A definitive judgment has been achieved after Man City had taken legal steps against the Premier League last year for their illegal sponsor tiles.
The Associated Party Transactions (APTs) of the League – which worked for almost three years – were introduced in 2021 after the Saudi sovereign power fund bought Newcastle.
They introduced the rules to combat inflated sponsorship offers and to ensure that every deal that does a club with a company connected to its own owners is a fair market value.
City protested for the first time against the rules in 2023 and again in November last year. Today's verdict discovered that the rules were completely illegal between December 2021 and November 2024, agreed with the position of the city and essentially undermine the financial rules of the Premier League.
But what has the legal steps activated? What happened today and what does it mean? Mail Sport answers all the important questions after the fiasco finally reached its conclusion.
What are APTs?
In December 2021, after the takeover of Newcastle United by Saudi, the Premier League presented the rules for what it mentioned as transactions at Associated Party (APTs).
Although they did not explicitly said it at the time, the position that the new rules were aimed at preventing clubs such as Newcastle and City to sign inflated sponsorship offers with groups that are linked to their owners in an attempt to do financial rules and pump money To the club that could then be spent on players and wages.
The moment City said that the rules, which were subsequently implemented, were unfair and illegal.
How did it work?
All deals with related parties were subjected to what an FMV assessment (FMV) was called. If they are then supposed to be blown up, they were blocked. It is understanding that this happened a number of times.
What has the legal steps activated?
In 2023, City saw a wide sponsorship agreement with Etihad Airways established in Abu Dhabi, and another proposed deal with First Abu Dhabi Bank, blocked under the APT system.
They had seen enough and launched a legal challenge. They claimed that the rules, which were further changed in February 2024, were anti-competitive and were therefore illegal.
What happened afterwards?
The case went to an independent tribunal and a panel consisting of three legal Big-Hitters.
They found three elements of the rules – including the fact that shareholders (loans to clubs from stakeholders often were subject to little or no interest) were not subject to the same FMV assessment that they were illegal.
Two other elements were also emphasized. City claimed that this justified their position, while Premier League director Richard Masters took a different position and claimed that the tribunal had approved the rules as a whole, but “had identified certain individual elements … they had to be changed.”
City then accused masters of trying to 'mislead', and stated that their position was that the statement meant that all rules were void and adding that nothing had to be done until the panel has expressed its final judgment.
Aston Villa sent a letter to clubs warning against the penetration of changes.
'New' rules
The Premier League entered into, regardless of, and in November he proposed the appropriate rules that were voted by 16 clubs to four. City quickly claimed that the new rules were illegal and resulted in a further legal challenge.
What happened today and what does it mean?
The Panel returned its last judgment about the first challenge and discovered that the rules in their entirety were illegal – effectively agree with City.
There are various potential consequences. The judgment effectively means that the Premier League operated an APT system for three years that was void.
As a result, every club that saw a deal blocked or reduced during that period was able to reduce. City will also look for the payment of their costs.
In combination with the Premier League costs, that figure can be around £ 20 million.
The same panel will now rule over the last APT rules, voted in November. If they return a similar judgment, it could open the door for clubs such as City and Newcastle to donate considerably higher deals with related parties.
It would also be busy stacking the Premier League itself.
Comments