Man City and Premier League reach settlement over APT rules case

Manchester City have released a statement having reached a settlement over their APT rules case with the Premier League.

The Citizens were involved in a dispute with the top-flight’s governing body over third-party transaction rules.

Getty

City saw proposed deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank blocked in 2023, leading to a legal battle around what the club deemed to be unlawful Associated Party Transaction [APT] rules.

In September 2024, a tribunal agreed with City’s claim and highlighted three areas that they deemed to be unlawful.

It led to the Premier League modifying the relevant rule as opposed to scrapping it.

And 12 months on from the tribunal, City and the Premier League have reached an agreement, with Pep Guardiola’s men accepting that the rules were valid and binding as part of their settlement.

talkSPORT understands that City are now set to complete a lucrative sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways.

What have Man City said about the settlement?

A Citizens club statement read: “The Premier League and Manchester City FC have reached a settlement in relation to the arbitration commenced by the club earlier this year concerning the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) Rules and as a result the parties have agreed to terminate the proceedings.

“This settlement brings an end to the dispute between the parties regarding the APT Rules.

“As part of the settlement, Manchester City accepts that the current APT Rules are valid and binding.  

“It has been agreed that neither the Premier League nor the club will be making any further comment about the matter.”

The settlement comes just three months after City accepted a series of sanctions relating to kick-off and restart obligations, which saw them fined £1.08million.

Getty

For City, though, they are still awaiting a verdict over their alleged Financial Fair Play breaches.

What does the APT rules case settlement mean?

While both parties have reached a settlement, both City and the Premier League believe they have come out on top.

Given his explanation, talkSPORT’s chief football correspondent Alex Crook said: “I think probably both sides have claimed some kind of victory.

“I think first and foremost, it’s important to stress this is not related to the 115 charges that still hang over Manchester City.

“Because already my phone’s been red hot with people saying, ‘Does this mean that the City are off the hook for those charges? Have they been cleared?’

“We’re still awaiting a decision on that, this is a separate case as you say, it revolves around the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction rules.

Getty

“And I think the Premier League will see this as a victory.

“It follows Manchester City winning a legal challenge, deeming rules which were originally brought in, actually following the Saudi takeover of Newcastle void and unenforceable.

“The Premier League at that stage decided to amend, not completely rewrite the rules.

“City challenged again with the same independent panel, but this seems to be basically Manchester City backing away from that challenge, which is why I think the Premier League will claim it as a victory for themselves.

“You could also see, I guess, as a bit of an olive branch from Manchester City to the Premier League ahead of those 115 charges being heard and a verdict being delivered on those.

“So fascinating stuff, it’s a very short statement that Manchester City have released. only three paragraphs long, the final paragraph says it’s been agreed – neither the Premier League nor the club will be making any further comment about the matter.

“So you’re not going to see either side release any statements claiming that they’ve won.

“And I think this is part of the problem with the whole process when it comes to the Premier League.

“And it was something I pushed Richard Masters on when I attended the launch ahead of the new season in Liverpool last month.

“Why is everything everything seemingly so clandestine when it comes to rulings? And he didn’t really answer.

“He just said, ‘That’s the process to agree that no party can speak publicly,’ but it does leave quite a bit of room for interpretation, doesn’t it?”