AT university one of my friends mocked two others who were doing Management Science (Business Studies to normal people) for their regular use of baffling TLAs – three-letter acronyms.
Unfortunately TLAs have now become a plague on soccer. We’ve all suffered in recent seasons at the very slow and often mind-boggling decisions of VAR (Video Assistant Referees), but at least they relate to the action on the pitch.
Far worse is all the talk about PSR and APT. You may well know that PSR means Profit and Sustainability Rules, even if you are – like me – confused about the methods used to calculate how much debt a club is in, or how much it has over-spent.
But APT? Even when you’re told that it stands for Associated Party Transaction one would hardly understand what that means.
That’s before getting into FMV and EAG and FAB.
WTF? FML. FFS.
My Man.Sci. mates might understand all those TLAs, but it’s doubtful if even they really know what’s going on.
Yet Monday’s verdict into Manchester City’s legal challenge against the Premier League’s APT rules has been subjected to as much scrutiny and analysis by supporters as a ‘Super Sunday’ showdown, albeit with far less insight.
If anything, club bias is exhibited even more strongly on the financial front.
APT, basically, relates to sponsorship deals coming from companies closely related to the club’s owners.
Opinions don’t just vary about such deals, they tend to be at opposite extremes. Former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger coined the term ‘financial doping’ to describe the investment by multi-billionaire club owners – but others argue that if the money is there why shouldn’t owners be allowed to spend it as they see fit?
PSR is supposedly aimed at preventing clubs from going bust due to spending beyond their means, caught up in an inflationary spiral of transfer wars.
However, many contend that they were merely put in place in an attempt to keep down the nouveau riche, clubs with wealthy owners willing to invest – clubs that really aren’t at risk of going bust.
Back in the day you might have been considered something of an oddball know-it-all if you could name the chairman of the club you supported.
Yet plenty of present-day fans are engaged in heated, repeated debates on social media about their respective clubs’ income streams, accounting practices, and the real value of their various sponsorship deals.
Given the narrow nature of several of City’s recent Premier League title wins, ahead of Liverpool in some seasons then Arsenal, it’s surely fair to suggest that any financial impropriety committed would have given them a vital edge.
Supporters have always tended to sneer about any titles ‘won in the boardroom’, i.e. trophies awarded as a consequence of rule breaches by one competitor, leading to points deductions or wins based on technicalities.
Now, though, many are boasting of courtroom ‘victories’. Some supporters not only know who their club’s leading lawyer is, they’re actually displaying banners celebrating his work. Hanging their heads in shame would be too good for the people who made that – with no right of appeal.
That’s right down there with claiming that your club ‘won’ the transfer window.
Clearly many fans were rushing to air their judgment without having read the ruling; after all, the document is 175 pages long.
What’s more, quite a few words, names, and figures were redacted [blacked out] in the version released to the clubs and the public – no doubt the truly interesting, juicy information.
Manchester City’s case was supported, unsurprisingly, by Chelsea and Newcastle United, and also by Everton. Presumably the Toffees were, and are, keen for any potential new owners not to be put off by aspects of the APT regulations.
On the other side were the alleged ‘Red cartel’ of Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester, with Brighton, Spurs, and West Ham also acting as witnesses for the Premier League, for whom there were also supporting statements from Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolves.
For all the spin from both sides, this was probably a score draw – although City are apparently unhappy about the summary sent out by the Premier League.
Fortunate timing meant the Law in Sport Global Summit was taking place in London on Monday and Tuesday.
Simon Leaf, partner and head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told BBC Sport: “Whilst the decision will be embarrassing for the Premier League, because in a couple of narrow areas their rules have been found to be unlawful, generally speaking the decision confirms that the vast majority of the APT rules are indeed lawful.
“Therefore whilst we can expect to see some changes to the rules going forwards, on the whole this isn’t a resounding victory for Manchester City by any stretch of the imagination.”
Depending on your perspective/ allegiance, you could pick out the words “embarrassing” and “unlawful” to damn the Premier League – or you could run with the line that “the vast majority of APT rules are indeed lawful.”
Po-tay-to, po-ta-to.
There’s a certain irony that the Premier League seems to have been admonished for “unreasonable” delays of two or three months. After all, City has arguably delayed investigations into its financial affairs for years upon years.
That bigger issue, now amounting to 130 charges from the Premier League against their four-in-a-row champions, remains to be settled
The major change that may come out of City’s APT complaint against the EPL is a clampdown on interest-free loans from owners to clubs, something that Arsenal and Liverpool among others have availed of in recent years.
Will the next TLA debate surround APR?
