Why the secrecy around Man City’s FFP case is so damaging

admin31 January 2024Last Update :
Why the secrecy around Man City's FFP case is so damaging

Why the secrecy around Man City’s FFP case is so damaging،

On January 16, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters appeared before a British parliamentary committee and addressed arguably the biggest disciplinary case involving the most successful club in recent English football history: the 115 charges brought against Manchester City which, if proven, could result in the club being stripped of its titles, relegated, fined, prosecuted, tarred, feathered and forced to sit in a corner until the kingdom come.

“A date has been set for this procedure [against Manchester City] but unfortunately I can't tell you when that will happen, but it's progressing,” Masters said. (Fast forward to 1:26 to see this segment.)

– Stream on ESPN+: LaLiga, Bundesliga and more (US)

Now, it's pretty obvious that the Overton Window on what we'll tolerate from those who govern us (or, in this case, the things we love, like football) has changed, but think about it once minute. Manchester City are facing a decision by a three-person independent panel that could have seismic repercussions for English football and the public – who, let's not forget, pay for the whole shebang by buying tickets, merchandise, TV subscriptions, et cetera – – doesn't even have the right to know when the damn thing will happen?

And it's not just that: we also don't know who will be on the panel and judge City's case (although we do know that this guy, like a certain legal Nick Fury, can put it together and can put there, if he wishes). he therefore chooses). We will find out After the audience.

Oh, and while we're at it, consider that the charges cover alleged rule violations dating back to 2009 – before anyone in City's current squad, other than third-choice goalkeeper Scott Carson, even turned professional – and That before they were brought in 11 months ago, the Premier League spent four years investigating the matter.

And, incidentally, after announcing in March 2019 (four months after the investigation actually began) that City were under investigation, the Premier League (and City) went years without telling anyone what was happening, or even if the investigation had been abandoned. (We only found out in the summer of 2021 that it hadn't been abandoned because Her Majesty's Court of Appeal decided it was OK to let us know.

Doesn’t that seem absurd to you? Shouldn't justice be as swift as, you know, fair?

To be clear, I'm not blaming Masters here. In fact, given how clearly he made it clear that he was under a silence order – moments before confirming that a date had been set, he clearly stated, regarding the accusations against City, that he “couldn’t talk about it”. [them] at all” — I'm grateful he even voluntarily announced that a date had been set. After all, he was neither under oath nor, from the footage, under duress in the room.

play

1:11

Guardiola on the future: 'I feel good at Man City'

Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says he still feels good at Manchester City and has time to decide on his future.

No, Masters is a victim here because the lawyers and the legislation have created a situation in which no one involved – neither in the Premier League nor at Manchester City – can say a word about the case, when it might be heard or even by who. . All this for what ? For fear of then finding another lawyer who could convince a judge that by speaking out he might somehow harm the case, and we found ourselves in the equivalent of a commission independent of a mistrial. Or, even worse, real judges and courts are (again) involved.

I'm sure some lawyer on one side has concocted a reason why this all has to be so deep underground. This is an accounting and reporting dispute involving a league that will soon be subject to an independent regulator and a club that also happens to be a member of that league (and subject to its rules). Both exist as entertainment companies and social entities thanks to the passion (and money) of tens of millions of fans.

Why this closed-door hearing, as if it were some sort of extraordinary interrogation? Why the mystery about the date – hell, Masters spoke last week, which means for all we know they already had the hearing? Why the anonymity of the jury: do they seriously think that someone is going to tamper with them like in a 1970s mafia movie?

We don't know, because no one can talk about it. All you get is an endless regurgitation of facts from the Football Leaks investigation and the UEFA investigation – some of which apply to this case, some of which do not, some of which will be judged by the same legal standards, some of which will not.

Pep Guardiola, City's most successful manager, at least had the luxury of asking his employers directly. “When they are accused of something, I ask them: 'Tell me about this.' They explain and I believe them,” he said in May 2022.

What if they lie to you, Pep?

“If you lie to me, the next day I won’t be here,” he said. “I’m going out and I’m not going to be your friend anymore.”

All of this foments a lack of trust in our institutions and fuels endless extreme conspiracy theories. For some, on the one hand, City are cheaters, their success is tainted and the Premier League is weak and limp for letting them get away with it for so long. For those on the other end of the line, City are the victims of a witch hunt by England's traditional clubs – you know, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United – who are forcing their Premier League puppets to present false accusations against them. .

Most reasonable people fall somewhere in between because we would like to make up our own minds, like Pep. We would like the rules explained to us in a way we understand and we would like to know the evidence that City broke them, as well as City's rebuttal. It's not us who will decide, okay, because we are not trained in the so-called mystical subtleties of law, but it would be nice to know what this case is about, how it will be judged, when, where and By Who.

But no. We won't have that luxury. And frankly, it will make it even harder to accept whatever verdict it may be. If and when it comes out, of course.