Indonesia's historic 2-0 victory against Saudi Arabia in the Asian qualifiers for 2026 FIFA World Cup. Find Premier League tickets ...
La Liga's plans to host the Barcelona vs Atletico Madrid match in Miami have been cancelled. Get your La Liga ...
Exciting news for football fans in Kerala as Messi and Argentina may play in 2025. Secure your tickets at ExoTickets.com ...
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.