There’s a legitimate case to make that the financial fair play regime (Profit and Sustainability Rules, in Premier League parlance) is an unfair restraint that entrenches the competitive position of clubs already commanding the biggest revenue share. But, come on: This is Manchester City we’re talking about. The argument would carry more weight if it was coming from one of the Premier League’s struggling underdogs rather than a serial champion backed by the resources of a Middle Eastern petrostate.
Premier League rule changes require support from a two-thirds majority, or 14 out of 20 clubs. Tyranny? Not obviously. “This is pretty standard in corporate governance”, says Daniel Gore, a senior associate at law firm Withers in London, who describes the rules as reasonable and democratic.
The wider context here is the 115 charges levied against Manchester City of breaching financial regulations between 2009 and 2018, some of which are linked to alleged inflation of sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi entities. That case is due to be heard this autumn. The APT challenge lays down a preemptive marker, signaling the level of combativeness the league can expect. In February 2023, the New York Times noted the “army of lawyers” the club employed, saying it used a “bare-knuckle” strategy to overwhelm opponents in a war of attrition.
That may prove an effective legal approach, but it’s unlikely to win the club many friends. Reaction in British media has been mostly negative, with the Independent calling it “an assault on the fabric of football” and the Times warning of anarchy. Fans of lower-league Millwall are renowned for chanting “no one likes us, we don’t care.” On current form, that might make a new motto for England’s most successful club.