Rival Premier League clubs now fear massive Newcastle United ‘market-busting deals’ after dispute settled | OneFootball

After Monday brought news of the dispute having been settled by the Premier League with Manchester City, rival Premier League clubs now fear massive Newcastle United ‘market-busting deals’.

Martyn Ziegler is Chief Sports Reporter at The Times and he has now reported (see below) on this likelihood.

Manchester City now appear to have got the go ahead for a new huge deal with Etihad, which could be worth as much as £1billion.

Rival Premier League clubs clearly now worried that Newcastle United could potentially do the same.

The man from The Times has especially referenced ‘the judgment of a heavyweight legal panel in an initial arbitration challenge brought by Manchester City last year’, Martyn Ziegler quoting what that independent legal panel stated:

Indeed, the panel had been impressed by a sponsorship expert “who gave evidence of the long-term benefits of the partnership between Etihad and a club owned by a senior figure in the same country, namely His Highness Sheikh Mansour, and pointed out that a sponsorship deal is not a homogenised product like milk”.

Another pointed out that “some sponsors may wish to pay a premium because they wish to benefit from a geographical connection between them and the rights to be sponsored” and that “brands based in Abu Dhabi wish to affiliate themselves with MCFC”.

With regard to Newcastle United, this has also long been argued as well.

That is, there is a strong argument as to the value of a sponsorship deal being potentially far higher to the sponsor, if that sponsor operates in the same geographical and/or commercial areas as the owners of the football club. That existing relationships, both commercial and otherwise, can be seen as potentially far more valuable to all of those involved, as opposed to having a sponsor that isn’t connected whatsoever, whether by location and/or existing relationships.

So basically, if Manchester City and Etihad is going to be waved through as a special exception on this kind of basis, that their special circumstances and existing relationship/connection means a far higher value can be attached to the deal, as opposed to with a random other sponsor….then why not the same for Newcastle United?

Martyn Ziegler of The Times reporting – 8 September 2025:

The settlement of the legal dispute between the Premier League and Manchester City removes the threat of rules around sponsorship deals being declared completely unlawful — but is set to mean the club can finally sign a huge new deal with their main sponsors, Etihad.

So although there will be a sigh of relief from rival clubs who feared that there would be a total free-for-all if the associated party transaction (APT) rules had to be abandoned, there is still widespread concern about the future.

The APT rules state all commercial and player deals between related parties have to be approved as being of fair market value, but there is a concern that the settlement means City — and other state-connected clubs such as Newcastle United, or those club owned by commercial entities with many related business partners — will find it much easier to secure market-busting deals.

For those rival clubs who have to do deals on the open market alone, that could be a severe setback.

However, the Premier League would dispute any suggestion that clubs will find it easier to get deals approved via the fair market value process.

Etihad, Abu Dhabi’s national airline, has been City’s shirt and stadium sponsor since 2009, a year after Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates, bought the club.

The Premier League’s board rejected a bumper new Etihad deal early last year on the basis that it was not “fair market value”, but the judgment of a heavyweight legal panel in an initial arbitration challenge brought by Manchester City last year looks to have opened the way for that to be approved now.

That panel’s ruling stated: “A particular sponsorship agreement is often bespoke to the particular relationship between the sponsor and the club.” It added that the Premier League’s legal argument “does not grapple with the possible bespoke nature of sponsorship agreements”.

So although the Etihad deal will have to go through the fair market value and APT process again, it looks as though the Premier League board will be able to approve it because of its “bespoke nature”.

Indeed, the panel had been impressed by a sponsorship expert “who gave evidence of the long-term benefits of the partnership between Etihad and a club owned by a senior figure in the same country, namely His Highness Sheikh Mansour, and pointed out that a sponsorship deal is not a homogenised product like milk”.

Another pointed out that “some sponsors may wish to pay a premium because they wish to benefit from a geographical connection between them and the rights to be sponsored” and that “brands based in Abu Dhabi wish to affiliate themselves with MCFC”.