The Premier League’s impossible predicament – The Lawyer

As the dust settles on reports that the Premier League has won its case against Manchester City, attention is turning to what punishment could await the club.

It is unclear what stage the proceedings are at. Reporting suggests that the club, defended by Clifford Chance, has been found liable, but whether or not a sanction hearing has taken place is unclear.

Over the weekend, Manchester City’s chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak reiterated the club’s previous position, that the process is ongoing and that his team’s “confidence and intent in proving the Club’s innocence is just as strong as when this began.”

But, assuming Friday’s reporting is true, the Premier League and its lawyers at Bird & Bird may now find themselves in a conundrum: what punishment to pursue?

Potential sanctions for City have been thrown around wildly, from massive points deductions to forcing the owners to sell to complete expulsion from England’s football pyramid.

The Premier League will need to advocate for what it wants the sanction to be. Although it will be ultimately be decided by the tribunal, made up of two lawyers and an accountant, the trio will take submissions from both the Premier League and City.

If past cases are anything to go by, tribunals often arrive at a punishment somewhere in the middle between what both sides argue for. That was the case in previous financial cases against Everton, Nottingham Forest and Leicester City.

So when it comes to deciding what they think is appropriate, there are two problems for the Premier League.

First, there is essentially no precedent for the facts of this case. The Premier League’s rules themselves provide an extremely broad basis for sanction, and the wrongdoing by clubs like Everton and Nottingham Forest was miniscule compared to the charges levelled against City. While their punishments can be used as a guide, they are not enormously helpful.

For the lawyers on both sides, they will need to get creative in how they justify the sanctions they propose. They may seek to draw on cases from other sports, such as the Saracens decision in 2019, or the Melbourne Storm in 2010. But it could be a tough gig.

The second problem is that there are few guidelines in the rules for what the Premier League itself should consider when deciding what sanction to advocate for.

Frankly, there may be a large degree of animosity towards City from within the Premier League team itself. If reports are true that the club tried to ‘drop anchor’ and make these proceedings as difficult as possible, then there may be a desire to go all in on a punishment.

Nevertheless, the executive has a duty to act in the best interests of the League and its clubs. In these disciplinary cases, the Premier League acts as prosecutor, and while it is not restricted by the same guidelines that a criminal prosecutor might be, it is not a private claimant simply seeking the biggest possible win.

Technically speaking, the rules in place at the time the charges were brought in early 2023 only give Manchester City, not the Premier League, the right to place mitigating factors before the commission when considering sanction. The 2026/27 version of the rules allows both sides to do so, and it is not entirely clear which rules apply for this moment.

The rules do not actually ask for the two sides to advocate for a position, either, instead suggesting that they should just place aggravating and mitigating factors in front of the panel. Theoretically, the League could decide to sit this out. All of this would be unlikely though – it would fly in the face of how every other financial case has been run in the past few years, in which both sides have argued for a particular punishment.

Putting the above problems together gives the Premier League an awful headache.

On the one hand, the punishment needs to fit what may prove to be deliberate financial wrongdoing that has allowed the team to become the most successful club over the last 15 years. Fans and many clubs are baying for blood. Too weak a position and not only will it appear unjust, but the League will have to deal with the anger and disdain of the clubs and fans.

The judgment’s details will prove crucial, but if it is true they the club has systematically lied and cheated its way to the top over a prolonged period, then the Premier League’s lead barrister, Andrew Hunter KC (pictured), could certainly attempt an argument for an extreme punishment, such as the club’s complete expulsion from the Premier League. The fact that the rules do actually provide for such an extreme penalty means that the Premier League and their clubs envisaged that some conduct could be bad enough to justify expulsion.

On the other hand, while the popular path may be to seek an incredibly harsh penalty, the Premier League will be asking itself: is that really in the best interests of the League?

City’s success has helped grow the Premier League’s brand internationally, and has provided significant investment for Manchester itself. Perhaps more importantly, City is a nearly 150 year old club beloved by millions of fans across the world and employing hundreds of people. Advocate for too harsh a penalty and it could have consequences far beyond what happens on the pitch, affecting people who have done no wrong.

The League’s lawyers will have a key role in guiding their client on what punishment they may be able to argue for, but the decision is ultimately a political, not a legal, one, making it all the more open to contest. No matter what path it takes, the Premier League will likely face intense criticism.

Spare a thought for the tribunal and appeal panel here too. Of course, they could end up ignoring both sides and going for something extremely harsh or very soft. But they will be aware that they have one of the most consequential decisions in the history of English sport on their shoulders.