Table of Contents
Manchester City and the Premier League have ended their arbitration fight over the Associated Party Transaction rules. The short version: both sides terminated proceedings and City have accepted that the current APT rules are valid and binding. The longer version explains why this is significant for sponsorship money, for competitive balance, and for the League’s ability to write and enforce its own rules.
First, the essentials
APT rules govern commercial deals with “associated” companies. In plain terms, they ask whether a club’s sponsorship from a related party is priced at something like fair market value. The League first wrote them in December 2021, updated them in March and November 2024, then defended those updates after a series of legal blows last year. City have now dropped their fresh challenge and accepted the current framework. The case is over. The rules stand.
Two critical clarifiers:
- This settlement is separate from City’s long-running case over more than 100 alleged rule breaches, which still awaits a decision. The APT dispute has no bearing on that verdict.
- The end of the fight clears the way for City to complete a new Etihad sponsorship agreement that had been stuck in the system. That is one reason rival clubs are paying attention.
Why the settlement is “significant”
1) Regulatory authority survives.
A worst-case outcome for the League would have been a courtroom precedent that clipped its power to police club-owner related deals. Instead, the League keeps its framework in place, with City accepting it as valid. That avoids a decision that might have chilled future rule-making.
2) Commercial firepower can move again.
City can now proceed with an Etihad renewal. When the club’s principal partnership grows, commercial revenues rise, and spending headroom under spending rules expands. Competitors worry that state-linked clubs will find fewer hurdles so long as they can evidence premium, “bespoke” value. That is the fear you hear privately from recruitment chiefs at other clubs.
3) The money question shifts to valuation, not legality.
With the rules accepted as valid, the argument moves to how the League benchmarks fair market value and how “associated” is defined. Those are technical fights, but they decide whether a deal is £30m or £60m per season.
4) The optics matter.
Ending a public scrap reduces uncertainty for broadcast partners and sponsors. It also lowers the political temperature while everyone waits for the separate 115-charges ruling. In that sense, this is a de-escalation that suits both sides.
How the dispute started, in one page
| Date | What happened | Why it mattered |
| Dec 2021 | PL introduces APT and Fair Market Value rules after Newcastle’s takeover. | Creates a baseline to check owner-linked sponsorships for market reasonableness. |
| 2023 | PL blocks or questions City deals with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank. | Sparks City’s first legal challenge. |
| Oct 7, 2024 | Tribunal finds parts of the old APT rules unlawful and sets aside PL decisions on two City deals. | A partial City win. League responds by amending the rules. |
| Nov 2024 | Clubs vote through new APT rules. | League says new rules fix the issues. |
| Feb 14, 2025 | Tribunal says the old APT rules as a whole are unenforceable, but stresses the new rules remain in force. | Legal housekeeping that removes the old rulebook, without touching the new one. ( |
| Feb 2025 | City launches a new arbitration against the revised rules. | The fight restarts, hearing slated for autumn 2025. |
| Sep 8–9, 2025 | Settlement. Proceedings terminated. City accepts the current rules are valid and binding. | Case closed. Rules stand. |
What actually changed in the rules along the way
A lot of reporting has blurred “old” and “new.” The distinctions matter.
| Issue | Old rulebook outcome | Where things landed |
| Treatment of shareholder loans | City argued the approach was unlawful. Tribunal agreed certain provisions were unlawful. | New rules incorporate shareholder loans within the APT/“fair value” oversight. |
| Transparency of FMV benchmarking | City argued the process was procedurally unfair. Tribunal criticised opacity. | The League published a summary explainer and codified processes alongside the 2024–25 updates. |
| Status of the old APT rules | Tribunal later declared the old set unenforceable as a whole. | Clubs had already voted in new rules that the League said remained valid. |
| Legal challenge to the new rules | City filed a second case in 2025. | Now settled. City accepts the current rules as valid. |
What the settlement changes from today
For Manchester City
They get clarity and, more importantly, a green light to finalise an Etihad renewal that had been stalled. That should strengthen commercial revenues and, by extension, spending capacity under profitability and sustainability rules. City also reduce legal noise ahead of the separate disciplinary verdict.
