The APT rules aim to ensure that commercial agreements with entities connected to a club's ownership are reflective of fair market value. This case is distinct from an ongoing hearing in which City is contesting 115 charges related to alleged violations of Premier League financial regulations.
On Monday, the Premier League announced that City had been "unsuccessful in the majority of (their) challenge," with the tribunal affirming the necessity of the APT rules and their alignment with a legitimate objective. However, City countered with a statement asserting that the tribunal deemed the APT rules "unlawful" and accused the league of abusing its dominant position under competition law.
The Premier League maintained that the tribunal upheld the validity of the regulations, emphasizing their importance in enforcing profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
The league noted that the tribunal concurred that transactions not reflecting fair market value could distort competition within the league. Additionally, the panel dismissed City's claim that the rules were intended to discriminate against clubs owned by Gulf region investors.
The Premier League indicated that the panel ruled in favor of City in "two respects only" — determining that shareholder loans should not be excluded from APT rules and that a "limited number of amendments" made to the APT rules should not be retained.
Manchester City stated that the panel recognized the APT rules as "structurally unfair" and set aside specific Premier League decisions regarding the fair market value of two transactions involving the club.