Source? If the decisions were correct in the first place then it isn't an indication of bias especially since it still doesn't rule out City not being given enough correct decisions compared to any of the other top 6(I'll get to that).
If you can't provide a source, then I suspect this is the same bath university study conducted by ESPN titled "the luck index" which found Liverpool were the unluckiest team(hmmmm I have an itchy chin all of a sudden) in the PL last season(they still wouldn't have won the league and I challenge us even dropping 1 point given the decisions we had go against us).
However it was not based over the past 8 years only last season and it read like a marketing piece for Liverpool.
If that doesn't make you question the validity of this study alone then you are reaching far too hard to prove your point because for me that takes away all credibility in an instant.
The most penaltys given and least not give would also be at odds with "the hypothetical premier league", which adjusted for correct decisions if VAR was in place. The site might be down at the minute but I remember posting the points difference on one of bluemoon's threads on this very subject. It found over a 5 year span(up to 2016 I think) only West Ham faired worse than us in the whole PL with points dropped directly from incorrect decisions, I'd imagine penalties would be the type of decisions that result in the greatest swing in points. I believe the guy who ran that site was rag also according some so no bias in favour of City or West Ham.
