Report: Manchester City Claim Premier League Rules Favour Arsenal and Rivals | OneFootball

Manchester City’s Legal Crusade: What’s Fair in Financial Fair Play?

Accusations and Allegations from the Etihad

Manchester City’s long-standing conflict with the Premier League has entered a new chapter — and this one, pointedly, names names. In a sharp and sprawling legal submission, the reigning champions have launched an extraordinary accusation that the Premier League’s recent rule changes around shareholder loans “distort competition” in favour of key rivals, with Arsenal named most prominently among them.

City’s grievance hinges on what they claim is the unequal treatment of shareholder loans — massive injections of capital from club owners — compared to other forms of Associated Party Transactions (APTs), like sponsorship deals linked to club owners. They argue that Arsenal, Brighton, Everton, and Leicester have all benefited from what they describe as a “preferential and discriminatory treatment of shareholder loans”, suggesting this undermines the competitive balance of the league.

It’s a potent charge from a club already facing its own barrage of scrutiny, not least the 130 Premier League charges relating to financial rule breaches — a separate but interwoven saga.

How Arsenal and Others Benefited

In Matt Lawton’s detailed investigation for The Times, City point to specific figures: Arsenal’s shareholder loans were worth £259 million in 2022-23; Brighton’s £406.5 million in 2021-22; Everton’s £450 million in 2022-23; and Leicester’s £265 million in 2021-22.

These loans, unlike sponsorship arrangements tied to ownership — such as City’s own Abu Dhabi-related deals blocked by the Premier League — are reportedly exempt from fair market value assessments. That distinction, City argue, amounts to an uneven playing field.

One of City’s more technical complaints targets the Premier League’s approach to revising the APT rules following a tribunal defeat in February. City claim the league rushed amendments without waiting for legal clarity. According to them, changes were made to rules that had already been deemed “void and unenforceable” — thus rendering the amendments “themselves void.”

Power, Precedent, and Governance

At the heart of this growing dispute is a clash of philosophy. City’s legal strategy reflects a deep unease about the way football’s financial rules are set and enforced. Their lawyers argue that the Premier League’s decision to give clubs 50 days to convert shareholder loans into equity was a flawed fix, made worse by what they describe as a “flawed and inadequate manner” of assessing loan values.

It’s a damning critique, implying the league lacks both the technical competence and impartial infrastructure to regulate itself properly. And while it’s tempting to see this purely as City attempting to protect its own interests, their criticism taps into a broader discomfort about governance in English football.

Legal Pressure and Competitive Fallout

City’s tribunal battle comes at a time when financial regulation in the game is already under siege. The Financial Fair Play model — rebranded as Profit and Sustainability Rules — is frequently portrayed as a labyrinth of opaque clauses, legal loopholes, and subjective interpretation.

While this case doesn’t directly intersect with City’s 130-charge mega-case, the outcome could weaken the Premier League’s overall authority and embolden further legal action from clubs feeling hard done by. The potential for cascading implications is significant. If City succeed in proving the rules are discriminatory, or were amended unlawfully, it could lead to further litigation — or even calls for independent financial oversight.

As ever in football’s legal theatre, it’s not just about what’s on the books, but who controls the pen.

Our View – EPL Index Analysis

From an Arsenal fan’s standpoint, City’s claims are both predictable and revealing. After years of dominating the domestic landscape, City now appear intent on weaponising the legal process as a form of defence and attack. The idea that Arsenal’s modest shareholder loans — especially compared to City’s ownership backing from Abu Dhabi — represent an unfair advantage will strike many as laughable.

What City seem to object to isn’t financial imbalance — it’s the fact that Arsenal have, on this occasion, played within the rules and emerged as genuine title challengers. The £259 million loan was part of the club’s broader rebuild under Mikel Arteta, an investment that’s been strategic, transparent, and — crucially — within the Premier League’s accepted framework.

There’s a growing feeling among Arsenal fans that City are crying foul not because the rules are unfair, but because they are finally being enforced. City’s failure to push through their own sponsorship deals while watching rivals spend within accepted means may frustrate them, but it doesn’t mean the system is broken.

Ultimately, Arsenal supporters will likely see this as City trying to rewrite the rulebook because they no longer hold the monopoly on progress. The legal manoeuvring may win headlines, but in football terms, it feels like a distraction from the pitch — and perhaps a sign that pressure is mounting in more ways than one at the Etihad.