Erling Haaland and Manchester City’s other leading players would not automatically be entitled to leave the club if it were relegated over breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules, a leading sports lawyer has warned.
The future of Haaland, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Enzo Fernandez and Elliot Anderson has attracted speculation since an independent Commission found City guilty of serious financial breaches committed over nine seasons.
City have lodged an appeal against the ruling, while a separate hearing will determine what punishment should be imposed if the verdict is upheld.
Relegation would not cancel player contracts
Dan Chapman, managing partner and head of sports law at Leathes Prior, told TEAMtalk that relegation alone would not release City’s players from their contracts.
Players would need specific relegation clauses in their agreements to leave automatically or for a predetermined fee.
Chapman explained that such clauses are relatively unusual. It is more common for contracts to include salary reductions that take effect when a club drops into a lower division.
That means Haaland and his team-mates could remain legally tied to City even if a substantial points deduction sent the club into the Championship.
Any departures would ordinarily have to be negotiated between City and interested clubs unless the players’ individual contracts contained special provisions.
Reports have claimed Haaland does not have a relegation release clause, although the full terms of his contract have not been made public.
Players could explore legal arguments
Chapman said players wanting to leave might attempt to argue that City had breached the implied duty of trust and confidence contained in their employment contracts.
They could also seek to establish that they had “just cause” to terminate their agreements.
However, both arguments would involve considerable legal risk and would depend on the circumstances surrounding each player’s contract.
One potentially important issue would be what players and their representatives were told about the Premier League proceedings when they joined City or signed extensions.
Players recruited while the case was ongoing may have sought additional contractual protection, but there is no publicly available evidence confirming that such clauses were agreed.
Attempting to terminate a contract without sufficient legal grounds could expose a player to compensation claims and other potential consequences.
Expulsion could create a stronger case
The position could be different if City were expelled from the Premier League rather than relegated through a points deduction.
Chapman believes such a fundamental change in the club’s competitive status would give players stronger grounds to seek the termination of their contracts, although even that outcome would not necessarily be automatic.
The distinction could become crucial when the Commission decides City’s punishment.
The Premier League announced on September 29 that City had used “sham” commercial arrangements to inflate revenue and reduce costs by more than £900million between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons.
The Commission also upheld three of four charges alleging that City failed to co-operate properly with the investigation.
City deny wrongdoing and lodged what they described as a “comprehensive appeal” on October 1, claiming the ruling contained errors of law, principle and fact.
Until the appeal and sanctions processes are completed, the futures of Haaland and his team-mates will remain uncertain. However, relegation by itself would not turn City’s star players into free agents.
