Manchester City’s punishment should reflect the duration and scale of the breaches that they committed. As per a recent report from Sky Sports, there is apparently very little sympathy for the eight-time champions. Most of them feel that the punishment should reflect the deed.
This is after Man City denied the findings of an independent commission that found them guilty of more than 100 breaches of Premier League financial rules. The club had continued to deny the wrongdoing while preparing for an appeal. They have also maintained that “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists” to support their position.
The club's defence, however, has not affected the rival clubs. The recent report suggests that the common sentiment within the league is that “the punishment should fit the crime”. It further claimed that many clubs believe a conventional points deduction may not be enough given the nature and duration of the breaches.
The frustration has also deepened because of how long the case has dragged on. City’s rival clubs are reportedly concerned that severe damage has been done to the image of the Premier League. Also, the legal costs involved in it and what they feel is City’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for the findings against them have further increased it.
Rivals want punishment to reflect nine seasons of breaches
The findings of the commission were particularly serious. It concluded that City inflated its revenues using more than £830 million of owner funding. Furthermore, they used arrangements to help City comply with Premier League and UEFA rules, described as “sham”. According to the Sky Sports report, this has led to a league-wide feeling that a punishment lasting only one season would not be enough. Relegating the club, only for them to return next season, would not reflect the seriousness of the rule breaches committed over such a long period.
{{/usCountry}}The findings of the commission were particularly serious. It concluded that City inflated its revenues using more than £830 million of owner funding. Furthermore, they used arrangements to help City comply with Premier League and UEFA rules, described as “sham”. According to the Sky Sports report, this has led to a league-wide feeling that a punishment lasting only one season would not be enough. Relegating the club, only for them to return next season, would not reflect the seriousness of the rule breaches committed over such a long period.
{{/usCountry}}There is also an obvious personal reason involved as well. With City relegated, it will directly impact the title race, European qualification, and the relegation battle. However, that does not seem to be the main reason driving the current reaction. Instead, the clubs are reportedly worried about the precedent this incident could set. The fact that rules were broken over several seasons could not be set straight with a punishment that impacts City for just one season. They feel that there should be a long-term impact on the culprit.
Also Read: Against Brazil, India briefly glimpsed a future beyond the rankings
Former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher echoed the sentiment while speaking to Sky Sports News at the Legends of Football awards, “It has to be done this season, because Man City need to be affected for next season”. He also spoke against a one-off sanction: “I don’t think it can be a one-off punishment for one season, because this has gone on for years and years, so I think the punishment should go on for years and years.”
Manchester City has appealed the verdict, and further appeals arepossible. So, this could drag on into the next year. The sanction will be decided by the same three-person panel that heard the original case. But as things stand now, even with the rival clubs pushing for an immediate punishment matching the seriousness of the findings, the dispute can drag on for some time.