Here's my collage of comments culled from this thread and stitched together as a letter of complaint to The Economist - thanks to to all concerned!
Editorial Complaint - Appalling Article about Manchester City FC
To:
letters@economist.com
Sat 30 May at 16:13
Dear Editor,
May I draw your attention to the highlighted sentence in the article copied below and ask how such a disgraceful statement has found its way into your publication?
"In the otherwise sunny story of the Premier League there is one big cloud. In 2023 Manchester City, one of England’s most successful clubs, was charged with well over 100 breaches of the league’s rules. Some of City’s alleged transgressions (all resolutely denied by the club) relate to non-co-operation with league officials. Most deal with failures to accurately report the club’s accounts, thus avoiding “financial fair play” regulations that could have curtailed the spending—over £1.9bn ($2.5bn)—that took City from mediocrity to dominance. In the 14 seasons covered by the charges, Manchester City won seven Premier League titles.
To adjudicate the case the Premier League has employed an independent commission of three anonymous judges. The hearing took place behind closed doors in December 2024. A lengthy judgment is still being prepared. The long wait for a verdict has caused frustration and fuelled conspiracy theories among fans. Chief among them are unsubstantiated suggestions of diplomatic interference (Manchester City are owned by Sheikh Mansour, the vice-president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates).
In recent years Everton and Nottingham Forest have received points deductions (of six and four points respectively) for single breaches of the league’s financial rules. If City were to be found guilty, Premier League rules mean they could face a fine, a points deduction or even expulsion from the league. Given the sheer number of charges, the scale of any potential punishment would almost certainly invite an appeal and legal challenges from the club.
If City are cleared, receive a light punishment or strike a favourable plea bargain, fans and clubs alike will question the sporting integrity of the competition. It is without doubt the most consequential case in English football’s 163-year history.
An initial decision, rumoured for the summer, is unlikely to put the matter to bed. Any sanctions would have to wait until after the inevitable appeal. That could easily take another year. This looks destined to stretch into extra time plus plenty of injury time."
The author claims that if City are cleared (other) clubs will question the sporting integrity of the competition, rather than whether the competition’s administrative body is fit for purpose, which would surely be the correct issue to identify in those circumstances.
If City are cleared, why wouldn't it demonstrate that a process had been properly applied, evidence rigorously examined and finally put to bed this decade long witch hunt by the Premier League with its US-owned club majority who have turned it - via PSR - into what Martin Samuel in 'The Times' has described as a '
protection racket carefully designed to damage specific competitors outside their coterie like Man City and Newcastle'?
The article also contains numerous basic errors, in fact almost every statement made about timing, financial amounts and the tribunal process is wrong. In addition it repeats a completely baseless slur while failing to include any mention of the key CAS judgement in 2020 and concludes with this outrageous claim that the only two options are Man City being found guilty or the process will be found to be lacking integrity.
It saddens me that such material can be found in your long established and reputable magazine and I believe an immediate published apology is in order.
Yours sincerely,
