Decision in re Premier League v. Manchester City by Independent Commission at Premier League

So I read the 40-page summary by the independent panel of its decision in the Manchester City case. A couple of things stood out to me that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere.

First, there is the often-repeated line by Manchester City and its executives that it’s innocent and “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions” in the case. That struck me as odd, and I gather I wasn’t alone. What are they talking about, exactly? Well, from within the four corners of the decision summary, Man City’s explanation for the sponsorships the panel found to be shams seems to be that ADUG (the company that owns Man City) did not subsidize the payments to Man City by the sponsors. In City’s telling, that is a misunderstanding by the League. What happened, you see, is that

[Abu Dhabi (AD)] Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees. Such applications had been granted, and financial assistance had been provided to the AD Sponsors by the AD Government via the [Crown Prince Court of Abu Dhabi]. In each case the level of financial assistance provided by the AD Government to the relevant Sponsor had been in the amount that the PL wrongly contended represented a Tagged Sum from ADUG.

So, it’s not that ADUG (owned by the brother of the crown prince) paid most of what the sponsors owed; it’s that, completely separately, the sponsors sought government handouts to cover their costs and those were properly granted in accordance with AD law. Of that, it seems Man City is saying, it has irrefutable proof.

Well, even if they have proof of that, that hardly exonerates them of the breaches for reasons too obvious to state. Regardless, the panel found the Crown Prince excuse to be untrue and “concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme.”

Second, there’s an idea I’ve heard expressed, that by punishing Man City too harshly the Premier League would be shooting itself not so much in the foot as in the head, and so the clubs that comprise the league will find a way to settle the case in a relatively measured manner. I don’t know. When you read the kind of conduct they engaged in, and the scale of financial doping at stake, I can’t imagine City’s rival clubs will be able to restrain themselves. And the scale gives a clue as to why it may not be a problem.

I heard Kieran Maguire say recently that before the Abu Dhabi purchase, Man City’s average league position was 14th, and within a decade, after close to a billion pounds of illicit funds were injected, its average position was 2nd. What that suggests to me, and it’s what critics have long charged, is that City is closer to a Potemkin club than a organically built one. If City is relegated, are millions really going to stop tuning in? Wouldn’t that turn of events actually be quite an exciting twist in the narrative that is the EPL’s real product? I just don’t see there actually being substantial blowback on the league if they set fire to City and, on the flip side, a slap on the wrist would set a very bad precedent. I feel very bad for OG City fans whose club has been abused this way, but I think the end result is going to be pretty severe. SEP 30 | REPLY