Nachrichten

The Premier League came unstuck against Manchester City in their opening submission of the hearing into Associated Party Transaction Rules.

Three senior judges agreed with them that “owner funding, like state aid, is subsidisation. That is particularly so when other sources of external funding are not permitted.” However, they subsequently concluded that it was unlawful to exclude shareholder loans from Profitability and Sustainability Regulations when the same treatment was not afforded to APTs and it was classed as an object infringement of competition law.

"An object infringement is the most serious sort of grievance. It means that you don't actually have to do a detailed dive on the impact of that infringement," Jack Williams, a barrister in competition law at Monckton Chambers told the Manchester Evening News.

ALSO READ: Embarrassing Premier League statement doesn't bode well for Man City charges

ALSO READ: Man City prove point in spectacular fashion as Pep Guardiola told something he won't forget

"If you look at it, you go, this is just wrong. The tribunal found it was just wrong - this is a big deal in competition law terms.

"They didn't have to go through loads of economic analysis. It's dressed up over 175 pages but they've basically looked at these terms and decided they are discriminatory and unlawful.

"I know they're trying to downplay it as a tweak of the rules and yes the whole thing doesn't come crashing down but it's an object infringement so the most serious sort in competition law, and the fact they've been found to have a process that doesn't work.

"You would hope it's a real wake up call for the in-house decision making process. I keep saying how basic this is but they didn't comply with basic fundamental principles of legal fairness and due process. That is a damning finding for three senior judges to make."

It is also exactly what City hoped would come from the specific challenge. Many saw the leaked report about their legal argument back in June and jumped to wild conclusions about the Blues wanting to overthrow the Premier League's authority before the 115 charges hearing finished or get rid of all rules on sponsorship or fair market value.

Spoiler: they didn't. If City had a problem with fair market value or Related Party Transaction rules, it is safe to assume that they would have challenged them in the seven years when they were in place.

They didn't, but they did raise an issue when new APT rules were rushed through in late 2021 on the back of Newcastle's takeover. Even if there are philosophical or even political differences, any complaints were practical: the rules were bad for business.

Monday's report contained an email from an executive on behalf of 11 Premier League clubs that was sent to the league five days after Newcastle's takeover, calling for an imminent vote banning related party transactions with specific mention of the Gulf region and new cost control measures to be introduced. Despite the league's argument, the panel did not accept that there had been any serious thought that went into changing the rules before this point.

Could the league argue that their working was sound, even if rushed? They could, but that would contradict what Richard Masters had to say in April this year when he was arguing against an independent regulator.

"It is a risk to rush through complex legislation at the end of a parliament, especially when there is a danger of it unbalancing our national sport," he said. "The past tells us that rushed legislation is usually bad legislation."

City thought that the league's legislation was rushed and bad, so bad that it was unlawful. A panel of three senior judges agreed.

Despite what the Premier League say on their website, even their chief executive appears to agree.