Why Man City are miffed by treatment from Premier League over commercial income amid legal wrangle – explained

The reigning champions of England have challenged the Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules that have been put in place by top-flight officials. A landmark challenge to those regulations has been brought by City, leading to an 11-day arbitration hearing taking place – with a ruling in that case expected to be made shortly.

According to The Guardian, City have decided to fight their corner after questioning the appointment of a data analysis company that also works for their rivals – making it unlikely that they will be treated with neutrality. An investigation into the fair market value of deals struck by City off the pitch was carried out by Nielsen Sports – a global valuation firm that has contracts with a number of Premier League clubs.

City are contesting the introduction and enforcement of APT rules – which are intended to prevent clubs from bolstering their coffers with deals that are not of fair market value or contravene competition law. City believe that everything they have done is above board and will be demanding financial compensation if Nielsen consider any of their agreements to be in breach of Premier League rules.

The Guardian claims those at the Etihad Stadium consider APT rules to “discriminate against Gulf owners”, having been brought in on the back of a Saudi-based takeover at Newcastle in 2021. They are also asking questions of a voting system that requires 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to vote in favour of a proposal in order for it to be passed – with the Blues considering those protocols to preserve “tyranny of the majority”.

City are said to have the support of Newcastle, Chelsea and Aston Villa in their case, but Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool are among those to oppose their claim. Alongside the legal case being brought against the Premier League, City are also waiting to learn their fate in a long-running Financial Fair Play (FFP) dispute that has seen them stung with 115 charges of supposed monetary mismanagement.