What APT rule changes mean for Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham and Premier League rivals after vote

At the luxurious Nobu Hotel in London on Friday morning, a vote was cast among the 20 Premier League member clubs, its shareholders, regarding proposed changes to the rules governing commercial deals. The Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules were initially introduced to prevent clubs with certain ownership groups, who had the capacity to utilise other related assets, from striking deals above fair market value.

However, following Newcastle United's takeover by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF), 'fair market value' regulations were implemented. Earlier this year, current champions Manchester City initiated legal action against the Premier League's APT rules, alleging their unlawfulness.

While many of City's arguments were dismissed by the independent commission that heard the case, some points were agreed upon, including the notion that interest-free shareholder loans from owners should be factored into the league's profit and sustainability rules (PSR). In response, the Premier League made amendments which were then put to a vote on Friday among the 20 member clubs, requiring 14 votes for approval.

They secured 16 votes, with Manchester City, Newcastle United, Nottingham Forest, and Aston Villa opposing the proposals, while representatives from Chelsea and Manchester United advocated for the changes to the members present.

Following discussions, the Premier League has announced that adjustments to the APT rules will involve "integrating the assessment of shareholder loans" with some prior amendments being rolled back. In a statement, the League explained: "The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at fair market value by virtue of relationships with associated parties," reports the Manchester Evening News.

Despite legal actions initiated by Manchester City leading to enforced changes, such as the inclusion of shareholder loans in PSR assessments potentially affecting some clubs in upcoming years, elements implemeted earlier this year have been withdrawn, somewhat diluting the strength of the regulations.

Nonetheless, the Premier League deems the vote a positive outcome, especially considering any additional sway by City and those on their side could have prompted significant alterations in how commercial agreements are forged. This comes at a time when the Premier League's capacity for self-regulation faces scrutiny, highlighted by the ongoing commission hearing into Manchester City concerning accusations of financial control breaches over an extensive period.

It's likely that this won't be the end of the matter, with City previously indicating they would pursue further legal action if the decision didn't go in their favour. This could mean more legal fees for the Premier League to contend with, funds which would otherwise be part of the central funding and distributed to member clubs.

Despite the potential for assessing shareholder loans for PSR purposes, 16 clubs felt the existing rules were suitable, possibly due to fears of being outpaced in revenue generation if team owners could heavily rely on their related assets.