'Truly unusual' - Why Man City have taken on Premier League in legal challenge

Manchester City are arguing against 'truly unusual' measures installed by the Premier League in their latest battle over Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.

City and the Premier League are already involved in a seismic contest, with a hearing to take place later this year on the charges levelled at the champions by its regulator concerning nearly a decade of allegedly misrepresenting their financial position. Before that potentially game-changing decision is made by an independent commission, the Blues have also challenged the Premier League over the legality of their APT rules.

A two-week hearing has just occurred in private, and had details of the case not been leaked to The Times a few weeks ago would never have been known about in the first place. While it is not clear what exact aspects City are challenging, the fact that stricter regulations were enforced in February 2024 would suggest that these have been questioned.

ALSO READ: Man City and Pep Guardiola facing major transfer gamble

ALSO READ: 'I understand' - Man Utd owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe wades in on Man City legal action vs Premier League

"Within the latest set of APT rules, the ones City have objected to, are a set of rules that require a director of the sponsoring company to make a declaration that the sponsorship is fair market value. It's truly unusual that a counter party is required to make that declaration," explained football finance expert Stefan Borson on the We're Not Really Here podcast.

"The club has to make it as well but they want the other side to make it as well and that is something City have said it's a step too far. That's the way you should look at it. City started this process when the original rules came in in 2021 around APT and raised the flag they weren't happy with them and suggested they may be subject to challenge down the road.

"In February 2024 City again said we think the rules have gone too far and too wide and if you put them through we will challenge them. What ultimately happened in February is they were passed only by 11 clubs voting in favour because the necessary two-thirds majority was gained by certain clubs abstaining from the vote so the way it works is that it is two-thirds of those that actually vote.

"City have in their view good grounds for challenging and that's why they are. We will see if they're lawful after the lawyers have had a good argument about competition law but the idea that is some kind of trigger for the end of football or the Premier League is vastly overdone in my opinion - it's very simply a point around lawfulness of the extension of rules."