Allegation 3 – The Own Goal – City Breached UEFA FFP

By: Ted Fred Franky, Refuting misinformation, August 14, 2024 4 months ago

In the intricate landscape of football regulations, one of the key charges against Manchester City revolves around the allegations made by the Premier League is that the club breached UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules for three consecutive seasons. However, this charge by the Premier League raises several legal and procedural issues that cast serious doubt on its validity. Furthermore its inclusion could prove to be the Premier Leagues biggest own goal.

The Allegation and Its Flaws

The basic allegation is that Manchester City violated FFP regulations over a three-year period. However, the Premier League’s rules simply require that clubs adhere to UEFA’s regulations, particularly when there is a potential conflict between domestic and European rules. The critical flaw in the Premier League’s case is that it is essentially a third party attempting to enforce or assess a breach of a contract of UEFA’s FFP rules, that it has no legal standing to enforce. UEFA’s rules are, in this context, out of the Premier League’s jurisdiction.

UEFA’s Role and Process

UEFA’s regulations clearly outline how breaches of FFP should be investigated, assessed, and punished. A club can only be deemed to have violated FFP rules if UEFA itself concludes that a breach occurred and imposes a sanction. This involves an investigation by UEFA’s Investigative Committee, before arbitration at UEFA’s Arbitration Chamber, with an appeal via CAS if necessary. According to UEFA’s rules this the only way sancitons can be imposed.

Man City Fans Sky and White Traditional Bar Scarf

In City’s case, this process has already been completed. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the Premier League has no grounds to re-litigate this issue or to claim that City breached FFP rules, especially when UEFA, the governing body with the rightful authority, has already addressed the matter.

The Potential Legal Pitfall for the Premier League

By pursuing this charge, the Premier League risks opening a Pandora’s box that could have significant implications not only for this case but for its broader regulatory framework. It’s a well-established fact that UEFA’s rules and contracts take precedence over those of the Premier League when there is a conflict between the two. This precedence raises critical issues, particularly concerning the method used to assess Fair Market Value (FMV) of sponsorships and other financial transactions.

The Fair Market Value Conundrum

UEFA and the Premier League use different methodologies to assess Fair Market Value. If the Premier League insists on assessing City’s contracts related to FFP, it would logically have to use UEFA’s method rather than its own. This distinction is crucial because applying different standards could lead to inconsistent and potentially unfair outcomes.

Man City Fans Sky and White Traditional Bar Scarf

For instance, if City’s sponsorship deals are evaluated using UEFA’s method, they may not necessarily breach FFP limits. However, using the Premier League’s method could produce a different result, one that might in future, unfairly disadvantage English clubs competing in Europe when compared to their European competitors. This discrepancy could distort competition, not only in Europe but also domestically, as it would mean English clubs are being held to a different, possibly stricter, set of criteria than their continental rivals.

The Broader Implications

The inclusion of this charge in the Premier League’s case could unintentionally bolster City’s defense. By bringing UEFA’s FFP rules into the equation, the Premier League has opened the door for City to argue that UEFA’s assessment method should take precedence both in Europe and domestically. This could undermine the entire Premier League case, dragging it through legal complexities that the league might not be prepared to handle.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision to include the allegation that City breached FFP rules appears to be a significant misstep by the Premier League. Not only does it lack the legal standing to enforce UEFA’s rules, but it also risks entangling the case in a web of conflicting regulations and assessment methods. By allowing this charge to proceed, the Premier League has potentially provided City with a powerful legal argument that could derail the entire case. In essence, this could turn out to be one of the most strategically flawed allegations made in the ongoing dispute ie an OWN GOAL.

Man City Stuff