Everything Soccer

Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
15,747
I've seen this video a few times now this week. I keep coming back to two scenarios in my brain:

1. As a father, what would I have done if the kid being punched was my child?

2. As a father, what would i have done if the kid doing the punching was my child?

Based on our high schools code of conduct at last night's fall sports parent meeting, the kid who was doing the punching doesn't see an athletic field at the school for a year. Additional disciplinary action with the school outside of the athletic realm also happens.

Those actions are not at all acceptable. Swift and binding consequences. Kid probably needs some form of help too.
 
stlnd01

stlnd01

Was away. Now returned.
Messages
13,766
Reaction score
10,928
Jiggafini19Deux said:
I've seen this video a few times now this week. I keep coming back to two scenarios in my brain:

1. As a father, what would I have done if the kid being punched was my child?

2. As a father, what would i have done if the kid doing the punching was my child?

Based on our high schools code of conduct at last night's fall sports parent meeting, the kid who was doing the punching doesn't see an athletic field at the school for a year. Additional disciplinary action with the school outside of the athletic realm also happens.

Those actions are not at all acceptable. Swift and binding consequences. Kid probably needs some form of help too.
Click to expand...
The crazy thing is it looked completely unprovoked. Maybe the team in red had been talking some shit but the contact leading up to it was nothing.
Probably the kid who started it has some underlying issues he’s dealing with. But yeah that’s a season-ender.
 
jerseyborn1971

jerseyborn1971

Well-known member
Messages
791
Reaction score
1,210
Parents have our work cut out for us. These boys are inundated every day online and amongst their peers that it's not just acceptable, but necessary to be a "bad ass who doesn't take any shit" and to physically impose themselves on anyone who "disrespects" of even challenges them.
 
Old Man Mike

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,420
Reaction score
7,258
Maybe not of interest but just in case: Our second ranked girls soccer team plays on the B1G network today.

We've had some really good players over time. Maybe an olympian here or there?
 
Old Man Mike

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,420
Reaction score
7,258
Just watched the first half -- quite disappointing. Apparently the team has a few injuries and maybe they are the main goal scoring threats (hard to tell from the commentators.) But even with that, the team showed very little ball skills in that half, plus no evidence of speed. Hard to believe that the team was ranked fourth. Hopefully this is just a bad game and a problem trying to adjust to missing the scoring power. Even the lady commentator sounded like she felt poorly about ND not having the best players to put out there, and thought we had the players needed to be really good if we gelled.
 
Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
15,747
That left flank was getting beat bad in the first half. Particularly on the goal Nebraska scored. Considering all the injuries piled up already, a 1-1 draw at Nebraska isn't the worst result in the world.

Looked very disjointed. Still very early in the season.
 
FU BK

FU BK

Well-known member
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
3,114
Second game of my daughters freshman year on varsity and she bangs heads with another girl from the other team....welcome to concussion protocol kiddo.
 
N

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
18,310
Reaction score
19,049
Jiggafini19Deux said:
Balogun to Everton.

This is huge as far as his development. He's in the Premier League and he's going to play meaningful minutes for them most likely. Just turned 25 last month.
Click to expand...

Love this. Especially when the alternative was seemingly Barcelona. Don't get me wrong, that would have been fun, but the minutes likely wouldn't be there.
 
Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
15,747
I'm wondering if Unai Emery walks away from Aston Villa. There isn't much more he can do there based on the restrictions they have (which is bullshit) and what he's already accomplished.

The guy is a great manager.
 
N

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
18,310
Reaction score
19,049
Only saw the highlights with CFB on, but the USMNT's dismantling of Peru with a super young lineup gives an awful lot of hope for where things could be headed. Controlled possession, was overall the more dangerous team throughout, and debut goals for 2 of the young guys. Nice to Musah back in the mix, too.

I also like the edge/attitude from Cavan Sullivan a lot. Maybe it's naivety for a 16 year old, but he doesn't take shit from anyone. He's really good at getting under the other team's skin.
 
Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
15,747
notredomer23 said:
Only saw the highlights with CFB on, but the USMNT's dismantling of Peru with a super young lineup gives an awful lot of hope for where things could be headed. Controlled possession, was overall the more dangerous team throughout, and debut goals for 2 of the young guys. Nice to Musah back in the mix, too.

I also like the edge/attitude from Cavan Sullivan a lot. Maybe it's naivety for a 16 year old, but he doesn't take shit from anyone. He's really good at getting under the other team's skin.
Click to expand...
Want.

Everything should be building for the 2027 Gold Cup. They should be taking it seriously and playing to win it.
 
Jiggafini19Deux

Jiggafini19Deux

Minister of Delayed Gratification
Messages
14,590
Reaction score
15,747

Manchester City Have Been Found Guilty. Now Comes the Complicated Part​

The Premier League has now confirmed the findings against Manchester City and published the independent commission's core decision. What happens next?​


Written by David Skilling

You’ve all heard the news by now, and some of you might have wondered why I’ve not spoken about it yet.

I actually wrote a lot of this over the weekend after the news broke on Friday that Manchester City had been found guilty on almost all the charges against them. I had every confidence in the reporting, but the Premier League hadn’t publicly confirmed the findings, and we couldn’t read the commission’s decision ourselves.

I don’t really play the internet game of needing to be first. I’m not chasing an algorithm with a reaction five minutes after something happens, so I’d rather wait until there are enough facts available to understand what we’re actually talking about, particularly with something as complicated and legally sensitive as this.

Yesterday, the Premier League confirmed the independent commission’s findings and published a redacted version of its Core Decision. So now we can talk about what it actually found.

The Premier League has confirmed the following:
  • Manchester City were found guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18.
  • The commission found City used “sham” contracts and agreements with commercial partners to artificially inflate revenue and reduce costs.
  • It found Abu Dhabi United Group, City’s owner during the relevant period, funded the difference.
  • The commission found these arrangements artificially inflated revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million.
  • It found City filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of their finances from auditors and football regulators.
  • Had the relevant agreements been accurately reported, the commission found City would have breached Premier League and UEFA spending limits by a “very substantial amount”.
  • City were also found guilty of multiple failures to cooperate with the Premier League’s four-year investigation, concluding City had made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the Premier League investigation.
Those findings go beyond the 114-of-115 headline we had over the weekend. We now know what the independent commission concluded and, in broad terms, how it believes City misrepresented its finances. For me, that’s the more important development. Whatever happens on appeal, the findings we’re dealing with aren’t administrative mistakes or a club accidentally falling on the wrong side of a spending limit. The commission found deliberate attempts to circumvent the rules over a period of years.

For anyone that hasn’t followed every stage of this, it’s worth going back to where much of it began, because the route from hacked emails to potentially unprecedented Premier League sanctions is pretty extraordinary.

Rui Pinto is the founder of Football Leaks, which exposed millions of confidential documents from inside the football industry. Using the pseudonym “John”, Pinto provided material to journalists, and in November 2018 German publication Der Spiegel began publishing investigations based on leaked Manchester City documents and emails.

Among the allegations was that City had inflated sponsorship revenue from Abu Dhabi-linked companies by disguising investment from Abu Dhabi United Group as sponsorship income. The leaked material also raised questions around remuneration arrangements involving former manager Roberto Mancini.

City consistently disputed those allegations and the interpretation of the hacked material.

Pinto is hardly a straightforward whistleblower. He has argued that his actions were in the public interest, but in 2023 a Portuguese court gave him a four-year suspended sentence after convicting him of attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence.
Whatever view you take of Pinto or how the information was obtained, Football Leaks put material into the public domain that football’s regulators couldn’t ignore.

In 2014, City had to pay a £49m fine for breaking UEFA's financial fair play (FFP) rules, then in 2020, UEFA banned City from European club competition for two seasons and fined it £25.7m after its Club Financial Control Body concluded the club had committed serious breaches of its financial regulations.

City appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and largely won.

CAS overturned the European ban and reduced the fine to €10 million. Its judgment found that City hadn’t disguised equity funding as sponsorship contributions, while UEFA subsequently acknowledged that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of its conclusions and that several alleged breaches were time-barred under UEFA’s five-year limitation period. CAS found that City failed to cooperate with UEFA’s investigation.

