Simon Leaf, Partner and Head of the Sports group, provided commentary after Manchester City's legal challenge against Premier League's Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules.
Describing the result as a ''score-draw'', Simon commented, ''It's hard to argue that Man City haven't won. Maybe you'd say they've won on penalties after extra time, because quite conceivably the Premier League can point to a lot of the points in this decision that support the development of its rules, and the rules themselves.''
''It is a relatively minor issue that has been picked up by this panel, which is undoubtedly embarrassing but by no means the end of the world for the Premier League.
“My understanding is that Man City were seeking to challenge the rules as a whole, and ultimately, one suspects that what a more decisive victory would have looked like from their perspective would have been the rules being completely scrapped.
''Where we've ended up is that actually we're likely to see a broader set of rules (to include shareholder loans). The panel has said the rules didn't go far enough and now need to be expanded to cover this particular part of financing.
"Whilst the Premier League will undeniably be embarrassed by the findings that its own rules have been found to not only violate UK competition law but also violate the requirements of procedural fairness, they will arguably be relieved that the vast majority of the rulebook has been found to be lawful - especially following the criticism the rules faced in light of the recent Leicester case.
"In short, to City's frustration, I would expect the majority of the APT regulations to remain intact."
Speaking to the Daily Mail, Simon also commented that, “Ultimately it is not going to take much to fix the rules and bring them up to scratch, but it will need the willingness of a majority of 14 clubs to vote through that change.
“Ultimately, City are right that they have won on elements of the case but also the Premier League is right because the body of rules as a whole, and the principles behind the rules more importantly, have been shown to be lawful. (The Premier League) just hasn’t gone as far as they should have done in implementing the rules.
Reiterating the point to ESPN that, "It's not quite as clear-cut as one side being able to claim victory over the other'', Simon also explained, ''Competition law is generally concerned about ensuring proportionality and fairness when those in a dominant position, like the Premier League, make decisions, and the Panel here found that by not considering shareholder loans within the APT rules, the Premier League is in breach of the law.”
On shareholder loans, Simon leaf commented "These kind of loans are commonplace in football,", ''and they are intended to ensure clubs can keep paying wages and basically keep the lights on, so it would be a significant change for them to be considered within the APT rules, and something that may ultimately prove to be problematic for many of the club's rivals that rely heavily on this type of funding.
''It shouldn't change the value of these deals, but it maybe makes it slightly easier for the clubs to try to challenge a Premier League finding that a deal was not undertaken at fair market value, because clubs will now effectively see the Premier League's 'working-out' at an earlier stage in the process.''
Speaking on the possibility of loans being converted to equity in the club, Simon explained, ''That has its own legal challenges. When it comes to issuing shares, there may be other shareholders that also have rights - what are commonly known as pre-emption rights - therefore also have the ability to put more money in to get more shares.''
Speaking to the BBC, Simon suggested, "Going forwards, it is difficult to envisage an appeal by either side here because ultimately each party can justifiably come out of this action claiming a relative degree of success. I think it’s one of those odd situations where both sides can claim victory,"
"Man City can claim victory in the sense that they have been proved right, that yes, generally speaking the rules have been found to be unlawful. On the other side, the Premier League will say that these are two very narrow elements of the rules.
"It’s probably Man City's rivals that are the biggest losers here.
"What the panel have confirmed is that by not including shareholder loans in the make-up and the consideration of the APT transaction as part of the APT rules, that's how the rules didn't comply with the law.
"Ironically the rules that Man City were looking to challenge didn't go far enough in the fact that they excluded these shareholder loans. What that means is that the clubs that are indebted to their owners, their shareholders, they will be scratching their heads and wondering what to do next. Actually, it will now be harder for those clubs to comply with the rules going forward once those rules are changed.
"I don't think this will have too much of a direct impact but this will probably give Manchester City a slight bounce because they've been found to be correct in a couple of narrow areas, but equally, I think the Premier League will be relieved, especially after the recent Leicester decision where their rulebook was heavily criticised by an esteemed panel.
"What we're seeing increasingly at the moment is competition law being used as a sword rather than a shield. People are using competition law in a way to go after the governing bodies and the regulators and really try to challenge the rules. Expect to see more of that. We even saw it last week in the Diarra case again, another completion law case.
''What this shows is that participants in the world of sport are increasingly not afraid to take on governing bodies and rights-holders.''
Related coverage
Yahoo News
ESPN
BBC Sport
Daily Mail Online
Mirror Online
Liverpool Echo
City A.M.
Mirror Online