Yeah Dupont is only challenging the break-even aspect of FFP. I think he will win the case and UEFA will be forced to amend that one specific rule. There is surely no way a club can be fined for the owner of a business spending his own money?
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah Dupont is only challenging the break-even aspect of FFP. I think he will win the case and UEFA will be forced to amend that one specific rule. There is surely no way a club can be fined for the owner of a business spending his own money?
So there won't be worse teams than Everton in next seasons competition despite this great chance they have? You haven't explained how FFP is against EU law or how it's different to the examples I've given.
The very point I've been making for an hour. Still waiting for an explanation on how it isn't and how some cannot see that Football has always ignored certain legislation and never been pulled up on it. The EU are aware of the need for common sense when it comes to the games regulations.
Great point BUT can and would UEFA stop another european competition. I dont think so. So your monopoly point seems not that valid to me.
Doesn't matter unless that rival competition is actually established. UEFA can't argue they are not a monopoly based on the hypothetical scenario of another European competition existing. And I think you would find UEFA would go to great lengths to prevent a rival competition, they're hardly going to rollover and die.
The general policy - i.e. to ensure sustainable and long term growth in football is clearly a good policy. No one wants to see billionaires coming in, spending insane amounts of money then getting bored and the club then collapsing under the weight of its costs without sustainable natural revenue.
Implementing such a policy is insanely hard and I don't really think that FFP is the best way of doing things.
There are surely better ways of making sure that there is natural growth of clubs - i.e. investing in academies etc.
They couldn't but it does not stop the fact that they do have a monopoly on competitive European football and if they, for example, decided that only teams with Spanish players could play in the Champions League, that would clearly be an example of them abusing their power as a monopoly.
Football is just so different that it is impossible to rigidly apply rules that are meant for general good and service markets to football, where the revenue does not come purely from sales from tickets.
You're arguing about the quality of teams. The EU are not concerned with a debate over whether or not Viktoria Plzen, for example, are better or worse than Everton.
Everton, disregarding the quality of teams which is irrelevant to EU legislation, have a much better chance than most teams outside of England to qualify for the CL as they have 4 places to achieve that will grant it to them.
If UEFA are breaking EU law through their coefficient system, as you state, how come it isn't being challenged like FFP is?
Ok...thanks for the insides here. Lets see what happens. Platini has to please the smaller UEFA members imo.
For anyone interested in the case DuPont is making about ffp and specifically break even being against eu laws it is worth reading his statement where he outlines his case
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/legal-challenge-to-uefa-ffp-rules-by-bosman-lawyer
UEFA only have to look at the investment Mansour is pumping into the redevelopment of the surrounding area of the Etihad to see he has a long-term commitment to the club. FFP targets the wrong people and preserves the status quo. However, I accept that whatever they introduce will have pros and cons but FFP has an extremely clear con in its benefit to the elite clubs.
But it's restricting Everton's opportunities to play in the competition. If they played in another league they may have a better chance of qualifying. And if you believe that they have a better chance then other clubs is that not also restricting them? You still haven't come close to explaining how this isn't contravening EU law but FFP is other than to say somebody is challenging it. You ignored my question on equal opportunities before. Are businesses not supposed to give equal opportunities? You simply haven't come to to terms with the fact that football can and have lived by slightly different rules for years.
I did answer your question on equal opportunities and you didn't reply.
Of course I accept football can and does live by slightly different rules but it simply cannot blatantly contravene European Law which Dupont is arguing FFP does. If football didn't live by different rules FFP would never have even got out of the discussion stage.
I have explained how it isn't contravening EU law, largely because it boils down to geographical location ONLY because of the performance of the teams. Teams suffer because of their quality and the league's quality as a whole, not because of their location. No one has ever argued the coefficient system blatantly contravenes EU law because it doesn't. The Northern Irish league every season has a chance to improve their coefficient ranking but fail to do so. You are effectively arguing that every single team needs to play in the Champions League to conform to EU law. It doesn't.
There are many laws in the game that by themselves would contravene European law. They exist through agreement and consensus. If City get these rules and essentially all of FFP overturned (unlikely, but if) then the ramifications would be tremendous and devastating to football as the floodgates will open for all those clubs for whom money is no object to challenge every single law that would be anomalous a normal working situation. UEFA's right to sanction and punish clubs or players whatever level for whatever reason as they currently do will be greatly undermined.
