London – Premier League clubs have approved amendments to Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, dealing a blow to Manchester City in their ongoing legal and regulatory battles over the controversial framework.
The decision, reached during a meeting of the league’s 20 clubs, marks a significant moment in the league’s efforts to maintain financial fairness and competitive balance.
The APT rules, designed to limit the financial influence of companies associated with clubs through sponsorship deals, aim to ensure that commercial agreements reflect fair market value. Manchester City had opposed the changes, arguing the framework was “void and unlawful” following a tribunal decision earlier this year that supported parts of their legal challenge.
Key Developments in the Vote
The amendments received the necessary two-thirds majority, with 16 clubs voting in favour and four opposing: Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United, and Nottingham Forest. The outcome fell short of the seven opposing votes required to block the changes.
City, supported by Aston Villa, had warned of potential further legal action if the amendments were approved. Villa representatives argued the vote would likely trigger “immediate further litigation,” citing unresolved legal questions about the APT framework.
Despite these objections, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Everton, who had previously opposed tougher APT rules, shifted their positions to back the Premier League’s proposals, according to The Times.
Statements from Premier League and Clubs
In a statement, the Premier League said the amendments were designed to address findings from the arbitration tribunal following City’s legal challenge.
“The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at fair market value by virtue of relationships with associated parties,” the statement read. “These rules provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity, and competitive balance of the league.”
Manchester United and Chelsea were among the clubs advocating for the amendments. Omar Berrada, United’s chief executive and a former City executive, expressed support for the Premier League’s position, while Chelsea’s chief legal officer, James Bonnington, also endorsed the vote.
Background and Next Steps
The dispute stems from a legal challenge initiated by Manchester City in June after the Premier League rejected a significant Etihad sponsorship deal, deeming it not of fair market value. The arbitration tribunal ruled some elements of the APT system unlawful, sparking what has been described as a “civil war” among England’s top clubs.
City maintain their stance that no vote should have occurred before receiving the tribunal’s full response, expected in January. The club previously communicated their objections to the other 19 Premier League teams, asserting the amendments remain unlawful.
The broader debate has also highlighted disparities in financial arrangements across clubs. City have argued that teams benefiting from interest-free shareholder loans, such as Everton, Brighton & Hove Albion, and Arsenal, enjoy an unfair advantage.
Implications for the Premier League
This decision is seen as pivotal for the future governance of the league. The Times described the vote as a critical step in resolving the long-standing disputes over financial fairness in sponsorship arrangements. However, with Manchester City poised to continue their legal challenge, the matter is far from settled. The tribunal’s final ruling in January could further influence the framework governing financial transactions in English football.
For Manchester City, who have suffered recent setbacks on the pitch, this represents a significant off-field defeat in their battle with the Premier League.