You’ll sometimes see that reduced either to “City were cleared” or, from the other direction, “they got off because the evidence was too old”. Neither quite captures what happened. Some allegations were time-barred, others weren’t sufficiently established, and City were punished for failing to cooperate.

The Premier League’s investigation was separate. It began in December 2018, and in February 2023 the league referred City to an independent commission over what became known as the 115 charges.

The headline number has always made the case sound slightly simpler than it is. These weren’t 115 different allegations of City secretly putting money into the club. They covered multiple seasons and different sections of the Premier League’s rules, including the accuracy of financial information, player and manager remuneration, compliance with UEFA financial regulations, the Premier League’s own spending rules and City’s cooperation with the investigation.

City denied the allegations and said in February 2023 that it welcomed an independent commission reviewing what it called a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” supporting its position.

The private hearing eventually lasted 42 days and concluded in December 2024. The scale of what the commission then had to work through helps explain why the decision took so long: transcripts of witness and expert evidence alone ran to approximately 7,000 pages, alongside the documents used at the hearing and detailed written submissions from both sides.

We now know where the commission landed.

According to the Premier League’s statement, City arranged sham commercial deals with sponsors as part of what the commission found was a “disguised funding scheme”. Sponsors paid only part of the stated sponsorship fees, with the remainder funded by Abu Dhabi United Group.

The commission also found arrangements designed to allow City to record lower operating expenses, including an arrangement involving Fordham, the entity that purchased the club’s player image rights. Across the affected period, the commission found that the schemes artificially increased revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million ($1.2 billion).

Its conclusion was unusually direct: City “clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules”.

The commission also found that City made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the Premier League’s investigation. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters described the findings as establishing how City “systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade”.

City’s position hasn’t changed.

Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak reinforced that over the weekend, before the Premier League published the Core Decision. In a letter to supporters, he said City’s confidence in “proving the Club’s innocence” remained as strong as when the process began and suggested there was information City would like to disclose but couldn’t because of the confidentiality surrounding proceedings.

That statement must now be read alongside the commission’s published findings. City aren’t publicly moving towards mitigation or arguing merely about the severity of punishment. They’re still contesting the substance of a case in which an independent commission has now formally found serious breaches occurred.

The next stage is punishment.

The Premier League has confirmed it will deal with the sanction separately at another hearing before the independent commission. Its rules give commissions broad discretion, with potential sanctions including fines, points deductions and other sporting penalties.

Title stripping has inevitably become part of the public discussion, given City’s success during the period covered by the findings. There is far less clarity around retrospective changes to historical league results, however, and nothing in Tuesday’s Premier League statement says City’s titles will be removed or reassigned.

Comparisons with Everton and Nottingham Forest have been brought up a lot, but I think they only take us so far. Their PSR cases involved much narrower breaches concerning defined accounting periods. City’s case spans nine seasons and, according to the commission, involved deliberate schemes designed to make the club’s financial position appear different from what it actually was.

We can’t just take a previous points deduction and multiply it by the number of charges.

I don’t know what the appropriate punishment is, and I don’t think anyone outside the process can sensibly put an exact financial sum or number of points on it. But if these findings stand up against the appeal, I think the punishment has to reflect the scale of what the commission found, not just fit within the range set by previous PSR cases.

Personally, I’d be looking for a combination of sanctions. That could include points deductions across multiple seasons, which I think would be more meaningful than effectively writing off one campaign with a relegation, alongside a significant fine and a transfer ban. If retrospective punishment is considered, stripping titles without retrospectively awarding them to other clubs makes more sense to me than rewriting old league tables. I’d also be interested in whether there is any mechanism to redistribute prize money across the league where financial losses can be established.

I don’t know if all of those outcomes are necessarily available, and some would be more legally complicated than others. But after findings of this scale, I don’t think the answer should be to find a bigger version of the punishment used for previous cases.

Another part of this, which I think could become just as interesting as the punishment itself, is what other Premier League clubs do next.
Several clubs have already sought legal advice about potential compensation claims. Any club pursuing City can’t just point to an old league table, move itself up one position and send an invoice; it would need to establish that City’s breaches caused it an identifiable financial loss.