If something contravening law is enough to get it revoked, wave goodbye to transfer fees. Players will just be able to leave as and when they want, like we can. It'll be no different to moving from Tesco to Asda to Morrisons. The whole existence of a 'fee' to be paid by your new employer to obtain your services from your old employer with you being unable to influence the outcome unless an agreement is made, violates every reasonable interpretation of freedom of movement which as mentioned earlier, is enshrined in law. There are many other examples like that where the rules as they are in football would not stand up in court but they exist through consent as all recognise that although by themselves these rules breach regulations we all have to live by, it's better for the game if they exist.
I expect a challenge perhaps on the severity of the punishment, I don't expect a challenge on the premise of the FFP rules themselves at all.
If something contravening law is enough to get it revoked, wave goodbye to transfer fees. Players will just be able to leave as and when they want, like we can. It'll be no different to moving from Tesco to Asda to Morrisons. The whole existence of a 'fee' to be paid by your new employer to obtain your services from your old employer with you being unable to influence the outcome unless an agreement is made, violates every reasonable interpretation of freedom of movement which as mentioned earlier, is enshrined in law. There are many other examples like that where the rules as they are in football would not stand up in court but they exist through consent as all recognise that although by themselves these rules breach regulations we all have to live by, it's better for the game if they exist.
I expect a challenge perhaps on the severity of the punishment, I don't expect a challenge on the premise of the FFP rules themselves at all.
It wouldn't matter how good the league or it's club are England are still only getting four spots and other nations will always have one regardless. It's as much a contravention as FFP regardless of Dupont's argument. I've nothing more to say on the issue.
I can not believe that people are somehow trying to claim that FFP is hindering smaller clubs.
It boggles the mind.
It boggles the mind.
I don't recall you answering this, Bobby.
Apologies, didn't see that post. How many women apply for jobs for a start? I think you would need some statistics before you say they suffer discrimination.
To be honest I'm not sure how Bilbao are allowed to do what they do, I'm sure someone will have the explanation for it. I suppose they aren't discriminating against skin colour at least.
Niall Quinn has essentially just advocated City's breaking of the rules because they have a promising academy. An embarrassing little rant on Sky.
His "one in, one out" remark was particularly funny. Replacing a soon to be out of contract Barry with a £34 million Fernandinho isn't exactly the greatest of examples.
His "one in, one out" remark was particularly funny. Replacing a soon to be out of contract Barry with a £34 million Fernandinho isn't exactly the greatest of examples.
Isn't what Quinn just said on FFP not true as investing in infrastructure isnt included in your losses for the ffp rules?
A newbie called Caesar sent me an excellent PM regarding this thread. He's studying to be a Barrister and has studied EU law. It's a long post but very informative.
1: What EU law is being breached? Regardless of what Dupont argues, because one case is not the same as the other, I have no idea what EU this could conceivably breach. The only argument I can see would be affecting free movement of capital/workers etc. I've seen it argued that its a breach of competition law, but the problem with that argument is that EU competition law is still relatively underdeveloped and currently consists of only two real branches: abuse of a dominant position and anti competitive agreements (TFEU 102 and 101). It can't be an anti competitive agreement because UEFA is an association/governing body, not a collection of competitors, like United Real Bayern etc.
AOADP could be argued from UEFA but in order to do so you have to prove three things:
The Relative Market-Domination-Abuse. The Market would be football, the Domination UEFA's hegemony and the Abuse presumably them precluding City from competing in that. However, that's inherently flawed: UEFA is an association, not a competing company. If the G14 decided this, then you may have a point (and that would be an anti competitive agreement) but not UEFA. Further, UEFA is both voluntary and invitation: in practice, those invitations are handed out on merit but nothing precludes them from choosing to invite Everton instead of Arsenal this season (5th and 4th).
In any case, this case would fail the tests comprehensively. Market requires a measuring of one product against another, unsuitable here, Dominance requires an undertaking, which UEFA is not. Abuse is possible, as it regards:
Imposing unfair prices or trading conditions
Limiting production, markets or development to the detriment of consumers
Discriminating against certain trading partners but not others, places them at a competitive disadvantage
Tying parties into other obligations when conducting business: refusing to supply X unless they also buy Y
but you can't succeed with 1/3, you need all three.
