‘Discrimination’ of Man City integral in fight to clear 115 Premier League charges

Judgment will make it easier to argue the league has a ‘special responsibility’ to act in a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory manner

Manchester City’s “discrimination” claims against the Premier League are now key in their separate legal fight against 115 alleged spending breaches, leading lawyers forecast.
An independent competition specialist digesting the 175-page findings on associated party transactions said a key motivation for the arbitration fight was to erect “an extra hurdle” to suggest Gulf-ownerships are being unfairly targeted.
“The reason Lord Pannick [the leading KC representing City] and assembled montage of Man City lawyers are claiming a victory to this is because they will think it is helpful to their wider claim that the tribunal have recognised that the Premier League is in a dominant market position in respect of its ability to exercise control and ultimately dominance over its member clubs,” says Marc Shrimpling, a partner in UK competition and trade practice at Osborne Clarke.
“Discrimination” and “discriminatory” are cited 17 times in the ruling made public on Monday – although the panel stops short of agreeing with City’s claims of being unfairly singled out in a “tyranny of the majority”. But with both City and the league claiming victory on Monday, the separate legal fight between the parties over spending charges appeared more complex and unpredictable than ever.
Shrimpling says City will now be “pivoting forward” with a plan to challenge the Premier League to prove it is not discriminating against foreign club ownerships.
After reading Monday’s verdict, Shrimpling said a clear strategy had been established in setting precedence in competition law. “If you want to play in the Premier League, you have to play by the Premier League’s rules… the tribunal have agreed with that, that the Premier League therefore has a degree of dominance – a degree of leverage – over the clubs,” he said.
“That’s helpful to Manchester City. There was a minority of aspects of the associated party transactions rules where, I think probably quite rightly, the tribunal have said: ‘You need to go away and look at those again because you’re in a dominant position and you must act in a non discriminatory manner.’”
Although the verdict makes easily “redeemable” points, Shrimpling’s interpretation is that City will make the point at their spending breach case that  “you can’t just apply a blanket rule” around various spending methods.
“You need to have a bit of nuance in there so that it doesn’t just lay an unduly difficult burden on, for example, the owners of Newcastle or  Manchester City,” he said. “In competition law, there is a well established competition principle, that if you’re in a dominant position, you have a ‘special responsibility’ to act in a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory manner in all activities and business dealings. And so Manchester City, if they’ve gained any leverage today that they can pivot forward into into the remaining cases, will be saying: ‘The Premier League have got this extra hurdle to show that in your dealings with us, you have been fair, reasonable and non discriminatory throughout and if that burden isn’t fulfilled, then arguably, at least some of those charges will drop away.’”
Independent lawyers were unanimous on Monday night in declaring neither City or the Premier League could claim outright victory, although Nick De Marco KC, the leading sports lawyer, acknowledged on X: “The case represents another example of the increasing tendency of courts and tribunals to hold sports regulators to closer scrutiny than has previously been the case.”
Some of Manchester City’s “wins” in the APT case were “based on English public law principles of procedural fairness”, he added. “Many of the clients I advise will have various issues and interests that will arise from the decision, so it would be inappropriate for me to speak about it now, or express my own opinion.”