Depending on the club and season, arguments could involve Premier League prize money, European qualification, or revenue tied to finishing positions.

There is already a relevant example we can look at. Burnley successfully pursued Everton at first instance over Everton’s PSR breach, arguing that it damaged Burnley’s chance of avoiding relegation in 2021/22. An independent commission awarded Burnley £26 million plus £9.1 million in interest, although Everton are appealing. Applying anything similar to City would be a lot more complicated, as lots of clubs could potentially examine finishing positions, European qualification and the money attached to them during the affected seasons.

None of those league tables automatically establishes a legal claim. Football isn’t a spreadsheet where removing one club proves what everyone else would have achieved instead. Claimants would still need to connect City’s proven breaches to a competitive advantage and then connect that advantage to a measurable financial loss of their own.

For me, this is where the next stage potentially becomes more interesting than the argument we’ve spent years having.

The Premier League has now established something we couldn’t say when I first wrote this over the weekend. According to its independent commission, Manchester City didn’t just commit technical accounting breaches. The commission found deliberate schemes that misrepresented revenue and costs, caused the club to breach spending limits by a very substantial amount and concealed its true financial position from auditors and regulators.

Appeals will follow, rival clubs will likely pursue compensation, and any claims will create another lengthy and complicated legal process.
I want to finish by pointing to the Premier League’s own Statement of Principles, which includes four values it says underpin how it operates. Under the “Fair” value, it promises “safeguarding the integrity of the game” and “Thinking of tomorrow when making decisions for today”. Those words carry a lot more weight now.

After eight years of investigations, legal arguments, and hearings, English football has reached a point where it must make big decisions that will shape how the world sees the Premier League. It’s no easy task, but this is where we see what the league is made of.

Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.

A quick note: This was a research-heavy piece. Everything here is based on the Premier League’s published findings and other publicly available reporting as of 30 September 2026. The process is ongoing, so some details may change.
 
N

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
18,310
Reaction score
19,049
Jiggafini19Deux said:
More great stuff last night from the USMNT. Was kind of a crazy game for a bit but they got the victory. Some of these young teenagers are really good.

Mexico up next on Saturday.
Click to expand...

I’ve never been this optimistic about the 10 field players and more pessimistic about the situation in goal. I’ll settle for a Guzan quality keeper. How did this happen?
 
G

gregm83

Well-known member
Messages
393
Reaction score
307
Jiggafini19Deux said:

Manchester City Have Been Found Guilty. Now Comes the Complicated Part​

The Premier League has now confirmed the findings against Manchester City and published the independent commission's core decision. What happens next?​


Written by David Skilling

You’ve all heard the news by now, and some of you might have wondered why I’ve not spoken about it yet.

I actually wrote a lot of this over the weekend after the news broke on Friday that Manchester City had been found guilty on almost all the charges against them. I had every confidence in the reporting, but the Premier League hadn’t publicly confirmed the findings, and we couldn’t read the commission’s decision ourselves.

I don’t really play the internet game of needing to be first. I’m not chasing an algorithm with a reaction five minutes after something happens, so I’d rather wait until there are enough facts available to understand what we’re actually talking about, particularly with something as complicated and legally sensitive as this.

Yesterday, the Premier League confirmed the independent commission’s findings and published a redacted version of its Core Decision. So now we can talk about what it actually found.

The Premier League has confirmed the following:
  • Manchester City were found guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18.
  • The commission found City used “sham” contracts and agreements with commercial partners to artificially inflate revenue and reduce costs.
  • It found Abu Dhabi United Group, City’s owner during the relevant period, funded the difference.
  • The commission found these arrangements artificially inflated revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million.
  • It found City filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of their finances from auditors and football regulators.
  • Had the relevant agreements been accurately reported, the commission found City would have breached Premier League and UEFA spending limits by a “very substantial amount”.
  • City were also found guilty of multiple failures to cooperate with the Premier League’s four-year investigation, concluding City had made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the Premier League investigation.
Those findings go beyond the 114-of-115 headline we had over the weekend. We now know what the independent commission concluded and, in broad terms, how it believes City misrepresented its finances. For me, that’s the more important development. Whatever happens on appeal, the findings we’re dealing with aren’t administrative mistakes or a club accidentally falling on the wrong side of a spending limit. The commission found deliberate attempts to circumvent the rules over a period of years.