Now, I don't expect chapter and verse, but if you're claiming something is illegal, or claiming that Dupont is, then show us what precisely is illegal? What part of EU law is being breached in particular? There's some spacker on Bluemoon, Aguero93, who thinks it comes from EU anti-trust law. There is no such thing: there's US anti-trust law, developed by Teddy Roosevelt to combat the steel and railway barons, but its counterpart in the EU is EU competition law, as laid out above.
BobbyManc seems convinced the break-even rule is illegal. I would like to know why, as I can't see anything. Also, Dupont is definitely working for lobbyists of a certain persuasion. They may be working behind the scenes or through agents, but this is orchestrated by one of the sugar daddy clubs. There is no rule directly regarding owners of a club spending their money, it's quite an obscure area of law. The fact that a lawyer working on behalf of those clubs says there is is no different from a lawyer saying his client is innocent. It's kinda your job.
Quoting Bobby here: “The break-even rule prevents football clubs from freely determining their level of expenses, since it imposes a ceiling on their deficit, a limit to their investment, even if such deficit/investment is entirely covered by the owners. In particular, the clubs are limited in their freedom to hire players, since the break-even rule confines the amount of transfer fee and salaries clubs can offer.”
And which EU law does this contravene? The freedom argument is the one that is most interesting, and could make a decent case, but the financial impositions on clubs are essentially a non-issue. I'm not saying that EU law expressly allows it, I'm saying there's no EU law in this area, and the ECJ will most likely side with the Commission that developed this law.
The interest argument I find is the one regarding the impact on the transfer and salaries of players, but the Court will likely claim that to be a market reality.
2: the governing and investigative body in this area is the EU Commission, which is functionally the second highest body in the EU and the highest in its day-to-day affairs. If they put their stamp on this, and they did, you can bet your bollocks to a barn dance it'll hold up.
Now, some might point to the separation of powers argument regarding the ECJ and that is theoretically true, but pragmatically, its not. Without getting too theoretical, there are several arguments as to why the classical theory of a Court being a neutral venue for the law doesn't apply to the ECJ. Cohen points out that the Court is becoming more and more politicised, Weingast shows that the ECJ generally follows the point of view of the ECJ in a spatial model and you have to consider the Courts' mandate. In Van Gend En Loos, the Court decided that it's mandate was to promote the Single Market. If the Commission argues that a Europe-wide standard of finances in the biggest sport in Europe promotes the Single Market without violating competitions law, the Court will agree with it, I guarantee you. It will see it as an example of positive integration, much like the White Paper.
So, my question is, what do we have to go on that we can conclude that the ECJ would side against the Commission? I see nothing here, there's no precedent in this area and the behaviour of the Court goes against the notion, particularly if you believe that the Court is trying to maximize its influence without getting on the bad side of the other organs of the EU, as per Rasmussen. In any case, the EU Commission is possibly the most efficient body in the world in terms of its legality. The College of Commissioners consists of literally thousands of excellent lawyers and bureaucrats. I guarantee you they considered this long and hard, and it was most certainly put into a working group in Comitology, which is a committee with members of the Commission and Council of Ministers. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a mock trial as well, or at least a consultation with the ECJ behind closed doors (it happens at EU level, accept it)
3: UEFA is a voluntary organisation. That simple. If they say you have to play by their rules to get in their clubhouse, that's the end of it. There's nothing to stop City and PSG and Monaco building their own petrodollar-only clubhouse, but no law can compel a private, voluntary organisation that is itself not illegal to change its membership requirements. This is an extension of the notion of privity of contract, which states that a contract is between the parties and won't be altered by the Court (unless there's vitiating factors or its illegal)
Now, you might argue that FFP is illegal. But historically, the Court only acts where it's immoral, as well as illegal. I don't have the case at hand, but a case around 1910 concerned a contract for murder and rape. That's the standard you're after for illegality in this area
I quote Bobby here:
"UEFA has its own rules.
Which must conform to EU Law"
They do. Its that simple, unless there is some unbelievably obscure point I'm missing, UEFA is perfectly in line and probably outside the scope of EU competition law. Furthermore, they've cooperated with the Commission for a years, and thus its likely that the Commission has investigated UEFA independently
4: CAS
The CAS' jurisdiction is not recognized by the ECJ. If the ECJ finds for the Commission and UEFA, which they would, and the CAS finds for City, it will make sod all difference. The Supremacy of EU Law (Costa v ENEL) is a fundamental principle of EU Law, not one which the ECJ will bend over to overrule for the CAS.
