Manchester City v Premier League legal hearing set for October
Manchester City’s latest legal challenge to Premier League rules on associated party transactions is expected to go to trial in October.
The reigning champions launched proceedings in January against a new version of the rules, having succeeded with a claim against the legality of the old regulations last year.
Other Premier League clubs received details of the claim earlier this month and a trial has now been scheduled for mid-October, according to industry publication The Lawyer.
It comes as English football awaits a verdict in the separate case of the Premier League bringing more than 100 charges against Manchester City for alleged breaches of spending rules.
Associated party transaction rules were conceived to prevent clubs artificially inflating their spending power and introduced in 2021 following Newcastle United’s takeover by the Public Investment Fund.
It followed concerns that Newcastle could be flooded with favourable commercial deals with other Saudi-owned companies.
Manchester City have previously been accused of receiving funding from their Abu Dhabi-based owners disguised as generous sponsorship deals with related companies.
City partially succeeded in a challenge to the rules, with a tribunal last year finding them to be unlawful on multiple grounds.
One of the key issues highlighted was that shareholder loans were not assessed for fair market value in the same way as commercial deals with related parties but could still afford some clubs an unfair advantage.
The Premier League consulted with clubs on amendments to the rules, with 16 teams voting in favour of the new regulations at a meeting last November.
But Manchester City brought a fresh challenge two months later and have argued that APT rules should be considered null and void in the meantime.
The row has forced the Premier League to shelve plans to overhaul its spending rules by replacing the controversial PSR (profitability and sustainability regulations) regime with a new squad cost ratio and so-called anchoring.
However, that too faces a legal challenge as player union the PFA argues that anchoring – in which the spending of the richest clubs is tied to the income of the poorest – represents a de facto salary cap and is therefore anti-competitive.