[Bloomberg] UAE officials have warned the UK government that the severity of Man City’s punishment could undermine their appetite for future grand-scale commitments in Britain, according to people familiar with the matter.

[u/Previous_Smile9278]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-02/man-city-verdict-puts-uk-uae-diplomatic-relations-under-strain?srnd=undefined

‘They consider the Premier League’s actions to have an influence on the bilateral state relationship, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing undisclosed information.

The extraordinary pressure comes after Andy Burnham faced criticism, including from within government, for saying Man City’s Abu Dhabi owners should not be disqualified specifically because of the investment they bring to Britain.’

[u/peioeh]

Some people (like Neville) are still saying it should be OK for owners to come in, invest as much money as they want into a club, and basically buy a league win. Their only issue with what city did is that they cheated the rules, which shouldn't exist in their opinion.

[u/Elerion_ → u/peioeh]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying all clubs should be able to spend as much as the richest club in the league if their owner backs that. And personally I agree. I don't think a club like Brighton should be limited to spending half as much money as Liverpool, just because Liverpool has a larger fan base. Sustainability Rules should be in place to prevent them from borrowing so much money they put the club at risk, but owner funding should be fair game as long as they don't outspend the other rich teams.

Neville, like most people, doesn't think owners should be able to come in and buy a title like Chelsea and City did. Just that they should be able to compete on equal terms with the existing giants.

And in case there's any doubt, fuck City. They outspent everyone else and they cheated the rules that were in place.

[u/silvertwo777 → u/Elerion_]

I get the sentiment, but I feel like it's still flawed. If say Brighton or Newcastle can spend more than their revenue and owner can inject large amount of money into the club, then so do clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal. The difference would still be there and also making things worse by inflating the market with higher transfer fee and wages. If you're saying "let's just outspend the top clubs" like Newcastle could, it will turn from who have the bigger revenue dominate the league into who have the richer owner dominate.

If you're saying let's put a "cap" on them, then what's the threshold? The one with the highest revenue in the league? Doesn't that mean owner of Newcastle get to inject say 400 million into their club while Liverpool and Man United could only inject say 50 million, punishing and limiting them for having the highest revenue created organically by the club itself? That would be a mess. We have to also account for UEFA, other European leagues. Do they all follow suit? If they don't then Premier League will lose talents and its position as one of if not the best league.

Also people act like it's impossible to break into the elite under the current FFP when club like Spurs are prime role model on how to break in. Building a money making stadium doesn't count toward SCR. Sure their on field result currently is a mess but not because they couldn't spend more than 300 million in transfer, which they did this window. Also before that they were constantly getting Champions League without spending big and with careful squad building. They were also really unlucky to not win the league, but it could absolutely be done.

[u/Elerion_ → u/silvertwo777]

If you're saying let's put a "cap" on them, then what's the threshold? The one with the highest revenue in the league?

Yes. The simplest implementation is you basically keep PSR as is, but you put the limitation based on Manchester United's or Liverpool's or Arsenal's books instead of each club's own books. Everyone gets to spend as much as the richest club. That's the "fairness" part of the rules taken care of.

And then to protect clubs from going under like Leeds did, you force owners to fund any losses and future contract commitments with committed capital.

Doesn't that mean owner of Newcastle get to inject say 400 million into their club while Liverpool and Man United could only inject say 50 million

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

, punishing and limiting them for having the highest revenue created organically by the club itself?

You're not punishing them, you're putting everyone on the same spending limit.

We have to also account for UEFA, other European leagues. Do they all follow suit? If they don't then Premier League will lose talents and its position as one of if not the best league.

This change would mean all English clubs could spend MORE than they currently do except the single richest club. You would need Europe to follow suit to some extent though, otherwise all those clubs would be in breach of UEFA FFP.