Overall, this point from B20 sums it up nicely:
"No it's not. First of all, this has been screened by Eu beforehand.
Secondly, UEFA can make the powerful argument that FFP only curtails participation in competitions arranged by them and by invitation by them and that it does not infringe on any laws that they set requirements for receiving such invitations.
It's very far from clear that Dupont has a case. I'd suggest we don't even know if Dupont believes there is a case. He's probably paid so handsomely by lobbyists (of which I am sure you are one) that he doesn't care how winnable it is. His job is just to make it as winnable as it can be.
Maybe there is something to it. But someone filing suit doesn't mean they have a legitimate case."
First and only time a Liverpool fan will understand the law.
1: What EU law is being breached? Regardless of what Dupont argues, because one case is not the same as the other, I have no idea what EU this could conceivably breach. The only argument I can see would be affecting free movement of capital/workers etc. I've seen it argued that its a breach of competition law, but the problem with that argument is that EU competition law is still relatively underdeveloped and currently consists of only two real branches: abuse of a dominant position and anti competitive agreements (TFEU 102 and 101). It can't be an anti competitive agreement because UEFA is an association/governing body, not a collection of competitors, like United Real Bayern etc.
AOADP could be argued from UEFA but in order to do so you have to prove three things:
The Relative Market-Domination-Abuse. The Market would be football, the Domination UEFA's hegemony and the Abuse presumably them precluding City from competing in that. However, that's inherently flawed: UEFA is an association, not a competing company. If the G14 decided this, then you may have a point (and that would be an anti competitive agreement) but not UEFA. Further, UEFA is both voluntary and invitation: in practice, those invitations are handed out on merit but nothing precludes them from choosing to invite Everton instead of Arsenal this season (5th and 4th).
In any case, this case would fail the tests comprehensively. Market requires a measuring of one product against another, unsuitable here, Dominance requires an undertaking, which UEFA is not. Abuse is possible, as it regards:
Imposing unfair prices or trading conditions
Limiting production, markets or development to the detriment of consumers
Discriminating against certain trading partners but not others, places them at a competitive disadvantage
Tying parties into other obligations when conducting business: refusing to supply X unless they also buy Y
but you can't succeed with 1/3, you need all three.
Now, I don't expect chapter and verse, but if you're claiming something is illegal, or claiming that Dupont is, then show us what precisely is illegal? What part of EU law is being breached in particular? There's some spacker on Bluemoon, Aguero93, who thinks it comes from EU anti-trust law. There is no such thing: there's US anti-trust law, developed by Teddy Roosevelt to combat the steel and railway barons, but its counterpart in the EU is EU competition law, as laid out above.
BobbyManc seems convinced the break-even rule is illegal. I would like to know why, as I can't see anything. Also, Dupont is definitely working for lobbyists of a certain persuasion. They may be working behind the scenes or through agents, but this is orchestrated by one of the sugar daddy clubs. There is no rule directly regarding owners of a club spending their money, it's quite an obscure area of law. The fact that a lawyer working on behalf of those clubs says there is is no different from a lawyer saying his client is innocent. It's kinda your job.
Quoting Bobby here: “The break-even rule prevents football clubs from freely determining their level of expenses, since it imposes a ceiling on their deficit, a limit to their investment, even if such deficit/investment is entirely covered by the owners. In particular, the clubs are limited in their freedom to hire players, since the break-even rule confines the amount of transfer fee and salaries clubs can offer.”
And which EU law does this contravene? The freedom argument is the one that is most interesting, and could make a decent case, but the financial impositions on clubs are essentially a non-issue. I'm not saying that EU law expressly allows it, I'm saying there's no EU law in this area, and the ECJ will most likely side with the Commission that developed this law.
The interest argument I find is the one regarding the impact on the transfer and salaries of players, but the Court will likely claim that to be a market reality.
2: the governing and investigative body in this area is the EU Commission, which is functionally the second highest body in the EU and the highest in its day-to-day affairs. If they put their stamp on this, and they did, you can bet your bollocks to a barn dance it'll hold up.
