Jose Mourinho could not help himself on the eve of his latest reunion with Manchester United. An opportunity to enhance his Old Trafford legacy was not to be missed.
“As you know, we won the Europa League (in 2017) and we finished second in the Premier League (in 2018),” Mourinho, now in charge of Turkey’s Fenerbahce, told reporters in an assessment of his time as United manager before the two clubs met in Europe last week.
“I think we still have a chance to win that league, because maybe they punish Man City with points and maybe we win that league. Then they have to pay me the bonus and give me the medal.”
Typical Mourinho, perhaps, mischievous, playing to a crowd and preoccupied with silverware. But as Manchester City’s hearing against 115 Premier League charges continues in London, with an outcome finally expected in the new year, it begs the question of whether the stripping — and reallocating — of titles may actually be where this saga ends.
Has Mourinho really got a point?
Technically, yes. If you squint. The nine-year period (2009 to 2018) that covers all those Premier League charges saw City rise to the summit of English football, winning the title in the 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2017-18 seasons.
It is alleged that City’s actions gave them a financial advantage over rivals and ultimately it will be the decision of an independent commission, which is in the middle of an exhaustive hearing, that shapes what comes next. The case, and its potentially seismic ramifications, are all best explained at length here:
If (and it’s a big if, given their consistent denials of wrongdoing) City are found to have breached the Premier League’s rules, the great unknown is how they will be punished.
A wide range of sanctions open to the commission stretches from financial penalties to expulsion from the Premier League. Taking away titles won in that period, in theory, is another option. United, as runners-up in 2011-12 as well as 2017-18, and Mourinho may then consider themselves to be next in line for retrospective silverware, and the financial rewards that come with being champions.
“Technically, it could happen, because the powers the commission have are very wide-ranging,” said Dan Chapman, sports and employment lawyer at Leathes Prior.
“They do include the power to deduct points that have already been incurred retrospectively or to deduct future points. The commission could technically say, ‘In this particular season, we’re going to deduct you x points’, but I’d think it extremely unlikely. I can’t think of any precedent for it. Typically in sport, if you look backwards you create more problems than you solve.”
Even as the verdict moves closer, there is not so much as a hint of knowing how this story ends.
“Ultimately, this will be a decision for the independent commission, which is granted a wide discretion over sanctions in Rule W.51 — anything from points deductions, to a recommendation for expulsion from the league, and to ‘such other order as it thinks fit’,” said Chris Allen, a partner at Memery Crystal. “The independent commission may end up with an unenviable job here if any material charges stick.”
Where do the problems come?
Only Mourinho will know the sincerity of his comments but they at least drew us to the nub of a thorny issue.
Let us, for argument’s sake, take this case to its theoretical extremes, with City found guilty of every charge and subsequently hit as hard as they possibly could be. Titles are rescinded and handed to others, United in 2011-12 and 2017-18 and Liverpool, who came second in 2013-14.
Is every player and manager who thought they had finished runners-up to City deserving of a retrospective bonus from clubs they are no longer employed by? Do City’s players from those years have to hand their financial rewards and medals back?
“While Mourinho’s comments might have been tongue in cheek, they illustrate the problem,” said Chapman. “If you deduct points retrospectively, you run the risk of actually harming other clubs that are nothing to do with the case. Is it fair that Manchester United, for example, would have to pay him a bonus when they didn’t get the benefit of winning the title at the time? They didn’t get the commercial benefits, so they shouldn’t have to endure the claims that might come.
“You might find, for example, there was a club relegated and if you reallocated the points, they wouldn’t have been. Then all the players and staff might turn around and bring claims against that club asking for a bonus for staying up. It can go to illogical extremes.
“You’d think the last thing the commission would want to do was end this legal case and begin 20 new ones. They are going to want to bring some sort of finality to this matter as best they can. They don’t want to put other clubs, who are innocent bystanders in this, in a complicated situation. I’d think it highly unlikely any commission would think that was in the interests of the sport.”
Why doesn’t sport like reallocating honours?
It all just gets too messy. Although we might expect a track-and-field athlete to have a silver medal upgraded to gold in the wake of the event’s original winner failing a drugs test, rewriting history with the reallocation of prizes won long ago is an unpalatable prospect for administrators.
It is why the vast majority of sporting sanctions are forward-facing, such as the points deductions given to Everton and Nottingham Forest last season after breaching spending rules during previous campaigns. Those gave a level of clarity, albeit late in the day, to all parties.
“It goes to fundamental concepts of fairness and legal certainty — rules are generally not meant to operate retrospectively,” says Allen.
“Sport is all about the here and now — it is the on-field competition itself that matters. The result from yesteryear should not be artificially changed after the event, otherwise you are in danger of undermining the sporting integrity and the engagement and trust of fans in the sport itself. Generally, sanctions are viewed as being more effective deterrents if they have an immediate impact on a player’s or club’s standing.
“If retrospective action is to be imposed, it could give rise to other difficult questions, including: do you strip the title (unedifying for whoever was in second place) or reallocate it (an empty win)? What about those teams that missed out on a European spot, what do you do about prize monies that were previously awarded, and do any of the relegated teams have a claim? This is another reason why punishments tend to be forward-looking.”
The most obvious footballing precedent to illustrate Mourinho’s complaint is the stripping of Juventus’ two Serie A titles in 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Turin club topped the Italian league under Fabio Capello in those seasons but had the silverware they lifted taken away in the wake of the Calciopoli scandal which found several clubs, including them, had influenced the appointment of referees.
The 2004-05 crown was rescinded as a punishment but, rather than retrospectively award it to runners-up AC Milan, the title was left unassigned. The 2005-06 prize, though, was handed on to Inter Milan, after Juventus were demoted to the foot of the table and so relegated to Serie B as the Italian FA’s investigation concluded a month after the season’s climax.
Inter had finished third that year, behind Juventus and also Milan, who were one of three clubs docked 30 points for their part in Calciopoli. Juventus were unsuccessful in their appeals to have the latter title reinstated.
One of sport’s greatest retrospective disciplinary actions came in the Tour de France.
Lance Armstrong, dominant force turned disgrace, had each and every one of his seven wins in the event between 1999 and 2005 taken away after it was found in 2012 that he had used performance-enhancing drugs on a widespread scale. The International Cycling Union (UCI) chose not to reallocate the seven titles owing to a “cloud of suspicion” hanging over the sport in that period.
A more recent case came in English rugby union, where Saracens were found to have breached multiple salary-cap regulations in 2020. That resulted in their relegation from the Premiership, the top division of the sport in England, but the game’s governing body was unable to take away the titles won by the London club in 2018 and 2019. “The regulations don’t allow for it,” said Premiership Rugby chief executive Darren Childs.
The Premier League’s rules do not seemingly dismiss the prospect but history would suggest Mourinho is highly unlikely to ever get his hands on either that 2017-18 winner’s medal or title bonus.
(Top photo: Manchester City celebrating their 2017-18 title; Getty Images)
