Man City Vendetta Could be Bad News for West Ham

Manchester City and the Premier League both claimed victory on Monday after a tribunal ruled that associated party transaction (APT) regulations were unlawful.

In overly simplistic terms, the ruling concerns sponsorship provided by companies associated with football club owners. The general premise is that a rich football club can circumvent Profitability and Sustainability Regulations (PSR) by giving themselves a favourable sponsorship deal above market value as a way of boosting turnover.

In Manchester City’s case, the Abu Dhabi ownership was accused of using other businesses associated with the Abu Dhabi United Group. The tribunal appears to have decided that the loophole found by City was legal; however, the Premier League said it intended to “quickly and effectively” adjust its rulebook to close the loophole.

What does this have to do with West Ham, you might ask? Well, firstly, it appears the Hammers gave evidence against City in the investigation, and secondly, many in the fanbase see Manchester City as the bad guys.

I find this stance somewhat puzzling because we are currently living through a set of regulations intended to prevent a ‘Leicester’ from ever happening again. The Financial Fair Play (FFP) and PSR rules are wolves in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as a rulebook designed to protect clubs from going out of business.

Unfortunately, the reality is that world football is in the process of ring-fencing the traditional top clubs to prevent anyone from competing financially with giants like Manchester United or Real Madrid.

Elite want a closed shop

Say what you will about Roman Abramovich’s takeover at Chelsea, but his investment disrupted the Arsenal/Manchester United duopoly by allowing someone else to compete. This model was followed by Sheikh Mansour ibn Zayed Al Nahyan at Manchester City, enabling two traditional also-rans to give the domestic giants a bloody nose.

However, that’s all changing now. At every turn, loopholes and creative financial thinking are being closed, which will likely result in dominance from Manchester United, Arsenal, and Liverpool within a decade if all goes to plan.

City and Chelsea are already having the rug pulled from beneath their feet and can expect further scrutiny. This will, of course, be done under the illusion of ensuring clubs don’t go out of business. Yet, Manchester City are incredibly wealthy. If their survival were genuinely a concern, they could be asked to provide a bond of £500 million, which could safeguard the club in the event of the worst happening.

That won’t happen because these rules are more about trampling ambition than protecting clubs like Bury.

Therefore, I find it odd to see so many West Ham fans applauding Manchester City being dragged over hot coals. There are repeated cries of “they broke the rules and must be punished” without considering that these same rules could stifle any ambition West Ham might have.

The very rules that could see Manchester City punished are the same ones that will keep West Ham firmly in their place. Our great football club currently has three billionaires on the board, and they are not allowed to spend more than the rules permit. To call for even stricter regulation is the best example of turkeys voting for Christmas that I can remember.