An independent commission has ruled Manchester City guilty on 114 out of 115 charges brought by the Premier League. The final punishment remains undecided, and the club is planning to appeal.
The question of accountability in this case extends far beyond the standard choice between fines, point deductions, or relegation. Most of the charges relate to financial discrepancies, concealed sponsorship earnings, hidden salaries for executives and players, and a lack of cooperation with the investigation, which suggests an organisational fault.
A fair and balanced penalty should be allocated across the following levels:
- Club: Should face sporting penalties (such as a points deduction), as any financial or organisational violations directly translated into sporting advantages on the pitch.
- Owners: Should bear the entire financial burden (in the form of hefty fines and compensation), with payment coming from the owners' resources, rather than budget cuts to the academy, the women’s team, or increased ticket prices for fans.
- Executives and Directors: Those who made decisions, signed documents, or were aware of the violations must face personal accountability, potentially including disqualification and a ban from football.
- Competitors: Rival clubs may seek compensation, but only if they can document direct losses (for example, lost revenue from failing to qualify for the Champions League), not based on hypothetical claims.
- Players and Fans: Should not be viewed as offenders. The current squad and supporters will inevitably feel the impact of sanctions emotionally or competitively, but collective punishment of the innocent is unacceptable.
Therefore, punishment should not be a one-size-fits-all approach: sporting sanctions are designed to restore fairness in the league table, while financial and personal measures should target those who wielded actual power and made pivotal decisions.
