Arsenal have done something 'far worse' than Man City's 115 charges as £60m deal under fire - Kieran Maguire

Today at 10:02 AM

The rivalry between Man City and Arsenal is on a rolling boil and while there have been efforts from Pep Guardiola and Mikel Arteta to cool tensions, things will only get heated up in the coming months.

City rescued a point in the 98th minute against Arsenal two Sundays ago. It was only mid September, but the fixture already felt like it was a seismic juncture in the Premier League title race come May.

As well as the ‘dark arts’ fallout on the pitch, there is also increasing hostility place at executive level behind the scenes.

As members of the so-called Big Six, Arsenal and Man City often vote together on matters of governance when their views align.

But it is a different story when it comes to the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, the issue of state ownership in football, and Man City’s ongoing trial for 115 alleged financial offences.

Amid a flurry of new detail about the growing rift between the two clubs, TBR Football spoke exclusively to Liverpool University football finance lecturer and Price of Football author Kieran Maguire.

• READ MORE:Arsenal and Man City both interested in signing 'fast' winger who is the 'master of everything'

Arsenal’s views on City’s ownership

City and Arsenal are ambassadors for two very different styles of ownership.

Arsenal owner Stan Kroenke has loosened the purse strings somewhat in recent windows, but historically he has not been willing to bankroll losses in order to catalyse success on the pitch.

Conversely, City’s owners Abu Dhabi United Group – the UAE-backed investment vehicle overseen by Sheikh Mansour – have made the club profitable in recent years but have historically underwritten huge spending.

Arsenal’s executive vice-chair Tim Lewis has reportedly been one of the most vocal critics of state ownership in football at Premier League meetings.

City’s riposte has been to highlight that Arsenal have no issues with taking money from UAE-funded airline Emirates, their £60m-a-year front-of-shirt, training kit, and stadium naming rights partner.

“It does seem strange that Arsenal, who are sponsored by Emirates and play in the Emirates Stadium, are so so hostile towards another club that is owned by somebody from the Middle East,” said Maguire.

“But geopolitics tells us, just because two people or institutions are close together geographically, it doesn’t mean they are close friends.

“According to senior sources, Arsenal are the drivers behind the idea of tethering wages to the club with the lowest level of broadcast revenue in the Premier League.

“That is also indirectly targeting a club like Man City who get such a high proportion of its revenue from commercial means.

“If you put that together with Arsenal walking out of the PFA awards, you can see that relations between the clubs on the pitch and off the pitch are frosty.

“There still appears to be affection and respect between Mikel Arteta and Pep Guardiola, but I think they are on their own in that.”

Premier League expulsion an option in Man City’s 115 charges case, insist Arsenal

Perhaps the biggest individual driver of the animosity between the two clubs is Arsenal’s stance towards City’s potentially era-defining legal battle with the Premier League.

As well as the 115 charges case, City are also taking the Premier League on in the arbitration courts with a challenge to their associated party transaction rules (APT).

City argue that the APT rules, which dictate that commercial deals struck with owner-linked entities must be assessed for fair market value, are anti-competitive and restrictive.

Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool are among the clubs known to support the APT rules, while the likes of Newcastle United, Aston Villa and Chelsea have fought in City’s corner.

Arsenal are also believed to have insisted that expulsion from the Premier League must be an option if City are found guilty of disguising payments, breaching PSR and failing to supply accurate financial data.

Maguire believes that Arsenal’s position in somewhat hypocritical given their involvement in the Super League debacle in 2021, emphasising: “City have not been found guilty of anything to date.

“Even if they are, the cumulative financial impact of the charges should surely be a big contributor to the level of the punishment that is meted out.

“To publicly say that City should be expelled from the Premier League is trying to put undue pressure on the commission.

“I can assure you, that will be completely ignored. The nature of high ranking legal figures is that they tend to be quite contrary and very much focused and matters of law, or in this case, the Premier League handbook.

“Arsenal getting chippy is disappointing for a club that has always tried to maintain high standards.

“Although, it must be remembered that Arsenal themselves were one of the clubs that signed up for the Super League.

“That would have been far worse for English football than anything City or any other individual club have done.”

Arsenal, Man City, and ‘financial doping’

In the early days post-Abu Dhabi takeover, City poached several Arsenal stars in a bid to smash the glass ceiling, including Samir Nasri, Emanuel Adebayor, Kolo Toure, Gael Clichy, and Bacary Sagna.

This led Arsene Wenger to label City’s approach as ‘financial doping’ and ultimately led to the introduction of financial fair play and later PSR, which caps financial losses over three years to £105m.

What are Maguire’s thoughts on this term?

“PSR and its predecessors were created because the existing elite in football had become familiar and used to automatically qualifying for the Champions League.

“That gave them a financial advantage over other clubs and allowed clubs like Arsenal to be significant players in the transfer market and pay the biggest wages.

“If there is one thing that old money doesn’t like, it’s new money. PSR was created to close the stable door after the Chelsea and Man City horses had bolted.

“The aim was to make it difficult to create another PSG, Chelsea or City who could compete with the established elite and the cash cow that is the Champions League.

“It is no coincidence that the Big Six clubs wanted to close that door forever by creating the Super League, which meant they would be guaranteed huge revenues and that no one else would be able to compete with them.“