Agency Report
Manchester City are claiming victory in their legal battle with the Premier League over associated-party transaction (APT) rules.
In a landmark decision that could have major ramifications for English football, City say “APT rules have been found to be unlawful”.
City say two deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank have been deemed to have been “unfairly blocked”, which will spark concern among rival clubs.
But the Premier League says the tribunal rejected the majority of City’s challenges and “endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system”.
The case is not directly related to City’s 115 charges for alleged breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules.
City launched a legal action against APT rules this year on the grounds they were anti-competitive. APT rules are designed to ensure commercial deals with entities linked to a club’s owners are done for fair market value.
City said in a statement: “The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.
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.