A final verdict has been reached after Man City initiated legal actions against the Premier League last year for his illegal sponsorship regulations.
The associated party transactions (APT) of the League, which operated for almost three years, were introduced in 2021 after the Sovereign Saudi Fund of the wealth bought Newcastle.
They introduced the rules to combat inflated sponsorship agreements and ensure that any agreement made with a company connected with its own owners is at a fair market value.
City first protested the rules in 2023 and once again in November. Today's verdict discovered that the rules between December 2021 and November 2024 were illegal, according to the city's position and essentially undermining the financial rules of the Premier League.
But what triggered legal action? What happened today and what does it mean? Mail Sport answers all the key questions after Fiasco finally reached its conclusion.
A final verdict has been reached today after Man City's legal action
The associated party transactions (APT) of the Premier League have been considered illegal by a legal panel (in the photo: CEO of the Premier League, Richard Masters)
What are the APT?
In December 2021, after the acquisition of Newcastle United, led by Saudi Arabia, the Premier League proposed rules about what he knew as associated parties transactions (APT).
Although they did not expressly said at that time, the opinion was that the new rules aimed to prevent clubs such as Newcastle and City signed to sign infected sponsorship agreements with groups linked to their owners in an attempt to divert financial rules and pump money Club that could then be spent on players and salaries.
At that time, City said the rules, which were subsequently implemented, were unfair and illegal.
How did it work?
Any agreement with the related parties was subject to what was called a fair market value evaluation (FMV). If subsequently they are considered inflated, they were blocked. It is understood that this happened several times.
The ATP rules were first introduced shortly after the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (PIF) completed its Newcastle acquisition
What triggered legal action?
In 2023, City saw a broad sponsorship agreement with Etihad Airways, based in Abu Dhabi, and another proposed agreement with First Abu Dhabi Bank, blocked under the APT system.
They had seen enough and launched a legal challenge. They affirmed that the rules, which were amended even more in February 2024, were anticompetitive and, therefore, illegal.
What happened next?
The matter went to an independent court, and a panel composed of three major legal factors.
They found three elements of the rules, including the fact that loans for shareholders (loans to often interested in interested parties to little or any interest) were not subject to the same evaluation of the FMV they meant they were illegal.
They also highlighted two other elements. City said that this claimed his position, while the executive president of the Premier League, Richard Masters, adopted a different position, claiming that the court had supported the rules as a whole, but had “identified certain discrete elements … that they needed be amended. “
City then accused the teachers of trying to “deceive”, stating that their position was that the ruling meant that all the rules were void and synnated and added that nothing should be done until the panel emitted their final verdict.
Aston Villa sent a letter to the clubs that warn against pushing amendments.
City and its owner Sheikh Mansour (dressed in brown) were not happy with the ATP rules
The co -owner of Aston Villa, Nassef Sawiris (in the photo) is a close friend of the president of the city and shared frustrations about the limits in spending
'New' rules
The Premier League pressed independently, and in November proposed adjusted aposts that were voted by 16 clubs to four. City quickly said that the new rules were illegal and issued an additional legal challenge.
What happened today and what does it mean?
The panel returned its final verdict on the first challenge and discovered that the rules were entirely illegal, in effect effectively with City.
There are several potential ramifications. The verdict effectively means that for three years the Premier League operated an APT system that was null and without effect.
As a result, any club that saw an agreement blocked or reduced in value during that period could sue. City will also seek payment of its costs.
Combined with the costs of the Premier League, that figure could add around £ 20 million.
The same panel will now rule on the latest APT rules, voted in November. If they return a similar verdict, you could open the door for clubs like City and Newcastle to write significantly higher agreements with related parts.
It would also accumulate pressure on the Premier League.