Opinion: Manchester City escapes harsh punishment as FIFA gloriously demonstrates why fans are slowly losing faith in football’s deep establishment

Both Manchester City and Chelsea were fined for breaching so-called article 19 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which lists various clauses and caveats that must be met following the acquisition of minors. Yet, though the crime's identical, the context of the two clubs’ transgressions differs and thus have been bestowed two divergent fates.

FIFA fined Manchester City ￡315,000 for its crimes, around ￡150,000 less than Chelsea were asked to pay 6-months prior. On the face of it, the organisation can be applauded for taking affirmative action to combat breaches in the established rules and regulations. But every case must be understood in context and the severity of the punishment deemed fit for regulatory violations is often determined by criteria set by the organisation’s own precedent. Only 6 months earlier FIFA ostensibly made an example out of Chelsea, just as they had done to Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atletico in previous seasons, laying down a marker meant to deter other clubs from making the same grievous mistakes. The precedent had been set.

Fast forward to the summer and FIFA’s disciplinary committee reached its latest verdict by pleading to the case’s context, stating that the “specific circumstances of [the] case differ from previous cases”. World Football’s governing body wanted to highlight Manchester City’s willingness to cooperate in the investigation as having been beneficial to their cause, as well as citing “misinterpretations of the regulations in question” as key factors in the verdict. In essence, the message being sent out is simple, grovel and profess your ignorance and you will be met with relative impunity in the face of retribution.

On the other hand, Chelsea’s decision to appeal their verdict on an investigation into the same infringements was answered with a ￡460,000 fine and a two-window transfer ban. The inconsistency of FIFA’s disciplinary record raises several important questions, most notably regarding FIFA’s governance structure, the efficiency of its disciplinary policies, the legitimacy of its politics and the importance it places on the protection of minors in the modern game.

How much influence does a club’s status have over its judicial sway? A lot, it would seem. In many respects, Chelsea is (and has been for some time) English football’s public enemy number one. The uncertainty surrounding a politically ostracised owner, a hugely successful yet wasteful academy set up primarily for financial gain and sporadic bouts of racism encroaching into fan forums have somewhat harmed the club’s brand in recent seasons. Come judgement day, FIFA was quick to punish the club safe in the knowledge that the verdict was unlikely to be met by much public grievance.

Manchester City, on the other hand, is a relatively stable asset. The club has a superstar manager in Pep Guardiola coaching a superstar squad that plays superstar football, performing at a level that has captivated aficionados the world over. The excitement that surrounds English football’s cream of the crop and the success that has accompanied its decade-long revolution has made the project sacrosanct. How long has it been since we’ve heard anything regarding City’s over-inflated sponsorship deals and the leaked e-mails publicising the club’s callous disregard for FIFA officials and Financial Fair Play regulations? You would think the governing body would have a bone to pick. Yet, still, radio silence.

Nothing can allow the de-railing of a club that has trebled its revenue over the past ten seasons and whose squad attracts large viewership figures across both domestic and continental competitions. In a nutshell, the prospect of depriving the crown jewel of European football its ability to sign players will have been a pressing concern in the minds of FIFA’s adjudicators. We can’t upset the status quo in the name of just morality, the economics don’t make sense. However, by holding the two teams to unequal standards FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee has sown uncertainty into the legitimacy of its sentencing.

City’s assertion that its infractions occurred as a result of a misinterpretation of the rules and regulations feels too convenient. For a club that has swiftly developed a pedigree for winning titles in the last 10 years, pipped as one of Europe’s most exciting and well managed teams with a boardroom occupied by some of the industry’s most talented operators, the idea that the club was uninformed of the rules that countless other clubs seamlessly abide by on a weekly basis strikes me as a club operating with casual contempt for the rules and undeterred by the potentiality of punishment.

The verdict also raises further questions surrounding the effectiveness of financial punishment in the modern game. The insignificant fiscal slap on City’s wrists equates to roughly a week’s wages for the top earners at a club that ranked as world football’s 5th highest revenue generator for the 2017/18 season. FIFA claims to have comprehensive procedures in place to accurately determine fair and equal punishment, but these latest revelations only serve to feed the narrative that football’s ultimate authority is losing touch with the fans. A 2018 Ipsos poll covering favourable attitudes towards the 2018 FIFA World Cup found that only 31% of people in Britain trusted FIFA to ‘always do the best for football and its spectators.’ Unsurprisingly, 18 of FIFA’s top 25 admirers are nations outside Europe where FIFA has been prioritising large-scale investments in recent years. The overall global satisfaction figure rests at a 60%; still in the green, but dwindling.

Fundamentally, FIFA’s conscious and calculated decision to allow Manchester City to avoid a transfer ban has created uncertainty surrounding the severity with which FIFA tackles these issues, once again calling into question the role that power and status play in the decisions taken behind closed doors at the game’s principal legislative authority. The verdict is testament to an apathetic organisation exhibiting a blatant disregard for the severity of the accusations, squandering an opportunity to make overtly clear that the protection of minors in the professional game is paramount and will be strictly upheld regardless of the profile of the culprit. Failing to do that sets a dangerous precedent for our safety and security of our sport’s youngest and most vulnerable members.