Manchester City has been one of the finest sides in Europe currently. They are the best English club at the moment. The Sky Blues have won four consecutive titles in a row. After this achievement, they became the first English side to do so in the history of the English Premier League (EPL). Under Pep Guardiola the side has played some amazing brands of football winning their maiden UEFA Champions League as well.
However, amidst all these successes, legal difficulties struck the club. Authorities charged them with 115 violations. As per the previous reports, Premier League CEO Richard Masters charged the club with 115 financial breaches. Man City gained an unfair advantage over other City Football Group-owned clubs. The repercussions could be problematic for the club. But they have secured a legal victory over the Premier League.
The arbitration panel said that some of the competition’s sponsorship rules are unlawful. Three retired judges stated that new measures intended to prevent teams from inflating partnerships with corporations affiliated with their owners violate the Competition Act. They cited two transactions rejected by the Premier League. The judgement is separate from the City’s 115 charges. For suspected breaches of the league’s financial regulations. Many rival clubs will raise major alerts regarding this situation.
Manchester City showcases their power to world football
Does this showcase the monetary power of Manchester City? Owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, they have 11 different clubs running in the different leagues around the world. This showcases their monetary power. In legal cases, it is one of the main factors to win a case. The power of money has once again shown its value in winning cases.
There were suspected disparities in how much Manchester City paid manager Roberto Mancini from 2009 to 2013. Along with various players from 2010 to 2016, salary numbers that the club is obligated to publish to the league. However, the case has been shutdown as of now. The verdict labelled the Etihad decision as “procedurally unfair,” saying that the rules do not take into account interest-free loans made by shareholders to teams.