Now, some might point to the separation of powers argument regarding the ECJ and that is theoretically true, but pragmatically, its not. Without getting too theoretical, there are several arguments as to why the classical theory of a Court being a neutral venue for the law doesn't apply to the ECJ. Cohen points out that the Court is becoming more and more politicised, Weingast shows that the ECJ generally follows the point of view of the ECJ in a spatial model and you have to consider the Courts' mandate. In Van Gend En Loos, the Court decided that it's mandate was to promote the Single Market. If the Commission argues that a Europe-wide standard of finances in the biggest sport in Europe promotes the Single Market without violating competitions law, the Court will agree with it, I guarantee you. It will see it as an example of positive integration, much like the White Paper.
So, my question is, what do we have to go on that we can conclude that the ECJ would side against the Commission? I see nothing here, there's no precedent in this area and the behaviour of the Court goes against the notion, particularly if you believe that the Court is trying to maximize its influence without getting on the bad side of the other organs of the EU, as per Rasmussen. In any case, the EU Commission is possibly the most efficient body in the world in terms of its legality. The College of Commissioners consists of literally thousands of excellent lawyers and bureaucrats. I guarantee you they considered this long and hard, and it was most certainly put into a working group in Comitology, which is a committee with members of the Commission and Council of Ministers. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a mock trial as well, or at least a consultation with the ECJ behind closed doors (it happens at EU level, accept it)
3: UEFA is a voluntary organisation. That simple. If they say you have to play by their rules to get in their clubhouse, that's the end of it. There's nothing to stop City and PSG and Monaco building their own petrodollar-only clubhouse, but no law can compel a private, voluntary organisation that is itself not illegal to change its membership requirements. This is an extension of the notion of privity of contract, which states that a contract is between the parties and won't be altered by the Court (unless there's vitiating factors or its illegal)
Now, you might argue that FFP is illegal. But historically, the Court only acts where it's immoral, as well as illegal. I don't have the case at hand, but a case around 1910 concerned a contract for murder and rape. That's the standard you're after for illegality in this area
I quote Bobby here:
"UEFA has its own rules.
Which must conform to EU Law"
They do. Its that simple, unless there is some unbelievably obscure point I'm missing, UEFA is perfectly in line and probably outside the scope of EU competition law. Furthermore, they've cooperated with the Commission for a years, and thus its likely that the Commission has investigated UEFA independently
4: CAS
The CAS' jurisdiction is not recognized by the ECJ. If the ECJ finds for the Commission and UEFA, which they would, and the CAS finds for City, it will make sod all difference. The Supremacy of EU Law (Costa v ENEL) is a fundamental principle of EU Law, not one which the ECJ will bend over to overrule for the CAS.
Overall, this point from B20 sums it up nicely:
"No it's not. First of all, this has been screened by Eu beforehand.
Secondly, UEFA can make the powerful argument that FFP only curtails participation in competitions arranged by them and by invitation by them and that it does not infringe on any laws that they set requirements for receiving such invitations.
It's very far from clear that Dupont has a case. I'd suggest we don't even know if Dupont believes there is a case. He's probably paid so handsomely by lobbyists (of which I am sure you are one) that he doesn't care how winnable it is. His job is just to make it as winnable as it can be.
Maybe there is something to it. But someone filing suit doesn't mean they have a legitimate case."
First and only time a Liverpool fan will understand the law.
Already posted that UEFA warned City about a ban? No CL next season is on the table!
Cant believe the English media who are defending City. Its a disgraceful model. Their dreams of English power with endless foreign money crumble and Platini is the bad one.
Cant believe the English media who are defending City. Its a disgraceful model. Their dreams of English power with endless foreign money crumble and Platini is the bad one.
Many good points in there. I think the main one is this: the question is whether FFP is contrary to EU laws protecting free flow of...dosh. And it doesn't appear to be.
As I said about 4 years ago in the Newbs, when discussing FFP, it's not likely the courts, European or otherwise, will involve themselves in the micro-regulation of sporting competitions. Sport has always marched to the beat of its own drummer, and the last thing the courts want is to have to decide whether the eligibility rules of the Western European Tiddlywinks championship contravene European law. They won't interfere unless there's a clear violation of individual rights, as with the Bosman ruling.
UEFA and other sports ruling bodies will be allowed to continue to regulate their sports. The courts won't want the job.
UEFA and other sports ruling bodies will be allowed to continue to regulate their sports. The courts won't want the job.
Very good informative post. I still remain inclined to disagree regards Dupont not having a case. It is quite well reported that there is certainly an argument that FFP may contravene aspects of EU Law and UEFA's consultment with the EU Comission shows they are themselves aware of the possibilities of that. I also found a very good article from Rhodri Thompson, highly respected in his field of work it appears, who isn't involved with the Dupont challenge of FFP and he too considers there to be a strong case to be heard.
Of the speculated punishments, the stipulation that the wage bill must not rise is surely the most open to legal challenge? That definitely looks dodgy to me in terms of restraint of trade.
I guess we will see. If there was a case, I think more would be said of it in all honesty. Dupont will have been contacted by an agent of a club I imagine due to him taking on UEFA/FIFA before. If City think there is any chance they'll appeal it. They haven't made any official statement yet have they?
I wish that was my comment however that was actually part of the PM.
Rhodri Thompson QC comes to essentially the same conclusion that Will did a few posts back:
http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...d-the-financial-regulation-of-football-part-2
City have no choice but to appeal it now really. If we don't then it provides UEFA with a free reign for any future punishments as they can simply say 'you didn't have any problems then' so City have to stick their foot in before the door shuts.
I still disagree, there is a case. FFP goes against EU Law, I personally don't think that can be disputed. It is whether, and UEFA do have a viable argument, that this manipulation of the law is justified by a legitimate objective. There are three renowned and respectable voices all claiming there is a case against FFP's legality - Rodhri Thompson, Stefan Szymanski and obviously Dupont. They are just the three I can remember right now as well. However, the former two also agree that FFP can justify its contravention of EU law, but equally agree there is a strong case against it.
There are other things in football that (I should say appear to) go against EU Law, that doesn't mean they will be changed. Don't think City have much of a chance to get an even lighter punishment.
Which exact EU law is it against though?
"UEFA is a voluntary organisation."
"UEFA can make the powerful argument that FFP only curtails participation in competitions arranged by them and by invitation by them and that it does not infringe on any laws that they set requirements for receiving such invitations."
Where is the restraint of trade? City are welcome to do whatever they want in terms of paying their players. They've known since 2010 that, to get invited to play in UEFA competitions, they would have to abide by a common set of rules. They failed to do so and have been given other, specific, actions that, if undertaken, could mitigate their noncompliance - it's their choice. There is no "right" to play in UEFA competitions - it's by invitation only. If you choose to not follow the rules you don't get invited.
This is the greatest burn in the history of the Caf. Promote this man!!!
Here is the second:
I assume thats from a thread on here? Got a link? Reminds me of the video of Baz and his wall
I assume thats from a thread on here? Got a link? Reminds me of the video of Baz and his wall
From an old thread, circa 2006, one of the first I ever read on here. Needless to say I was confused. Indian Chief Torn Rubber is 'The Chief'. I'm not even going to try to find the thread though. It was probably about penalty kicks.
My main objection relates to excessive player movement and stockpiling talent at big clubs to the point that players don't get games and must be loaned out. That hurts the "lesser" clubs.
Rooney would be an excelent example of what is wrong with the system. Here is a young player, Everton fan, academy product, a generational talent, and he could/should have been a toffee for life. Money wasn't the only factor but it is a major reason that any emerging young talent is ripped away from the club that developed the player. Sad to see.
The issue here that some are missing is that in theory the rules can bd challenged and nobody will be able to say whether they are compliant or not until a court has made a ruling one way or the other, having heard legal arguments from either side.
UEFA will obviously say it is compliant and will have tried their best to ensure it is. Doesn't mean that the case cannot be argued should anybody feel otherwise. Anyone can bring any case, even if doomed to fail and due process must be done.
As it is I think it's unlikely that City will challenge this to that level based on the punishment they are getting. They're still in the CL so I suspect they'll just comply with the punishment and move on.
That's not to say somebody else won't challenge it I suppose.
You're dead right. He moved fir money and success because United, as a rich club could offer him both.
It is what it is - money has changed the game at the end of the day and It did so long before Roman or the Oil Sheikhs got involved.