The Premier League is facing frustration from clubs over the cloak of secrecy that surrounds sport’s “trial of the century” into the 115 alleged rules breaches by Manchester City.

City’s hearing is confidential and being held in private in front of an unnamed three-person commission in accordance with Section W of the league’s rules.

Public details of the City charges have been restricted only to a basic list of the rules and seasons of each alleged breach and, while photographs have emerged of legal teams arriving at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, even the location of the hearing was kept under wraps.

A lack of shared information extends even to other Premier League clubs and, although what are deemed “interlocutory decisions” (judgments during the hearing) could be shared as deemed “appropriate”, the next definite update will arrive only when the commission’s “final awards” are published on the league website. Premier League rule W.44 even says only that the chair of the three-person commission “may” order that a transcript of proceedings be taken.

“We know the bill at the end – but not much else,” said one club insider, in reference to how legal costs, which are expected to run well into the millions, can simply be deducted from the clubs’ central broadcast rights and commercial funds.

‘Justice needs to be seen to be done’

The Premier League has introduced greater transparency in recent years by announcing alleged breaches when charges are made and then publishing the independent commission or appeal boards’ verdicts once a decision has been made. These go into detail over arguments, mitigations and reasons behind the findings. For example, the written verdicts for the hearings into the Everton and Nottingham Forest points deductions this year both ran to more than 50 pages. Despite frustration over the City hearing, the current process is what the clubs have collectively agreed upon.

The Premier League has also followed the rules for an independent commission or Appeal Board as set out in its handbook but, after recent cases also involving Everton, Leicester City and Nottingham Forest, there is now a feeling both inside clubs and among sports lawyers that greatest transparency is needed.

“Justice does not just need to be done – it needs to be seen to be done,” said a lawyer who has acted for one Premier League club. “There is no reason, in principle, why it is not being held in public. It would ensure it is covered accurately in the media and that the actual detail of any case – what exactly has been alleged and how it is being defended – is picked over and known to the fans. That in itself acts as a control over clubs and owners – who generally care very much about their image – to abide by the rules but is also a protection to help ensure a fair hearing.”

Any change to the Premier League rules would require a majority of 14 clubs and, with at least five clubs having faced recent investigations, persuading enough members to vote for open hearings could be challenging.

Nick De Marco, the lawyer who successfully argued that Leicester City’s alleged rule breach fell outside of the Premier League’s jurisdiction, is among those sports lawyers calling for “greater transparency, fairness and therefore publicity”.

Specifically highlighting the Azeem Rafiq racism case in cricket, De Marco said: “Speaking to other sports lawyers recently about when we might finally find out the decisions in the Manchester City/Premier League disputes [or even who sits on the tribunals], and the impact of public judicial review challenges to decisions of the Independent Football Regulator, if and when it comes in, I sense a growing consent … that we should, and we shall, move further towards public hearings in sport in the next few years,” he said.

In an article for the Sports Law Bulletin, De Marco, who works for the same Blackstone Chambers firm that employs some of Manchester City’s legal team, also set out six reasons for greater public transparency.

They include holding the tribunals themselves to account in the same way as public courts, arguing that “decisions taken behind closed doors are more prone to corruption or neglect”. It would also, he says, inspire greater public confidence in sports administration. “Unless you can see what happens at the hearing it is often difficult to work out how the decisions were arrived at,” he said. “Sport is a matter of genuine and legitimate public interest, and not simply a private matter. There is … a public interest in sport being fair, in having a level playing field – whether considering doping, match-fixing or financial fair play regimes, and many other things in between, the integrity of sport requires that each participant is treated equally, consistently and fairly.”

De Marco also stressed that, where genuine confidentiality issues arise, whether over financial details, witness anonymity or in respect of safeguarding, there are long mechanisms in state courts to deal with such sensitive matters.

A 2021 High Court ruling regarding the Premier League’s jurisdiction to handle City’s case previously also expressed surprise at the speed of progress in an investigation that began back in 2018, describing it as “a matter of legitimate public concern”.

Manchester City were eventually charged in February 2023 with multiple alleged breaches of league rules between 2009 and 2023 which, if proven, could result in sanctions ranging from warnings, fines and points deductions to being expelled from the league.

City deny all the charges and the case will be heard by the independent commission over an expected period of around 10 weeks. The outcome is then expected in the early new year, but before the end of the current Premier League season.