrote letters backing the league’s rules.
Simon Leaf, a partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya, commented on the ruling, saying it would be embarrassing for the Premier League in certain areas where their rules were found unlawful. However, Leaf noted that the decision largely upheld the APT system and was far from a comprehensive victory for Manchester City.
The Premier League has scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss the judgement’s implications.