The Premier League faces an “awkward” situation in which Manchester City could clinch the title and, almost at the same time, be found guilty of the 115 charges levelled against them. Pep Guardiola’s outfit have performed with a cloud looming over them for well over a year while legal proceedings persist. They are once more in the running to secure the title, which would be their fifth in six years should they prevail over Arsenal.
City have consistently denied any wrongdoing and maintained their innocence, but are is still awaiting the outcome of a tribunal. That would present a concerning image for the Premier League and its authorities if a verdict is delivered just as they lift the trophy.
An article in The Lawyer states that City’s involvement in the title race is “something of a nightmare” for the league, given the optics of the circumstances.
They write: “English football now faces the very real – and awkward – possibility of the club being crowned champions at the same time as a tribunal finds it guilty of egregious rule breaches over many years. There is even a chance, albeit an incredibly unlikely one given the time left in the season, that City wins the League but receives a points deduction, handing the title to Arsenal.
“City competing for the title is now something of a nightmare for the Premier League. Like most arbitrations, the proceedings are confidential. That confidentiality and the 16-month wait has left rumours swirling and many scratching their heads about what is going on behind closed doors.”
Guardiola himself has publicly defended the club in press conferences, even though the charges relate to a period spanning from 2009 through to 2018. He was only at the helm for two of those years, but has previously stated he would walk away should the club’s assurances of innocence prove to be false.
The Lawyer suggests the protracted process is likely attributable to judges juggling other cases or a verdict still being deliberated by those concerned.
Further explanations for the delay could simply stem from the three judges involved failing to reach a unanimous decision. The publication notes that judges typically prefer to steer clear of split judgments and, where disagreements arise, the trio will in all likelihood attempt to reach a consensus, though this inevitably takes time.
A less probable scenario could see both parties entering settlement discussions. For this to materialise, City themselves may need to acknowledge some degree of wrongdoing, which would represent a dramatic reversal in their position.