Manchester City, one of England’s premier football clubs, has recently been fined £2 million by the English PremierLeague (EPL) for repeatedly starting matches late. This development raises important questions regarding the appropriateness of the fine, its impact on the club’s finances, and the broader implications for financial regulation in football. Whilst £2 million may seem like a large amount to some, is it more than just an inconvenience to the owners?

This article explores whether the fine is an effective deterrent, evaluates Manchester City's adherence to rules, and considers the role of the Football Association (FA) in enforcing discipline. With a Financial Fair Play (FFP) hearing against the club on the horizon, are we seeing a newfound and flagrant disregard for regulations by Manchester City?

The Fine and Its Appropriateness

The £2 million fine imposed on Manchester City has sparked considerable debate regarding its efficacy and fairness. To determine the appropriateness of this penalty, it is essential to consider the context and precedents for such fines in professional sports.

Manchester City’s fine is relatively modest compared to its revenue and overall financial status. The club’s revenue for the 2022-2023 season was approximately £650 million,[1] making the fine a small fraction of its annual earnings. In comparison, other major fines in the sports industry, such as the €300,000 fine imposed on Juventus for match-fixing,[2] or the$200 million fine against FIFA for corruption,[3] suggest that football’s financial penalties can vary significantly in scale and impact.

Kessler in Financial Penalties in Sports: A Comparative Study[4] suggests penalties should be proportionate to both the severity of the breach and the financial capacity of the entity involved. Given Manchester City's vast resources, a £2 million fine might not serve as a substantial deterrent, which raises questions about its effectiveness.

Financial Impact on Manchester City

The financial capacity of Manchester City's owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), suggests that the £2 million fine may not have a significant impact on the club's overall financial health.ADUG, with its substantial investment portfolio, has the financial means to absorb such penalties without substantial disruption.

Harris and Hargrove in The Economics of Sports Fines and Penalties [5] argued that fines should be calibrated to affect an organisation’s budgetary decisions meaningfully. The fine imposed on Manchester City might therefore be viewed as insufficient to influence its behaviour given its robust financial backing.

The Timing of Matches and Rule Compliance

Manchester City’s repeated delays in commencing EPL matches raise concerns about its adherence to regulations and broader implications for fair play. The question arises whether such behaviour reflects a pattern of arrogance and disregard for rules or if it is a result of logistical challenges.

If the penalty enforced by a referee at the commencement of each half of the match was for the play to commence without the presence of Manchester City on the field of play, one would surmise that ManchesterCity would treat the penalty with a little more seriousness and deter further infractions.

The FA and EPL guidelines stipulate strict adherence to match timings to ensure fair competition. Persistent delays disrupt the schedule, inconvenience fans, and potentially impact other teams.The FA’s role includes maintaining the integrity of the competition, and repeated infractions by a club of Manchester City's stature warrant stringent enforcement of rules or a change of the rules.

As stated by Green and Smith in RegulatingFootball: Compliance and Enforcement, [6] consistent rule breaches by high-profile clubs can undermine the regulatory framework of sports leagues and diminish public confidence in governance structures.

The FA’s Enforcement and Penalties

The FA's response to Manchester City's infractions has been criticised as lacking in rigour. This raises the broader question of why the FA does not impose more severe penalties. The FA’s approach often aims to balance punitive measures with the practicalities of maintaining league operations and preserving the commercial interests of the sport.

Potential penalties for breaches of the FFP rules, which have been a point of contention for Manchester City, include hefty fines, transfer bans, or even exclusion from competitions. FFP regulations are designed to ensure that clubs operate within their financial means and maintain financial stability.

Williams and Jones in The Enforcement ofFinancial Fair Play Regulations in European Football [7] highlight that while fines and bans are standard penalties, the effectiveness of these measures in changing club behaviour depends significantly on their severity and the club’s financial position.

Relegation as a Penalty

Relegation is a severe penalty that can be considered for consistent and severe breaches of league rules. It serves as a drastic measure to enforce discipline and ensure adherence to regulations. However, relegating Manchester City for late kick-offs might be seen as disproportionate given the nature of the offense.

In Disciplinary Measures in Sports: TheCase for Relegation by Anderson and Thompson, [8] the authors argue that relegation should be reserved for breaches that fundamentally undermine the competition’s integrity or involve severe financial misconduct. Late kick-offs, while disruptive, might not meet the threshold for such an extreme penalty.

Conclusion

The £2 million fine imposed on ManchesterCity for late match kick-offs, while significant, may not sufficiently impact the club’s financial stability due to their substantial resources. The fine’s effectiveness as a deterrent is questionable given the club’s ability to absorb such costs. The FA’s relatively lenient approach and the potential for more severe penalties, including relegation or commencing games without the opposition, highlight ongoing challenges in enforcing sports regulations.

Further research and analysis are needed to determine the optimal balance between punitive measures and ensuring fair playin football. The evolving nature of financial regulations in sports necessitates ongoing scrutiny to maintain the integrity of the competition and ensure that all clubs adhere to established rules. Sports regulators should also reflect on the effectiveness of deterrents of a more punitive nature to drive the right behaviours and stop a level of arrogance and flagrant disregard for sport.

‍

Written by Peter Paradise - formerly the Head of Projects at Herbert Smith Freehills

[1]           Deloitte Football Money League 2023

[2]           https://www.reuters.com/article/sports/soccer/juventus-fined-over-second-match-fixing-probe-idUSL1882409/

[3]           https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/sports/soccer/fifa-justice-department.html

[4]           Kessler,S. (2021). Financial Penalties in Sports: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press.

[5]           Harris, M., & Hargrove, T. (2020). The Economics ofSports Fines and Penalties. Oxford University Press.

[6]           Green, D., & Smith, L. (2022). Regulating Football:Compliance and Enforcement. Palgrave Macmillan.

[7]           Williams, A., & Jones, P. (2023). The Enforcement ofFinancial Fair Play Regulations in European Football. Springer.

[8]           Anderson, R., &Thompson, J. (2021). Disciplinary Measures in Sports: The Case forRelegation. Routledge.

‍