For the Premier League
The competition keeps its rule-making authority intact. It avoids a potentially damaging award that could have constrained future regulation of owner-linked money. With the summary explainer and the 2024 updates, the League can say the system is clearer and more defensible.
For rival clubs
There is relief that the framework did not collapse, mixed with anxiety that deep-pocketed or state-linked clubs will still push valuations to the ceiling. Several reports frame this as a “win-win” that lets City’s commercial machine run a little hotter while the League keeps rules on paper. That duality will define the next few windows.
What the rules are trying to police, in human terms
People get lost in acronyms. Here is the simple version I work with.
- If a club’s owner has a close relationship with a sponsor, the League asks whether the price resembles what an unconnected buyer would pay.
- If the price looks significantly higher, the League can adjust the value used for compliance and spending calculations.
- The fight has always been about the grey areas. Sponsorships are not commodities. They are bespoke. You can find “comparables,” but context can justify premiums. That is where City have argued, with some success, that their scale and global reach merit higher numbers than rivals prefer to accept.
What to watch next
| Question | Why it matters |
| How the League prices City’s Etihad deal under the “fair value” test | It will be the first big application after the settlement and an immediate bellwether for how strict or permissive the system feels. |
| Whether other owner-linked clubs push fresh deals | Expect movement at clubs with sovereign or quasi-sovereign links. That is the ripple effect rivals fear. |
| The separate 115-charges decision | Whatever happens here will dwarf today’s news in sporting terms. But the settlement removes one distracting legal front. |
The bigger picture, in three short points
The League avoided a precedent it did not want. The settlement prevents a ruling that might have rewritten the limits of domestic sports governance. In a country where competition law is often used to test sports rules, keeping this out of a final award is not trivial.
City can monetise the on-field success with fewer procedural roadblocks. That is true whether you like it or not. The club’s commercial scale now has a clearer pathway into the accounts.
The fairness debate moves, it does not end. Fair market value in football is not a static chart. It is negotiated context. The League’s summary and the newer rules try to structure that negotiation. The next big sponsorship will show where the centre of gravity really sits.
APT rules vs what most fans think they are
| Common belief | Reality under the current PL system |
| “City can now sign any deal at any price.” | No. The League still assesses associated-party deals for fair market value and can adjust what counts for compliance, even if a contract number is higher. The club accepted that framework. |
| “The rules were struck down.” | Only the old rules were declared unenforceable. Clubs had already voted through new rules in Nov 2024 that the League says are valid and in force. The settlement ends City’s challenge to those new rules. |
| “This clears City on the 115 charges.” | Different case entirely. Still pending. |
Timeline graphic you can keep handy
| Date | Event |
| Dec 2021 | APT/FMVs first introduced. |
| Oct 7, 2024 | Tribunal finds parts of old APT rules unlawful; PL decisions on two City deals set aside. |
| Nov 2024 | Clubs pass new APT rules. |
| Feb 14, 2025 | Tribunal says old rules unenforceable as a whole. League stresses new rules remain in force. |
| Feb 2025 | City files second case against the new rules. |
| Sep 8–9, 2025 | Settlement. Proceedings terminated. City accepts current rules are valid. |
I see two truths sitting side by side. The Premier League kept its rulebook intact, which matters for governance. Manchester City can now pursue the Etihad renewal inside a process they believe they can satisfy, which matters for money and competitive pressure. The real test will be the first valuation call after this truce. If the number lands near City’s view, others will say the rules exist more on paper than in restraint. If the number is trimmed, the League will argue it has both process and teeth. Either way, the fight has moved from the courtroom to the spreadsheet. That is progress of a sort.