It’s an era that started immediately after Man City’s takeover by Sheikh Mansour in 2008. Well, almost immediately. It took some time for clubs like Arsenal to realise the kind of regime they were up against.
The wealth, connections and skills of the Abu Dhabi-backed ownership was unlike anything the Premier League had seen before, even in Roman Abramovich’s reign at Chelsea.
Arsenal – in whom Stan Kroenke had just become a minority shareholder – couldn’t compete, especially not before Financial Fair Play was introduced first by UEFA in 2011 and domestically two years later.
Why Man City and Arsenal don’t like each other
City’s gravity in the transfer market after the takeover was immense and they adopted a policy of signing players directly from rivals.
If you can’t beat them, buy them. That was the mantra that led the now 10-time English champions to buy Samir Nasri, Bacary Sagna, Emmanuel Adebayor, Gael Clichy and Kolo Toure from the Gunners in a five-year stretch.
That was the start of Manchester City and Arsenal’s feud behind the scenes.
Arsene Wenger coined the term ‘financial doping’ to describe ownership models like City and Chelsea’s, who were not concerned with making a return on investment and could spend freely.
North London executives such as vice-chair Tim Lewis are also said to object to nation state-owned clubs. They have too much power and influence, and they distort competition, or so the argument goes.
Arsenal have also reserved the right to seek compensation if City are found guilty of the 100-plus financial charges they face from the Premier League.
An initial ruling is expected in the coming weeks, with an appeals process to follow thereafter.
Incidentally, City were reportedly unhappy that Murray Rosen KC, the official who appointed the judges for that hearing, is an Arsenal fan.
The rivalry has Arsenal have become a genuine competitor to Pep Guardiola’s side on the pitch in recent years, surpassing them in 2024-25 only to be consigned to what looks likely to be a record-equalling third successive 2nd-place Premier League finish by Liverpool.
There have been umpteen more trivial moments in the rivalry – Arsenal executives leaving the PFA Awards ceremony before Phil Foden collected an award, Lewis storming out of his box at the Etihad last September, the conspiratorial discourse on social media and so on.
The pair have cooperated when it has been in their mutual interests. The European Super League proposal, for example. In general, however, they don’t like each other in the boardroom or on the pitch.
As heated as Arsenal and Man City’s encounters in the Premier League have been this season, it has been matched by the enmity between the sides in the executive box.
And the most significant episode on this long-running rivalry may well be yet to come.
Arsenal won’t be happy as Man City legal challenge delayed
When noises have emerged about Arsenal being unhappy with state involvement at The Etihad, City have reportedly responded by pointing out that Arsenal’s main sponsor, Emirates, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government.
City’s main sponsor Etihad is also headquartered in Abu Dhabi and is owned by UAE sovereign wealth. The front-of-shirt and stadium naming rights deal is worth around £80m per year in total.
In 2023, the Premier League blocked an even bigger deal between City and Etihad. The league blocked that deal in line with its Associated Party Transaction Rules (APT), saying it was above fair market value.
City have since launched a legal challenge against the APT Rules. They secured a positive outcome in the first instalment of the case, with the Premier League forced to rewrite some of the rules.
One concession related to the treatment of ‘friendly’ loans from clubs to shareholders, which are either very low interest or interest-free.
City argued that, if commercial deals between clubs and owner-related business must be assessed for fair market value, why should shareholder loans be any different?
The tribunal agreed and deemed that shareholder loans must be given a fair interest rate for the purposes of PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules).
For Arsenal, this was bad news. Stan Kroenke has loaned Arsenal £324m as per their last set of accounts, which now bears and interest rate in their PSR calculation.
In their new challenge, City want this rule applied retrospectively. In the latest news, the case will now be heard in October, with a verdict unlikely before 2026, leaving Arsenal are in limbo.
“It’s no longer business between Arsenal and Manchester City, it’s personal,” says University of Liverpool football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire, speaking exclusively to TBR Football.
“Arsenal will be furious that there will be no resolution for some time. They are very much anti-Man City, especially given that they have been perennial runners-up in recent years.
“Arsenal will be hoping that the changes to the rules are deemed enforceable. They are one of a few clubs that have been in the ear of the Premier League with the introduction of the rules.
“I’m certainly aware of other clubs who don’t necessarily like what City have done but they don’t see the benefit of incurring millions of pounds of legal fees to try and enforce it.
“Unlike Arsenal, those clubs’ ambition is not to win the Premier League – they have their own individual targets. To them, Man City aren’t in the same universe as the mid-table clubs.
“Given the environment which we’re operating in – with Chelsea and Leicester City having bent the rules – you can see why some clubs might think this is a vanity project.“
What will happen to Arsenal if Manchester City are successful in APT case?
If City are successful, it appears as though clubs including Arsenal will have to backdate their shareholder loans and apply a fair market and interest rate for PSR
Arsenal currently have plenty of headroom as far as PSR is concerned, but retrospectively applying an interest rate could mean they fall foul in previous assessment periods.
Between 2020 and 2023, for example, they lost a total of £227m. They managed to get within the Premier League’s loss limit of £105m for the three-year period with allowable deductions, but it must have been tight.
With an interest rate applied to the shareholder loans – most of which were converted from external loans in 2020 – retrospectively, it could tip them over the edge.
How the Premier League would apply punishments retroactively isn’t clear, nor is City’s chance of success in their second challenge to the APT system.
0 Comments