Premier League clubs approve changes to APT rules

Premier League clubs have voted to approve changes to rules governing commercial deals, despite opposition from Manchester City, Newcastle United, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa.

At a meeting in London on Friday, clubs took under 30 minutes to approve the changes to Associated Party Transaction regulations (APTs).

Clubs voted 16 in favour and four against. Manchester City and Aston Villa had both written to rival clubs before the meeting to seek support.

For changes to be approved, a minimum of 14 Premier League clubs needed to vote in favour.

Friday’s vote came after an independent panel found aspects of the Premier League’s rules to be unlawful earlier this year, following a lawsuit instigated by Manchester City.

APT rules were formed by the Premier League to prevent clubs from profiting from commercial or sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners that are deemed above “fair market value”.

The Premier League said the rule changes relate to “integrating the assessment of shareholder loans” and “include the removal of some of the amendments made to APT rules earlier this year”.

“The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at fair market value by virtue of relationships with associated parties,” read a Premier League statement.

Sources have told BBC Sport that representatives from Chelsea and Manchester United both spoke at the meeting before the vote, urging clubs to vote through the changes.

Manchester City’s representative declined to speak.

This will be a major relief for the Premier League, and a blow to City.

Today’s vote was seen as a landmark test of the top-flight’s ability to uphold rules that it claims are crucial in maintaining competitive balance and fairness, by ensuring commercial deals that clubs agree with companies linked to their owners represent fair market value and are not artificially inflated.

Had seven or more clubs voted against the league’s proposed changes and vetoed the amendments, the fear was that state-connected clubs such as Manchester City and Newcastle United could have full scope to secure ever more lucrative sponsorship deals, fuelling wage inflation.

After all, the changes the league was proposing – after a tribunal panel found elements of the APTs were unlawful – will weaken the rules. Clearly 16 clubs were loathe to loosen them even more.

The Premier League may also have been concerned that defeat today could have had an adverse impact on the ongoing case that has seen City face more than 100 charges of alleged financial rule breaches. City deny wrongdoing in a saga that could prove seismic for the club’s future.

However, today’s vote also risks deepening the unprecedented division that is now coming to define a league once known for its unity.

City made clear they felt the amendments are unlawful and insisted no vote should take place before the panel issued a further determination. We now know three clubs agreed with them.

Losing today’s vote may mean City now take the further litigation they were threatening, adding to the league’s already spiralling legal bills and exacerbating the power struggle that the league is having to navigate.

In October, both the Premier League and Manchester City claimed victory after the decision of an arbitration panel over APTs, which seek to ensure sponsorships with companies linked to clubs’ owners represent fair market value and are not artificially inflated.

Manchester City had some of their complaints upheld, with two aspects of the rules deemed unlawful by the tribunal. It said low-interest shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of the rules, and that changes made in February to toughen up the regulations also breached competition law.

After the tribunal, City claimed the rules were “void” and criticised the Premier League’s “misleading” suggestion they could be swiftly amended.

The club threatened further legal action if there was a “knee-jerk reaction”.

But following meetings of its Legal Advisory Group and Financial Controls Advisory Group, the Premier League proposed several amendments before today’s vote in London.

City argued that no vote should have taken place on Friday, while Villa called for a postponement as the “acrimonious back and forth” was “weakening” the Premier League.