It’s difficult to draw comparisons with the scale of wrongdoing associated with Manchester City’s guilty verdict on 114 of their 115 charges. City’s breaches place them in a league of their own, and if upheld would represent the darkest chapter in the history of the Premier League. The breaches are unprecedented, but the process being followed has some relevant precedent – just ask Everton fans.

In November 2023, the Blues were handed an immediate 10-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). By contrast, City’s case was referred to an independent commission in February 2023, and even after reaching a verdict this week, a punishment has still not been determined. Everton fans would rightly ask: if the Premier League believes financial breaches threaten the integrity of the competition, why has the experience of clubs facing disciplinary proceedings been so different?

Everton did appeal, and in February 2024 had their deduction reduced to six points. The key distinction, though, is that Everton’s appeal did not prevent the original deduction from taking immediate effect – and there are significant sporting implications of delivering a sanction this way. The club had to compete under a revised league table while challenging the original sanction. This raises the question of consistency: should an appeal suspend a sporting penalty, or should the penalty be enforced immediately to protect the integrity of the competition?

Manchester City’s timeline

The scale and complexity of City’s proceedings are important context. The club has been judged on numerous breaches across nine seasons, covering financial reporting, sponsorship arrangements and cooperation with the Premier League itself. The proceedings are not a direct equivalent of Everton’s PSR breach, but the disparity in timescales remains relevant to overall sporting fairness.

The key point of comparison with the Everton case is the delay in sanctions, and what that means in practice. A deferred punishment in the City case means that league positions and qualification spots are now uncertain – affecting every team in the league. It also means City can continue competing largely as normal while the wider proceedings remain unresolved. In fact, at the time of writing, City sit top of the Premier League – the club found guilty of the most serious financial breaches in the competition’s history is leading it, while its punishment remains undecided.

Everton’s new Hill Dickinson Stadium (photo by Wiki CC)

So were Everton denied procedural fairness? They were not denied the right to appeal. They exercised that right, and the appeal board reduced their punishment. But the immediate implementation of the sanction meant the appeal took place against a sporting penalty that had already altered their league position. This isn’t to suggest that one procedure is right and the other wrong – more that the Premier League should have consistency and clarity in the way sanctions are imposed. The magnitude of the City case is unprecedented, but disciplinary proceedings against a club are not.

The Premier League should have a standard timetable for disciplinary matters, and where possible should resolve cases before a season starts. That would reduce questions around the integrity of the competition, as well as the uncertainty felt by every club midway through a season.

Recommended Reading

Can Arsenal build a dynasty? Early Verdicts: Brighton Buzzing, Spurs Stalling Why re-awarding Manchester City’s titles would be wrong A verdict, not a conclusion: what the reported outcome of Manchester City’s 115 charges really means

Litigation like this isn’t going to end with the City case, and the Premier League and other sporting bodies clearly need to learn from this latest episode. Fans generally ask for transparency and consistency above all – something that has clearly been lacking in recent cases.

Everton had the right to appeal, and the reduction of their original punishment demonstrated the importance of that process. But the club had already experienced the immediate sporting consequences of a sanction that was subsequently found to require adjustment.

Manchester City’s prolonged proceedings raise a different, but related, concern: the extent to which financial regulation can remain credible when the consequences of misconduct take years to establish.

The two cases are not identical, and fairness does not necessarily mean identical treatment. Yet consistency must extend beyond the rules themselves to the speed, transparency and proportionality with which they are enforced.

The Premier League has a legitimate responsibility to protect the integrity of its competition. It also has a responsibility to ensure that the process through which it does so is perceived as fair.

Everton’s experience suggests that the question is not simply whether clubs should be punished for financial breaches, but whether the punishment, and the process leading to it, can command the same confidence from everyone subject to the rules.