German newspaper: Manchester City in the Champions League final thanks to Abu Dhabi money and a questionable court victory

Since he acquired Manchester City in 2008, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan has spent nearly 1.5 billion pounds (1.74 billion euros) on the club, to win the ball team 13 local titles, the last of which is the league this season.

However, "City" has not been able throughout the Emirati era to win any foreign championships, and the opportunity seems appropriate when Guardiola's squad meets on Saturday with Chelsea in the Champions League final.

Writer Ferry Batzoglu - in a report published in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - says that achieving this achievement seemed far-fetched in early 2020, as City was about to be absent from the current version of the Champions League, not for sports reasons. Rather, it was due to a two-year ban, according to a decision by the European Football Association (UEFA).

The team was finally able to participate in the tournament, but after a difficult court battle.

On February 14, 2020, the UEFA Arbitration Chamber imposed a ban on the participation of "City" two seasons in all European club competitions, and a fine of 30 million euros, for violating the financial fair play regulations.

Absence from the Champions League until the summer of 2022 meant dire consequences for the club.

However, City has appealed the decision of "UEFA" to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport, achieving its goal, as the court lifted the ban by a ruling issued on July 13, 2020, and reduced the fine to 10 million euros.

Football circles were angered when the court published the reasons for the decision, in a 93-page report, and the most important thing it relied on was the statute of limitations and insufficient evidence against the English club, which is why City was allowed to participate in the Champions League.

According to the report of the arbitration court, "the court was unable to conclude that City obtained the funds illegally."

Among the accusations made by UEFA to the club: Inflating the revenues it obtained from the UAE companies, "Etihad Airways" and "Emirates Telecommunications".

According to the allegation list issued by UEFA, the club obtained more than two hundred million euros from Sheikh Mansour directly.

The Sports Arbitration Court ruled that the case had been affected by UEFA's call to close the appeal prior to the start of the 2020-2021 UEFA Champions League, so the court waived the request for further evidence.

This sports court also indicated that the testimony of the club’s senior executives, and a letter from Sheikh Mansour, which reached the court and was not seen by UEFA, could have affected the original European Union’s decision and the volatility of the data in favor of “City”.

UEFA had described the financial behavior by "City" as the most serious and complex attempt "to circumvent the rules of fair financial play."

The European Union launched its investigation after the German magazine "Der Spiegel" published a series of emails allegedly condemning the English club.

"City" repeatedly insisted that what Der Spiegel published was "taken out of context", considering that the club was "defrauded and robbed" and that there was an "organized and clear" attempt to discredit the club.

But it is also clear - according to the author - that the appeal procedures brought by the "City" against UEFA, in Case No. (CAS 2020 / A / 6785) witnessed the violation of the code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport several times.

Doubts about the trial

The writer said: As mentioned on pages 13 and 14 of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decision, City appealed the ruling of UEFA on February 24, 2020. The English club chose French lawyer Andrew McDougall as a judge in the three-member panel, out of 106 members specialized in football affairs. Inside the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

On March 6, 2020, the German UEFA appointed Ulrich Haas, professor of law in Zurich, as a judge for the 3-member panel.

On March 30th, according to the court report, City confirmed that "Rui Botica Santos (Portugal) (Portugal) will be the president of the court in the current case."

On the same day, according to the Arbitration Court's report, UEFA said that they had no objection to the proposal made by the Prosecutor in his letter today (ie the appointment of Santos) in order to avoid any delay in the formation of the body, and that the Federation would like to "appoint the court to chair this body soon" .

On April 3, according to court documents, the two parties, namely City and UEFA, were informed that, in accordance with Article 54 of the Court's Act, after consulting with the other two judges (McDougall and Haas), Santos was appointed president of the court.

As a result, the panel consisted of 3 Santos as chair, and two judges Andrew McDougall and Haas.

The court regulations stipulate that the club that filed the appeal has the right to appoint one judge from the 3-member committee, who has chosen the French McDougall.

UEFA was entitled to appoint a judge in turn to represent the defendant party on the committee, and the German chose Haas.

In fact, "City" proposed two of the three judges in the midst of the proceedings, and the court responded to his proposal to appoint the Portuguese judge the same day, before UEFA could object.

In the end, the court ruling came in two votes in favor of "City" and one vote for UEFA.

Article R54 of the Court Law stipulates that the head of the department responsible for the case in the court must examine the judges appointed by the parties to the dispute (City and UEFA) in this case, to ensure their independence before they are formally appointed.

According to Article R33, "every judge must be impartial and independent of all parties, and remain so. He must immediately disclose all circumstances that may affect his independence towards one of the parties."

Article S18 states that “judges and mediators of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, upon their appointment, sign an official statement in which they undertake to perform their duties with complete integrity, independence and impartiality, and in accordance with the provisions of this law.”

According to the writer, there were no doubts surrounding the German lawyer Haas proposed by the European Union.

But things were different with regard to the French lawyer McDougall, who had chosen "City", which was highlighted by a number of legal experts in the British newspaper, The Guardian, in its issue issued on July 28, 2020, that is, a period after the decision to lift the ban on "City" was issued.

McDougall worked, between 2016 and 2018, in a branch of a law firm in Abu Dhabi, and among his clients were Al-Ittihad and Etisalat, the two Emiratis accused in the City financing case, who responded that McDougall did not personally work for the two companies. Know that there is a potential conflict of interest.

What about the Portuguese judge?

When reading his profile on the court's website, it becomes clear that Santos (53 years) is a lawyer based in Lisbon and Macau, a partner in the law firm "CRA" and an arbitrator at the Portuguese Center for Commercial Arbitration, and a member of several professional societies, and he teaches at the University of Madrid.

However, the arbitration court does not indicate on its website that Santos was a member of the General Assembly of the General Electric branch in Portugal from 1993 to 2005, and then the president of the association since 2006.

"I was previously a secretary and president of the General Electric Portugal (GEP) in my professional capacity as a lawyer," Santos says. "I was never paid for this job."

"My relationship with General Electric Portugal ended in 2012," he adds.

And he confirms to "Frankfurter" newspaper that his appointment as head of the "City" case against UEFA is understandable given his extensive experience as a judge in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and has nothing to do with the ball, and that he only attended a match for Portugal in the Euro Championship that his country hosted in 2004. And "the only player who has attended his life. I know his name is Cristiano Ronaldo. "

But Santos' choice of the case, and the connections of his legal office "CRA" and General Electric, remained controversial, according to the writer.

It is known that Mubadala Investment Company owns the UAE's sovereign wealth fund, which is supervised by Khaldoun Khalifa Al Mubarak, who is also the president of Manchester City and a close friend of Sheikh Mansour, in an important strategic partnership with General Electric.

Many wonder, according to the writer, whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport had well examined Judge Santos' file before announcing him as president of the court in the City case against UEFA, especially since the club was the one that proposed appointing him to this position.

In statements to "Frankfurter", Matthew Ribb of the Court of Arbitration for Sport says, "There was an agreement between the parties to appoint Santos as president of this body. In international arbitration, it is often completely acceptable for the parties to agree on a single judge. Sometimes there is agreement, sometimes It does not happen. The court examines whether the judge is appropriate in light of its regulations and the IBA guidelines, meaning that there is no conflict of interest. This was the case with Santos. "

For his part, a spokesperson for UEFA told the newspaper that the federation fully trusts all the referees on the list of the International Tribunal, and has no doubts about their independence and impartiality.