Manchester City have launched a fresh legal challenge against the Premier League's amended Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, claiming they continue to discriminate against certain clubs.
The four-time consecutive champions have submitted a comprehensive 88-page document attacking the revised regulations, reports the Daily Mail.
This marks City's second legal assault on the APT rules, following their victory last year when a tribunal ruled the original regulations contravened competition law.
Despite numerous warnings from City, Premier League clubs voted 16-4 in November to amend rather than rewrite the rules.
Manchester City have launched a fresh legal challenge against the Premier League's amended Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, claiming they continue to discriminate against certain clubs
GETTY
The original APT regulations were introduced following the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, designed to prevent clubs from signing inflated commercial deals with firms linked to their owners.
City's expensively-assembled legal team successfully challenged these rules last year.
The same tribunal panel that sided with the club on their original complaint will rule on this new challenge.
In February, the panel branded the original rules "void and unenforceable" in their entirety, despite the Premier League's interpretation that only certain sections needed amendment.
City's argument against the amended rules is two-fold. They claim the revised regulations still discriminate because shareholder loans receive preferential treatment.
JUST IN:Travis Kelce 'sidelining relationship with Taylor Swift' after 'blaming her for NFL struggles'
Man City and the Premier League are locked in a legal battle separate to the one relating to sponsorship rules
PAThe amended rules allowed clubs to convert shareholder loans into equity during a grace period ending in January.
City argue that loans not converted are subject to unfair assessment, with clubs able to retain loans without paying fair market value interest.
They claim this "differential treatment" means the rule changes "do not eliminate but on the contrary perpetuate the discriminatory and distortive treatment previously found by the tribunal".
City highlight specific examples of clubs benefiting from shareholder loans in their legal documents.
They point out that Arsenal received approximately £259m in 2022-23, while Brighton benefitted from shareholder loans of around £406.5m in 2021/2022.
READ MORE:Luke Littler hits back at crowd in 'uncharacteristic' Premier League defeat - 'He doesn't care'
Everton took £450m in 2022-23, according to City's submission. Leicester received £265m in 2021-22.
City's legal team argues these examples demonstrate how the current rules benefit certain clubs, rather than themselves.
Should City succeed in this second legal challenge, it would throw the Premier League's financial rules into disarray.
Clubs would also be hit with another hefty legal bill.
A victory would send the Premier League back to the drawing board and pile pressure on chief executive Richard Masters.
LATEST SPORTS NEWS:
- Tottenham boss Ange Postecoglou explains controversial gesture towards own fans after narrow Chelsea defeat
- Jose Mourinho's maddest moments after Fenerbahce boss grabbed nose of rival manager with ban set to follow
- Ronnie O'Sullivan, 49, makes heartbreaking admission and reveals regret ahead of World Snooker Championship
It would also see clubs revert to the pre-2021 system, which did not include APT rules.
Instead, there were less rigorous regulations on deals with 'related parties'.
The Premier League maintains that the amended rules remain "valid and enforceable" despite the tribunal's previous ruling.
The legal challenge is separate from the 130 charges brought against City by the Premier League for alleged breaches of financial rules.
Man City are the reigning Premier League champions, having won the last four league titles
PA
However, City are using the same legal team to represent themselves in both cases.
City's first challenge came after a wide-ranging deal with Etihad was blocked by the Premier League.
The current case focuses specifically on the fairness of the amended APT regulations rather than the broader financial conduct allegations.
The outcome could significantly impact how club ownership financing is regulated in English football.
