Man City accuse Premier League of favouring Arsenal

According to the Times on Saturday, Man City have accused the Premier League of favouring clubs like Arsenal

City: Rules favour Arsenal Matt Lawton - Chief Sports Correspondent Manchester City have accused the Premier League of distorting the competition in favour of Arsenal and other rival clubs who have benefited from huge loans from their owners. In the latest development in City’s prolonged legal battle with the Premier League, the club have issued an excoriating attack on the league’s attempt to amend sponsorship rules declared unlawful and void by an independent tribunal. In a new statement of claim, issued by City to an independent tribunal at the end of last month, the champions complain that Arsenal, as well as Brighton & Hove Albion, Everton and Leicester City, have had an unfair advantage. City claim that shareholder loans — where the owners lend clubs money — worth hundreds of millions of pounds at those four clubs have not been treated the same as other Associated Party Transactions (APTs), such as sponsorship deals with companies linked to club owners. However, the tribunal — comprising three senior legal figures in Sir Nigel Teare, Lord Dyson and Christopher Vajda KC — concluded those APT rules were “void and unenforceable” and City now argue that there needs to be a return to the pre-2021 rules until these matters are fully resolved. They argue in their latest claim — which the Premier League has sent, over the past 24 hours, to its 19 other clubs — that the amended rules continue to “discriminate”. City argue that they “fail to meet the requirements of transparency, objectivity, precision and proportionality . . . and are liable to distort competition”. Key to City’s claim is the argument that the Premier League’s attempt to change the APT rules after its latest legal defeat is unfair because they treat the shareholder loans differently, adding that the clubs who utilise that form of borrowing are benefiting from an unlawful exemption. City, who launched their initial legal challenge last year after two Abu Dhabi-related sponsorship deals were blocked by the Premier League, make the broader point that the league should not change rules that have already been declared void, and that it was too hasty and slapdash in its response to the previous verdict. Further to that, City have attacked the 50-day grace period given to clubs to convert shareholder loans into equity spending, while also criticising the league for claiming that shareholder loans do not need to be assessed for fair market value in the same way as other APTs. There is a detailed breakdown of the shareholder loans at other clubs, with City’s point being that these gave them an unfair advantage in complying with Profitability and Sustainability Rules. City claim that Arsenal benefited from shareholder loans of approximately £259 million in the 2022-23 season, Brighton from £406.5 million in the 2021-22 season, Everton £450 million in 2022-23 and Leicester £265 million in 2021-22. City say that the “differential treatment” means the rule changes “do not eliminate, but on the contrary perpetuate the discriminatory and distortive treatment previously found by the tribunal”. The club add: “This continued preferential and discriminatory treatment of shareholder loans has the object and/or effect of distorting economic competition between member clubs on affected markets.” City also take aim at the “flawed and inadequate manner” that the Premier League has tried to retroactively assess the free market value of these shareholder loans. It is City’s view that independent experts should have been consulted. Instead the Premier League, City claim, is relying on two part-time, nonexecutive Premier League board members to “carry out this technical and specialist task on their own”. The same tribunal will rule on the latest challenge from City, with the Premier League potentially forced into making further changes to its financial rules while incurring yet more legal costs. The Premier League declined to comment when approached by The Times. The issue remains separate to the 130 charges brought against City by the Premier League for alleged breaches of financial regulations, but it could further erode the robustness of the system in place. The same team of lawyers are fighting both cases for the Abu Dhabiowned club. At the time of the tribunal’s first award, Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, insisted it could resolve the matter by making a small number of amendments to the APT rules. Simon Cliff, City’s general counsel, urged the league to hold fire until the tribunal had ruled on whether all the rules, rather than some, were now null and void, with Aston Villa echoing that view. In February the tribunal declared all the rules “void and unenforceable”. Still the Premier League insisted the amendments were “valid and enforceable”. City disagree. “This voidness means that the amendments are themselves void, because it is not legally possible to amend rules that are themselves void,” they claim. — The Times, Saturday 5 April 2025

Manchester City have launched a fierce legal attack on the Premier League, alleging that recent financial rules changes continue to unfairly favour clubs like Arsenal, who have received substantial loans from their owners.

According to The Times, the reigning champions have filed a fresh statement of claim with an independent tribunal, accusing the league of perpetuating discriminatory financial practices that distort competition. Seriously.

At the core of City’s complaint is the league’s handling of shareholder loans — specifically, financial injections from club owners that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other Associated Party Transactions (APTs), such as sponsorships from related entities. City argue that clubs including Arsenal, Brighton, Everton, and Leicester City have benefited from this exemption, giving them what City describe as a “preferential and discriminatory” economic advantage.

INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA - JULY 26: Stan Kroenke owner of Arsenal and the Los Angeles Rams, signs an autograph as he attends the pre-season friendly match between Arsenal and Barcelona at SoFi Stadium on July 26, 2023 in Inglewood, California. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images) — Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

City claim that Arsenal received shareholder loans of around £259 million during the 2022–23 season, asserting that such funding allowed the club to comply with Profitability and Sustainability Rules while still investing significantly in the squad. Brighton, Everton and Leicester are said to have received £406.5 million, £450 million, and £265 million respectively in similar periods.

Following a previous legal challenge, an independent tribunal ruled in February that the Premier League’s original APT rules were “void and unenforceable.” In response, the Premier League amended its rules, maintaining that the updated framework was now compliant. City disagree, claiming: “This voidness means that the amendments are themselves void, because it is not legally possible to amend rules that are themselves void.”

City further argue that the league’s reliance on two part-time, non-executive board members to retrospectively assess the fair market value of shareholder loans — without input from independent financial experts — is a deeply flawed process. They insist this approach undermines transparency, objectivity and proportionality, continuing to give Arsenal and others an unfair competitive advantage.

“This continued preferential and discriminatory treatment of shareholder loans has the object and/or effect of distorting economic competition between member clubs on affected markets,” the club wrote in its claim.

The legal challenge, which remains separate from the 130 ongoing charges brought against City over alleged financial rule breaches, is being overseen by the same tribunal that previously ruled in the club’s favour. Sir Nigel Teare, Lord Dyson, and Christopher Vajda KC are again presiding.

At the time of the tribunal’s earlier decision, Premier League CEO Richard Masters suggested that only minor adjustments to the rules were needed. But City’s general counsel Simon Cliff warned the league to pause until it was clear whether the entire rulebook — not just parts of it — had been invalidated.

The Premier League declined to comment when contacted by The Times, but the implications of this latest legal front are significant. Should City succeed again, the league may be forced into yet another round of regulatory changes, further straining its legal position and exposing broader questions about competitive fairness and governance.