Man City 'launch new legal action' against Premier League with Arsenal accusation

have reportedly launched another stinging attack on the over its Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules and argue that the latest amendments hand an unfair advantage to rivals such as Arsenal. Last year, the four-time reigning champions triumphed over the league in an expensive legal battle over the regulations.

Back then, City successfully argued that the rules, which are designed to stop clubs from signing inflated commercial deals with firms linked to their owners, contravened competition law. The regulations had been introduced following the Saudi Arabian-led takeover of Newcastle in October 2021.

The Premier League's interpretation of the initial ruling by a tribunal was that the majority of their APT rules were lawful and that a small number of amendments could be made. Last November, despite warnings from City and other teams including Aston Villa, clubs voted 16 to four in favour of amending the rules rather than rewriting them. The tribunal subsequently found that all the rules were null and void.

According to the , City's legal team have now made another attack on the Premier League. It is claimed that they believe the rules remain 'discrimatory' and that a host of rivals, including Arsenal, enjoy an unfair advantage. The same panel which ruled in City's favour last time will rule again.

This matter is separate from the 130 charges brought against City by the league over alleged breaches of its financial rules.

The tribunal found that shareholder loans - funds lent to clubs by owners, often at favourable or zero interest rates - were not subject to the same fair market value (FMV) test as commercial deals and were therefore unlawful. The amended rules allow clubs that have benefitted from shareholder loans to see them converted into equity during a 'grace period', which ended in January.

Shareholder loans not converted into equity are subject to an FMV test. City reportedly argue that the amendment remains discriminatory because clubs can retain the loan, are not required to pay interest at FMV and only have to account for figures received for the first time in this season's accounts - which they claim means up to three years of interest expenditure could be excluded.

In an argument reportedly shown to clubs by the Premier League, City are claimed to have said that 'differential treatment' means the amendment does "not eliminate but on the contrary perpetuate the discriminatory and distortive treatment previously found by the tribunal".

They also reportedly point out that shareholder loans can be paid in full before any FMV assessment is carried out. That is different to a deal with an associated party, which is subject to a 30-day waiting period. City reportedly claim this provides "a substantial cashflow advantage and cost reduction to the club receiving the shareholder loan ... This continued preferential and discriminatory treatment of shareholder loans has the object and/or effect of distorting economic competition between Member Clubs on affected markets."

If City are successful a second time, the Premier League's financial rules could be left in disarray with clubs facing another hefty legal bill.

Manchester City and the Premier League have been contacted for comment.