“Huge victory” for Man City as Premier League sponsorship rules declared unlawful

Manchester City has won a key victory in their Premier League legal dispute over the Associated Party Transaction Rules.

This comes as reported by The Times Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful.

It has been reported that it was ruled that City were unfairly blocked from agreeing to two large sponsorship deals earlier this year.

This case is separate from the 115 charges and concerns the lawsuit logged by Man City against the Premier League over sponsorship rules and alleged discrimination against Middle Eastern owners.

The potentially significant development comes as the Premier League’s case against City for 115 alleged breaches of financial rules continues.

In June, it emerged that City had taken the unprecedented of suing the competition in a move that sparked a civil war in the English top flight.

Man City have released a statement on the ruling, which reads:

Following today’s publication of the Rule X Arbitral Tribunal Award, Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings:

The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside

The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position.

The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans.

As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner.

The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules.

The Premier League have also provided a statement on the ruling, which reads:

“The decision of an Arbitration Panel has been published following a legal challenge by Manchester City FC against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) Rules.

“The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system. The Tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges.

READ ALSO:
Kellyrae wins BBNaija ‘No Loose Guard’ season

“Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective.

“The decision represents an important and detailed assessment of the APT Rules, which ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties.

“These Rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League.

“The Tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the Rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements (more information below).

“These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the League and clubs.

“In the meantime, the Premier League will continue to operate the existing APT system, taking into account the findings made by the Tribunal.

“While the Arbitration process is confidential, the Premier League and the Club have agreed to make public a redacted copy of the decision, withholding only confidential and commercially sensitive information.”

SOURCE: