I can’t see how this ends well - Man City’s APT case v Premier League underlines football's bigger issues

Wherever your allegiances lie, this has been a bad week for the Premier League.

That’s without a ball being kicked - but more and more it feels like news away from the pitch is becoming as significant as what happens between the white lines at a weekend.

Monday saw a first in the division’s 32-year history as the findings from a case brought against the Premier League by a top-flight club were made public. Both Manchester City and the Premier League claimed to be the victors as a verdict from the Associated Party Transaction (APT) hearing emerged. Equally, both can be viewed as the losers.

It’s a complex case but even those with the faintest understanding of legal terms will have been taken aback by City’s bullish approach. Their language in the statement that followed the announcement was antagonistic, bordering on propaganda. It felt like an attempt to whip up an already aggrieved fanbase, as City forcibly explained why they are the unanimous winner, and the wounded party.

It will inevitably harden the resolve of Premier League executives and cause further strife. City’s legal proceedings have already resulted in a monumental split among the 20 clubs, with three giving evidence in favour of the champions, and six lending their weight to the Premier League. Factor in City’s general counsel Simon Cliff’s sending an email to other 19 clubs in which he described the Premier League’s version of events as ‘misleading’, and the spiralling legal costs associated with the case, and City simply don’t come out of this looking good.

Then again, are they really any different to their other top-rivals, all of whom tend to pursue their own means? That Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur - four clubs who would most benefit from City’s demise - gave evidence against the club during the hearing was telling

Coincidentally, they were also among the nine clubs who wrote to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2020 and attempted to uphold City’s Champions League ban.

There are no shortage of examples of football entities lending their weight to causes that purely benefit them, and this week was another indication of the desperate need for football to implement an independent regulator - even if the early days of this new Labour government have been far from convincing. Who better to oversee the distribution of Premier League tickets?

It’s not just City who come out of this saga with a few bruises. The conclusion from a three-person panel that the Premier League’s APT regulations violated UK competition law is damning. It should cause major embarrassment, not that Monday’s statement from the Premier League would indicate anything had gone wrong.

To omit interest-free shareholder loans from APT laws was baffling, almost ludicrous. How City agreeing a sponsorship with Etihad Airways can be deemed an issue, but not the £258m that Arsenal owe their owners, is beyond contradictory.

Whether City acted like a victim or the aggressor is irrelevant, in many ways. They were proved right. The laws weren’t fit for purpose. Meanwhile, subsequent reports of the Premier League claiming City acted like ‘bullies’ only enflames an already fraught situation.

It only heightens the scrutiny on Richard Masters’ position as Premier League CEO, and strengthens the view held in some circles that he shows favouritism to the likes of United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

No matter how complicated his role may be, Masters has an unwanted habit of inviting controversy and intrigue. He’s struggling to keep a lid on the growing factions within the English top flight. 

But this week’s ruling will feel like a storm in a teacup compared to when the outcome of the 115 charges eventually materialises. Odds are it will end the same, with both sides claiming victory and facing questions in the aftermath.

It raises the question of ultimately where does this all end and how can City and the Premier League ever come back from the mud slinging? Masters, after all, avoided attending the final game of last season at the Etihad, where City collected another league title as expected.

This has the increasing feeling of a new Premier League era, where rivals are developed both on the pitch and in the courtroom. The growing enmity between City and Arsenal is a pertinent example, it extends far beyond a bit of timewasting in last month’s meeting.

Conversely, what it could mean if various Premier League clubs band together is another question. The convenient transfer alliances between Aston Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle United and Everton last summer felt a little unethical, even if the quartet remained within the rules and avoided any Profit and Sustainability sanctions.

That three of those clubs supported City in the APT case was also telling, with the other (Villa) known to back many of City’s anti-legislative stances.

Where the Premier League is headed is anyone’s guess, but club cliques pulling in opposite directions is unlikely to help its long-term growth. Invariably, as the millionaire owners squabble over the wants and needs of their clubs, it’s the fans who will be overlooked. If only the soaring ticket prices caused so much consternation at boardroom level.

This week’s APT case was much more than one ruling - it’s emblematic of the bigger issues underpinning the Premier League.