For anyone that hasn’t followed every stage of this, it’s worth going back to where much of it began, because the route from hacked emails to potentially unprecedented Premier League sanctions is pretty extraordinary.

Rui Pinto is the founder of Football Leaks, which exposed millions of confidential documents from inside the football industry. Using the pseudonym “John”, Pinto provided material to journalists, and in November 2018 German publication Der Spiegel began publishing investigations based on leaked Manchester City documents and emails.

Among the allegations was that City had inflated sponsorship revenue from Abu Dhabi-linked companies by disguising investment from Abu Dhabi United Group as sponsorship income. The leaked material also raised questions around remuneration arrangements involving former manager Roberto Mancini.

City consistently disputed those allegations and the interpretation of the hacked material.

Pinto is hardly a straightforward whistleblower. He has argued that his actions were in the public interest, but in 2023 a Portuguese court gave him a four-year suspended sentence after convicting him of attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence.
Whatever view you take of Pinto or how the information was obtained, Football Leaks put material into the public domain that football’s regulators couldn’t ignore.

In 2014, City had to pay a £49m fine for breaking UEFA's financial fair play (FFP) rules, then in 2020, UEFA banned City from European club competition for two seasons and fined it £25.7m after its Club Financial Control Body concluded the club had committed serious breaches of its financial regulations.

City appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and largely won.

CAS overturned the European ban and reduced the fine to €10 million. Its judgment found that City hadn’t disguised equity funding as sponsorship contributions, while UEFA subsequently acknowledged that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of its conclusions and that several alleged breaches were time-barred under UEFA’s five-year limitation period. CAS found that City failed to cooperate with UEFA’s investigation.

You’ll sometimes see that reduced either to “City were cleared” or, from the other direction, “they got off because the evidence was too old”. Neither quite captures what happened. Some allegations were time-barred, others weren’t sufficiently established, and City were punished for failing to cooperate.

The Premier League’s investigation was separate. It began in December 2018, and in February 2023 the league referred City to an independent commission over what became known as the 115 charges.

The headline number has always made the case sound slightly simpler than it is. These weren’t 115 different allegations of City secretly putting money into the club. They covered multiple seasons and different sections of the Premier League’s rules, including the accuracy of financial information, player and manager remuneration, compliance with UEFA financial regulations, the Premier League’s own spending rules and City’s cooperation with the investigation.

City denied the allegations and said in February 2023 that it welcomed an independent commission reviewing what it called a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” supporting its position.

The private hearing eventually lasted 42 days and concluded in December 2024. The scale of what the commission then had to work through helps explain why the decision took so long: transcripts of witness and expert evidence alone ran to approximately 7,000 pages, alongside the documents used at the hearing and detailed written submissions from both sides.

We now know where the commission landed.

According to the Premier League’s statement, City arranged sham commercial deals with sponsors as part of what the commission found was a “disguised funding scheme”. Sponsors paid only part of the stated sponsorship fees, with the remainder funded by Abu Dhabi United Group.

The commission also found arrangements designed to allow City to record lower operating expenses, including an arrangement involving Fordham, the entity that purchased the club’s player image rights. Across the affected period, the commission found that the schemes artificially increased revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million ($1.2 billion).

Its conclusion was unusually direct: City “clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules”.

The commission also found that City made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the Premier League’s investigation. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters described the findings as establishing how City “systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade”.

City’s position hasn’t changed.

Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak reinforced that over the weekend, before the Premier League published the Core Decision. In a letter to supporters, he said City’s confidence in “proving the Club’s innocence” remained as strong as when the process began and suggested there was information City would like to disclose but couldn’t because of the confidentiality surrounding proceedings.

