Manchester City scored what appeared to be a huge legal victory this month when their latest legal challenge to Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules was upheld. Deemed as ‘void and unenforceable’ in the latest ruling, the re-drawing of the Premier League’s legal framework will significantly undermine their fight against financial doping in England.
The APT rules were first introduced in 2021, largely in response to Newcastle’s acquisition by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF), in order to ensure commercial deals linked to a club’s ownership were agreed at fair market value. State level ownership has the potential to threaten the credibility of existing Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, with clubs able to circumvent losses through inflated commercial deals with sister businesses and affiliates. Manchester City’s commercial relationship with Etihad Airways is just one example of an affiliated business to the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, investing significant sums of money into the club. Those that seek to defend these deals would argue that all clubs leverage their business relationships to score commercial deals, yet for other clubs the market drives the valuation of the deal.
In the case of Manchester City, many would argue that their commercial agreements are inflated. When Manchester City signed their most recent deal with Etihad at the beginning of this season, it represented the most lucrative shirt sponsorship deal in British history, worth an estimated £70m a year. Manchester City have been the dominant force in English football for a number of years now, and have reaped the commercial rewards to go alongside it. Yet in popularity, they lag quite significantly behind the likes of rivals Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. Whether it is through global shirt sales, season ticket waiting lists, social media followings – there are plenty of measures to suggest that Manchester City at a fair market value shouldn’t be achieving some of the largest deals in the league.
Why does it matter?
Manchester City’s dominance might be great for the blue half of Manchester, but it does little to benefit anyone else. Not only does it degrade the interest and value of the league as a whole, but it is plainly unfair when one team is able to invest significantly more than their rivals over a consistent period of time. Revenue driven through ticket sales and merchandising are an organic means of investing in the playing squad, but the loss-averse sugar daddies of Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Manchester City and now Newcastle United are something that we should be seeking to restrict.
City are playing a different game to most other clubs, and their 2024/25 wage bill illustrates how significant their advantage actually is (based on FBREF estimates):
| Rank | Club | Annual Wage Bill |
| 1 | Manchester City | £201,864,000 |
| 2 | Manchester United | £180,640,000 |
| 3 | Arsenal | £172,146,000 |
| 4 | Chelsea | £169,390,000 |
| 5 | Liverpool | £128,804,000 |
| 6 | Aston Villa | £107,536,000 |
| 7 | Tottenham Hotspur | £104,806,000 |
The case also illustrates how easy it is to argue legal semantics, rather than focusing on what is actually right or wrong. The spirit of the rules is defensible, and clearly moves to protect the integrity of the league as a whole. However, what is becoming clear is that their previous iteration wasn’t enforceable in the eyes of the law. The tribunal found that three aspects of the old rules (that have since been changed and approved), are not lawful:
“The tribunal’s decision has found that the three narrow aspects of the old APT rules, previously found to be unlawful, cannot be separated from the rest of the previous rules as a matter of law. The result, the Tribunal has determined, is that the previous APT rules, as a whole, are unenforceable.”
“However, the previous APT rules are no longer in place, as clubs voted new APT rules into force in November 2024. This decision expressly does not impact the valid operation of the new rules.”
In effect, City (and other clubs) will be off the hook here because of how the rules were written rather than because they are innocent victims operating in a reasonable way. Money talks, and the legal weight that City was able to throw behind this case only underlines the struggle that the Premier league’s regulatory arm will have in ensuring equitability and sustainability in England’s top flight going forward. Even more laughable is the new threat that clubs will move to litigate against the Premier League in response to this most recent legal judgement. Several clubs are poised to claim a loss of earnings under the previous APT rules having been supposedly forced to agree deflated commercial deals.
With so much at stake, clubs that benefit from the current system will fight to ensure it remains. It is therefore crucial that the Premier League continues to fight for financial equitability and competitiveness, or risk the popularity of the league collapsing.
Leave a Reply