Bottom line on this case? Disguising owner investment as sponsorship by a related company doesn't sound a particularly good thing, but does the case really go to the anti-competitive rules against owner investment that make related party sponsorship a way round those unfair rules?
It should be fairly easy to show that the rules were designed to restrict new entrants to a cartel, and not about financial sustainability when prospective owners could buy clubs with money they hadn't got and load the club with debt while personally taking money out of revenue after servicing the debt (and with some overvalued sponsorship - e.g. Chevrolet).
It should be fairly easy to show that the rules were designed to restrict new entrants to a cartel, and not about financial sustainability when prospective owners could buy clubs with money they hadn't got and load the club with debt while personally taking money out of revenue after servicing the debt (and with some overvalued sponsorship - e.g. Chevrolet).
Last edited: