HOW MANY POINTS?

And so after a delay that made it seem as though VARs operated at the speed of light, we finally have the heavily redacted decision of the anonymised Disciplinary Commission in the Premier League’s proceedings against Manchester City FC.[1]  By now, you will have had a chance to read the decision, but if not, here it is:

Premier League v Manchester City FC – Redacted Core Decision

A Participant Club has two core duties, to act with the utmost good faith and to co-operate with any investigation by its Regulator.  City breached those two duties on a breathtaking scale.  For example the Commission found:

“a) That evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses called to give evidence on behalf of the Club was false in a number of key respects, and

b) That certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew to be untrue and so had been dishonest.”[2]

And that “the Club had committed ‘additional and perhaps more egregious acts of non-cooperation’ by making inaccurate, dishonest and/or misleading statements when responding to questions from the PL about its financial arrangements in the course of its investigation.”[3]

Rather than get into the weeds of indignation and outrage or call for City to be relegated to National League North, I thought that it might be more informative to signpost the legal principles which the Commission will follow in determining the sanctions to be imposed.

There are no guidelines or precedents for such industrial scale cheating.  Some may point to the recent litigation involving Chelsea FC and multiple breaches of the regulations relating to transfers over the course of many seasons during the Abramovich era but that was a very different case.  Chelsea self-reported, co-operated from first to last and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

In contrast, these proceedings were “extremely hard fought” and the “issues were fiercely contested…”[4] So none of the mitigation that was available to Chelsea is available to City: in fact it is difficult to identify any mitigation at all.

A particularly relevant decision for the Commission to consider will, I anticipate, be the case of Everton FC v The Premier League (February 2024). This was an appeal by Everton against a sanction of an immediate 10-point deduction imposed by a PL Commission following its finding that Everton had breached the PL’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (‘PSR’).  The breach related to a single season and was admitted.  At first instance the amount was in dispute; on appeal it was not. The Appeal Board chaired by Sir Gary Hickinbottom set aside the decision of the PL Commission and imposed an immediate 6-point deduction.

In the course of its judgment the Appeal Board made the following observations and findings:

• It was important that effective sanctions are imposed where there is a breach.
• Only where the level of cooperation is exceptional would it be a mitigating circumstance.
• The expected level of cooperation with the PL does not in itself reduce culpability and is not mitigation. Something over and above that is required: something exceptional.
• The effect of sanction upon the Club or its fans will generally have little or no force by way of mitigation.
• Rules should serve four purposes, namely (i) to punish the club for the breach, (ii) to vindicate other clubs which had not engaged in conduct that breached the P&S Rules, (iii) to deter future breaches of the P&S Rules, and (iv) to restore/preserve public confidence.
• Punishment is far less important than maintaining the integrity of the competition and thus the sport of football, with deterrence being an important overlapping aim.
• A fine may have little impact on a club with a wealthy owner.

So if a six point deduction is the appropriate sporting sanction for a single breach in a single season where the breach was admitted, what is the likely penalty for multiple breaches over the course of nine seasons compounded by further breaches for non-cooperation?

One thing is certain; it’s going to be huge.

[1] It should be noted that City have indicated their intention to appeal; it is unclear whether and if so how this will affect the timing etc of the sanctions hearing.

[2] Paragraph 29

[3] Paragraph 158

[4] Paragraph 9