I appreciate Sparky’s logical breakdown and analysis of the potential outcomes if City is found guilty of the violations they appear to have committed.
However, there’s one element missing from all of these scenarios: meaningful disciplinary action and consistency, especially considering that others have faced punishment for less severe offenses.
Firstly, I agree that stripping City’s titles and reassigning them wouldn’t feel quite right, as it might lack genuine merit for the other clubs.
But at the same time, City shouldn’t keep these titles if wrongdoing is proven. It would be better to void and mark them with an asterisk rather than leave them illegitimately awarded.
Secondly, financial penalties are largely pointless unless the affected clubs benefit from them, though achieving that would be complex, similar to untangling a bureaucratic mess.
Thirdly, relegating City to the Championship isn’t effective, as it would only punish clubs already there working hard to compete. So, what’s the alternative? Drop them to the very bottom of the league structure.
If they’ve consistently violated the rules for years, that’s the kind of accountability that should apply—after all, it happened to Juventus and Rangers. Why should City be treated differently?
