If Manchester City can spend as much as they want, then Pep Guardiola (pictured here with chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak) or someone… then the coach may well run out of fingers to celebrate more titles. Photo: AP/Dave Thompson
The Premier League clubs breaking bread with their Manchester City counterparts at the AGM in Yorkshire this week at least now know what they are up against: the complete destruction of the financial controls that protect competitiveness of the league.
If there were any doubts, they were put to rest in the Premier League's defense plan against City's lawsuit sent to clubs on Tuesday. English football is locked in a battle for survival with a club owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family trying to push everyone else into oblivion. City want to break up the rules governing the fair value of commercial transactions, without which the league becomes an unbridled spending frenzy for those with unlimited wealth.
Describing a supermajority democracy in the 14-vote Premier League, in which Bournemouth has the same number of votes as Liverpool, as a «tyranny of the majority» was the document's most telling wording. Compiled by a lawyer on behalf of City Football Group [CFG] principal owner Sheikh Mansour, a man born into a family of dynastic rulers of the Emirates, it at least gave an insight into the thinking behind it all.
Without serious oversight There is no financial fair play over the value of commercial transactions that clubs enter into with entities in the same state the club owner is from (related party transactions (APTs) as they are called). It's amazing that we still have to talk about this, and yet here we are, with one club trying to destroy the entire structure.
Since the Abu Dhabi takeover in 2008, City's commercial revenues have risen from €26 million in the final season before the sale to €399 million in the latest Deloitte audit. This commercial income figure was just shy of the €403 million earned by Real Madrid during the same 2022-23 season.
Manchester City have won six of the last seven Premier League titles and eight of the last 13. Photo: Getty Images/Alex Livesey
Without controls on what Abu Dhabi entities like Etihad and e&, formerly Etisalat Group, pay City; or what Sela or others in Saudi Arabia pay Newcastle United, there can be no profit and sustainability rules (PSRs). The same PSRs that have led to points deductions for Everton and Nottingham Forest, and more likely Leicester City, are simply washed away. Nor can there be squad spending, the successor to the PSR that is being introduced in its place for 2025-26, which will cap spending as a percentage of revenue.
Without robust APT rules, they are meaningless. An 85 per cent player spending cap becomes 85 per cent of what a club like City wants. It will not restrict their pursuit of the best players. It will not restrict them from signing players simply to stop others from getting them.
Football is based on a consensus that the primacy of the competition must take precedence. Six of the last seven Premier League seasons have resulted in a City title, but at least those have been close. On any game day there are dangers and unexpected defeats. Without risk there is no interest, and without interest there are no broadcast deals on which the Premier League has built its power.
“They know that taking the Premier League to court would cause immeasurable damage.”
The rise and fall of every dynasty — be it Liverpool, Manchester United or City — is what makes the game so attractive and without which it would simply be the monotony of the same hegemony, endlessly stretching into the future.
The apologist's argument is that this is all a conspiracy to keep the established elite in place. If one were to suggest that this was a grand plan, one would have to say that its implementation was far from perfect. City are the most dominant team in the history of the English Football League. All that is required of them in the game is to comply with the rules to which they have signed up.
Project Big Picture and the European Super League have weakened the Premier League. Long delays in bringing 115 charges against City for historical rule violations, including in relation to APT, appear to have emboldened the extensive legal resources at City's disposal. Now they are on the attack. They want to destroy the dynamics that have made the Premier League less unfair and more successful than its European rivals. Part of this is a recognition that while some clubs are richer than others, none should be allowed unlimited equity investment.
People at City know this is fundamental to the success of the league because that many of them worked at the club (or other clubs) until 2008. regulation — because City also once had much more modest means. They will know that taking the Premier League and other clubs to court would cause immeasurable damage. However, it appears that Abu Dhabi's order cannot be resisted.
The soft power of Middle Eastern fossil fuel wealth extends to other owners of other clubs, and it will be interesting to see how they respond. Some have decided to soften CFG, the great mothership with the Manchester institution at its centre. The Premier League is long past that point. Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur, who spend what they earn, may see a future in which they simply cannot compete.
Liverpool won the title and overtook City under Jurgen Klopp, but could they continue to do so without the rules in place? Photo: Reuters/Phil Noble
City, meanwhile, have a squad that needs to be revamped in the coming years, with Kevin De Bruyne hinting this week about a possible summer exit. Other greats such as Kyle Walker, John Stones and Bernardo Silva are nearing the end of their game and it may not be long before Pep Guardiola and his sporting director Txiki Begiristain decide their time is up. Replacing them will not come cheap, and the commercial deals and contract extensions that will be agreed over the next few years will be crucial.
Premier League supremacy has always been difficult. An awkward, shifting coalition of 20 different partners. It has had its rebellions and disagreements, but this is something new. An attack by one of its members, satisfying only himself and, possibly, one more — at the expense of the success of everyone else.
Свежие комментарии