Has the Cartel forced him into Criminal Behaviour?
In a landmark legal battle, Manchester City Football Club successfully challenged the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, exposing major governance issues at the heart of English football. Despite an independent tribunal ruling decisively in City’s favour, Premier League Chief Executive Richard Masters has controversially chosen to disregard the verdict, raising serious questions about his leadership, integrity, and legal accountability.
Sign The Petition Demanding His Resignation:
https://chng.it/YF8Q4xWGYV
Manchester City’s Legal Victory
The dispute centres on the APT regulations, which were enforced between December 2021 and November 2024 to regulate financial transactions between clubs and entities linked to their ownership. Manchester City argued that these rules were unlawfully restrictive, particularly regarding sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank, which were blocked in 2023.
An independent tribunal upheld City’s position, ruling that the APT regulations were “wholly unlawful”, particularly as they exempted shareholder loans from fair market value assessments while restricting other forms of club income. The decision fundamentally undermined the legitimacy of the rules.
Richard Masters’ Defiance
Following the tribunal’s decision, Manchester City’s Legal Director, Simon Cliff, publicly emphasised the ruling’s implications, making it clear that the entire APT framework had been rendered void. However, Richard Masters disagreed and continued enforcing the rules, effectively ignoring the tribunal’s findings.
Masters’ refusal to accept the ruling left City with no choice but to launch a fresh legal challenge, seeking further clarification that the Premier League was bound by the arbitration panel’s decision.
Dishonesty and Deception – A Deliberate Act?
Richard Masters’ decision to continue enforcing the APT rules despite an independent tribunal ruling them unlawful is not just a case of poor judgment—it is a deliberate act of deception.
Following the tribunal’s verdict, it is inconceivable that the Premier League’s own legal team was not immediately consulted to provide a definitive explanation of the ruling’s meaning and implications. Given the gravity of the case and the direct challenge issued by Manchester City’s Legal Director, Simon Cliff, it is almost certain that Masters sought legal advice on the matter.
Cliff made it explicitly clear that he believed the ruling had completely invalidated the APT rules and that any attempt to enforce them would be met with further legal action. The fact that City did launch another challenge to confirm their interpretation only underscores their confidence that the tribunal had ruled entirely in their favour.
Given the complexity and significance of the case, the Premier League’s legal team would have consulted a top London law firm, likely one of the City’s elite legal practices, specialising in sports and competition law. It is highly improbable—bordering on impossible—that any competent legal professionals would have reached a different conclusion from Cliff’s. The tribunal’s confirmation yesterday that Cliff was correct only further proves this point.
This leaves only one logical conclusion: Richard Masters wilfully ignored the legal advice he was given. He knew the tribunal had ruled against the APT regulations, he knew his own legal team and external solicitors must have confirmed this, yet he chose to press ahead regardless, enforcing regulations he knew to be unlawful.
This is not a misunderstanding. This is not an oversight. This is deliberate deception..
The financial consequences of his actions are immense, with some clubs potentially losing tens of millions of pounds due to continued enforcement of unlawful regulations. By knowingly disregarding a binding tribunal decision, Masters may has crossed a legal line.
Has Richard Masters Committed Fraud?
Under the Fraud Act 2006, fraud occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false representation with the intent to cause loss to another or gain an advantage for themselves or others.
By refusing to accept the ruling while continuing to apply regulations that were already deemed unlawful, has Masters engaged in fraudulent conduct? If the Premier League’s legal team had already advised him that City’s interpretation was correct, then his actions could be considered wilful deception, potentially breaching UK fraud laws.
Breach of Fiduciary Duties – Should Masters Be Struck Off?
As Chief Executive of the Premier League, Richard Masters has fiduciary duties under the Companies Act 2006, particularly in his role as a director of the Premier League’s corporate entity. By ignoring legal advice and acting against the interests of the Premier League’s member clubs, he may have breached several key director duties, including:
Section 172 (Duty to promote the success of the company) – A director must act in a way that promotes the success of the company for the benefit of its members. By enforcing unlawful rules, Masters has failed to act in the best interests of all clubs and may have caused financial harm to some.
Section 173 (Duty to exercise independent judgment) – Directors must make decisions based on independent and informed judgment. If Masters ignored legal advice and allowed external influences (such as the “Big Four” clubs) to dictate his actions, he may have breached this duty.
Section 174 (Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence) – A director must carry out their role with the level of skill and diligence that could reasonably be expected. Given that Masters had legal advice confirming the ruling’s implications, his continued enforcement of unlawful regulations suggests gross negligence or willful misconduct.
If proven, these breaches could justify removing Masters from his position and having him disqualified as a company director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Under this Act, directors who act dishonestly, recklessly, or negligently in managing a company can be banned from serving as a director for up to 15 years.
Who Really Controls the Premier League?
This controversy raises another crucial question: how much influence do the Premier League’s so-called “Big Four” clubs—Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur—have over Richard Masters?
The APT rules were widely seen as benefiting these clubs by restricting competition from state-backed teams like Manchester City and Newcastle United. If Masters ignored legal advice to serve their interests, it would point to serious conflicts of interest at the very top of the Premier League.
Time for Masters to Resign and a Full Inquiry
Richard Masters’ position is now untenable. His actions have brought the Premier League’s governance into serious question, and a formal inquiry into the league’s leadership must take place.
If Masters knowingly ignored legal advice, misled clubs, and attempted to enforce unlawful regulations, he should not just be forced out—he should face potential legal consequences.
The Premier League cannot continue with a chief executive who defies independent rulings and places the interests of select clubs over legal and financial integrity. It is time for a full-scale investigation into the Premier League’s leadership, and if necessary, criminal prosecutions should follow.
Sign The Petition Demanding His Resignation:
https://chng.it/YF8Q4xWGYV