That statement must now be read alongside the commission’s published findings. City aren’t publicly moving towards mitigation or arguing merely about the severity of punishment. They’re still contesting the substance of a case in which an independent commission has now formally found serious breaches occurred.

The next stage is punishment.

The Premier League has confirmed it will deal with the sanction separately at another hearing before the independent commission. Its rules give commissions broad discretion, with potential sanctions including fines, points deductions and other sporting penalties.

Title stripping has inevitably become part of the public discussion, given City’s success during the period covered by the findings. There is far less clarity around retrospective changes to historical league results, however, and nothing in Tuesday’s Premier League statement says City’s titles will be removed or reassigned.

Comparisons with Everton and Nottingham Forest have been brought up a lot, but I think they only take us so far. Their PSR cases involved much narrower breaches concerning defined accounting periods. City’s case spans nine seasons and, according to the commission, involved deliberate schemes designed to make the club’s financial position appear different from what it actually was.

We can’t just take a previous points deduction and multiply it by the number of charges.

I don’t know what the appropriate punishment is, and I don’t think anyone outside the process can sensibly put an exact financial sum or number of points on it. But if these findings stand up against the appeal, I think the punishment has to reflect the scale of what the commission found, not just fit within the range set by previous PSR cases.

Personally, I’d be looking for a combination of sanctions. That could include points deductions across multiple seasons, which I think would be more meaningful than effectively writing off one campaign with a relegation, alongside a significant fine and a transfer ban. If retrospective punishment is considered, stripping titles without retrospectively awarding them to other clubs makes more sense to me than rewriting old league tables. I’d also be interested in whether there is any mechanism to redistribute prize money across the league where financial losses can be established.

I don’t know if all of those outcomes are necessarily available, and some would be more legally complicated than others. But after findings of this scale, I don’t think the answer should be to find a bigger version of the punishment used for previous cases.

Another part of this, which I think could become just as interesting as the punishment itself, is what other Premier League clubs do next.
Several clubs have already sought legal advice about potential compensation claims. Any club pursuing City can’t just point to an old league table, move itself up one position and send an invoice; it would need to establish that City’s breaches caused it an identifiable financial loss.

Depending on the club and season, arguments could involve Premier League prize money, European qualification, or revenue tied to finishing positions.

There is already a relevant example we can look at. Burnley successfully pursued Everton at first instance over Everton’s PSR breach, arguing that it damaged Burnley’s chance of avoiding relegation in 2021/22. An independent commission awarded Burnley £26 million plus £9.1 million in interest, although Everton are appealing. Applying anything similar to City would be a lot more complicated, as lots of clubs could potentially examine finishing positions, European qualification and the money attached to them during the affected seasons.

None of those league tables automatically establishes a legal claim. Football isn’t a spreadsheet where removing one club proves what everyone else would have achieved instead. Claimants would still need to connect City’s proven breaches to a competitive advantage and then connect that advantage to a measurable financial loss of their own.

For me, this is where the next stage potentially becomes more interesting than the argument we’ve spent years having.

The Premier League has now established something we couldn’t say when I first wrote this over the weekend. According to its independent commission, Manchester City didn’t just commit technical accounting breaches. The commission found deliberate schemes that misrepresented revenue and costs, caused the club to breach spending limits by a very substantial amount and concealed its true financial position from auditors and regulators.

Appeals will follow, rival clubs will likely pursue compensation, and any claims will create another lengthy and complicated legal process.
I want to finish by pointing to the Premier League’s own Statement of Principles, which includes four values it says underpin how it operates. Under the “Fair” value, it promises “safeguarding the integrity of the game” and “Thinking of tomorrow when making decisions for today”. Those words carry a lot more weight now.

After eight years of investigations, legal arguments, and hearings, English football has reached a point where it must make big decisions that will shape how the world sees the Premier League. It’s no easy task, but this is where we see what the league is made of.

Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.

A quick note: This was a research-heavy piece. Everything here is based on the Premier League’s published findings and other publicly available reporting as of 30 September 2026. The process is ongoing, so some details may change.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of NCAA cases where teams committed violations in the past. How much do you punish present players who often had very little to do with the situation. How much can you actually punish the decision makers with real consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top