The Premier League says that the “majority” of Manchester City’s legal challenge to its commercial deal regulations has failed, after the champions declared victory in the case. City filed a legal challenge to the league’s associated party transaction (APT) rules earlier this year, claiming they were anti-competitive. On Monday afternoon, the city published a statement declaring that an arbitration tribunal had determined the rules to be unconstitutional and that the league had misused its dominating position. The club claims they can now pursue damages from the lawsuit. However, the Premier League stated that there were just two decisions in City’s favour on the regulations, and that City were “unsuccessful in the majority of (their) challenge”. Crucially, the league stated that the tribunal has found

The APT regulations are intended to ensure that commercial transactions with companies related to a club’s owners are conducted for fair market value.

A decision declaring all APT rules illegal would have had far-reaching consequences for Premier League competition, making it easier for clubs with the wealthiest owners to strike deals related to their ownership, resulting in higher revenues and strengthening their position in relation to the league’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR). However, the Premier League maintains that, while the panel verdict will necessitate some changes to the rules, it does not call for them to be repealed, which would effectively give clubs free freedom over commercial arrangements. On Monday afternoon, both parties released the 175-page verdict, but their interpretations differed greatly.

Both parties released the 175-page judgment on Monday afternoon, but came to very different conclusions about what it meant.The panel did find it was anti-competitive to exclude shareholder loans from APT rules and also called for changes to the rules which were adopted earlier this year to be amended.However, the Premier League said the tribunal had supported the legitimacy of the rules, and said it had found them essential to make the profitability and sustainability regulations (PSR) effective

The Premier League stated the panel concluded that if a deal is clearly not at fair market value, it will distort competition within the league. The league also stated that the tribunal rejected City’s allegation that the rules were intended to prejudice against Gulf-owned clubs. City stated that the panel overturned the league’s decisions in two transactions involving City because they were procedurally unjust. The club has also stated that they may pursue damages in response to the panel’s decision, and that other clubs may follow suit. The Premier League finished its release by adding that, aside from the two issues the panel highlighted, its rulebook has been found complaint with competition and public law standards

Leading sports lawyer Nick De Marco KC said on X: “As is often with lawyers, both sides have declared victory. The reality lies somewhere in the middle, with each side winning on separate points. He did, however, add that sections of the league’s APT rules were found illegal, which was “significant”. The panel’s conclusions were presented at paragraphs 592-602 of the 175-page paper.

The first refers to the City’s challenge to the APT rules as originally adopted and as revised earlier this year. The exclusion of shareholder loans was ruled to be illegal, but “all other challenges fail”. On City’s contention that the regulations were procedurally unfair, it decided that it was unfair that City were not allowed to comment on the similar transaction data relied on by the Premier League before making conclusions on fair market value, but that “all other challenges fail”.