Leaked reporting on the English Premier League's case against Manchester City FC has set the stage for what lawyers predict could be a chain reaction of litigation, with four rival clubs having already registered to preserve their legal positions ahead of an official commission decision expected within weeks.

The Athletic reported last Friday the outcome of the Premier League's disciplinary case against the club, two years after proceedings began. The hearing itself ran from September to December 2024 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, between Paternoster Square and St Paul's Cathedral. The three-person commission has yet to publish its formal decision.

The Premier League's case against Manchester City includes allegations that the club failed to provide a true and fair view of its revenue and concealed player and manager remuneration. A substantial portion of the charges — 30% of the total — concern failure to cooperate with the investigation. The charges cover the period 2009 to 2018, during which the club won the Premier League three times, the FA Cup once, three League Cups and the Community Shield.

Club v club claims

The first wave of litigation could come from other League members. Each club has a contract with the Premier League under the League's rules, in addition to its membership. If Manchester City breached those rules and won trophies, rival clubs may argue they lost out and seek compensation under contract principles, citing heads of loss such as loss of earnings and loss of chance.

The precedent for such disputes is the commission decision involving Everton and Burnley earlier this year, in which Burnley was awarded £40m after being relegated from the Premier League at the end of the 2021-22 season, following a finding that Everton had breached profit and sustainability rules.

It is understood that four clubs registered their positions when the Premier League case was brought: Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United.

Oli Goldman, a litigation partner at London firm Wallace LLP who represents clubs on litigation and regulatory issues, told Legal Cheek: "If the reporting is accurate, the decision has the potential to spawn huge amounts of litigation. If, as is reported, there is a finding of wrongdoing, that is going to pose a host of questions that lawyers will have to grapple with. How might Man City's conduct have caused my client harm and how to assess that loss, be they other clubs considering what might have been the position if Man City hadn't engaged in the prohibited conduct or the club's own employees, sponsors, and so on dealing with the future reputational fall-out."

The legal teams

The twelve-week hearing pitted two Blackstone Chambers heavyweights against each other. Manchester City instructed Lord Pannick KC, estimated to command a per diem fee of £20,000 and, incidentally, an Arsenal supporter — an appointment that prompted Manchester City fans at the Etihad Stadium to display a banner reading 'Pannick on the Streets of London'.

Adam Lewis KC appeared for the Premier League, supported by Paul Harris KC, Philip Marshall KC and James Mather. Andrew Hunter KC acted for Manchester City. Bird & Bird acted for the Premier League; Clifford Chance for the club.

Costs exposure

Given the roster of counsel and firms involved and the scale of the charges, lawyers estimate the combined legal bill for both sides could reach £200m to £300m. Who picks up the tab falls to the three-person commission.

Goldman addressed the costs question: "As we all know, the usual position in English litigation is that the loser pays the winner's costs. And standard basis for costs is usually estimated at around 66% of actual costs. But this is a private arbitration, and it will be at the discretion of the independent panel. Given the allegations against Man City include 35 charges of failure to cooperate with the investigation, perhaps we are looking at the club having to pay a higher percentage of EPL's costs."

A taste for the fight

Manchester City has shown little appetite for settlement in the past. In one of the emails seen by Germany's Der Spiegel in 2018 — where the original allegations against the club broke — the club's then in-house counsel famously commented, in relation to the separate UEFA case of the time, that the chairman would rather spend £30m on the 50 best lawyers in the world than agree a financial penalty.

On the Premier League's figures, the club may now end up doing both: funding a top-tier defence and paying a penalty, with the wider ramifications for the League — and perhaps for the game itself — likely to prove eyewatering.

What it means for practitioners

For disputes and regulatory lawyers, the commission's decision will be the trigger point rather than the end point. If the leaked reporting proves accurate and the commission finds wrongdoing, practitioners advising Premier League clubs, sponsors and commercial counterparties should expect instructions on causation and quantum in club v club claims, contractual recovery under the Premier League rules, and reputational and employment fallout. The Everton-Burnley precedent of a £40m award for a single relegation suggests damages exposure could scale sharply where multiple trophies and seasons are in issue, and the costs discretion of a private arbitral panel — unconstrained by the standard 66% recovery benchmark — adds a further layer of unpredictability for those advising on settlement strategy.