Premier League governance is under more scrutiny than ever, as concerns grow about who really controls the clubs that shape English football’s global brand. The League’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) was designed to protect the integrity of the competition, but critics argue that it has been applied inconsistently and lacks real teeth when it comes to powerful owners backed by states or sovereign wealth. In this context, calls to enforce the owners’ test robustly – and to do so visibly in high‑profile cases such as Sheikh Mansour’s ownership of Manchester City – have become a key part of the debate about football’s future.
What Is the Premier League Owners’ and Directors’ Test?
The Owners’ and Directors’ Test is the Premier League’s mechanism for deciding who is considered “fit and proper” to own or control a member club. It sets out a series of disqualifying conditions, such as certain criminal convictions, bans from sports governance, involvement in corruption or match‑fixing, and serious regulatory breaches. The purpose is to prevent individuals or entities whose conduct or conflicts of interest might damage the League’s reputation, competitive balance, or financial stability from taking control.
In recent years, the test has been updated to address criticisms that it was too narrow and reactive. Reforms have lowered the threshold of “control” to a smaller shareholding, widened the scope to include senior executives and key signatories, and committed the League to providing more transparency around who is disqualified and why. These changes reflect growing recognition that modern club ownership is complex, often involving multi‑layered corporate structures, offshore entities, and politically exposed persons.
Why Governance and Enforcement Matter
Protecting competitive integrity
Robust governance is essential to maintaining trust that the Premier League remains a sporting competition rather than a financial arms race. When owners can inject money with few constraints or operate in legal grey areas, it raises questions about whether success is earned on the pitch or bought through regulatory arbitrage. Clear rules, consistently enforced, help ensure that all clubs play by the same financial and ethical standards.
At the same time, governance standards are increasingly linked to wider regulatory and political pressure. Fan‑led reviews and government white papers have urged football authorities to demonstrate that they can regulate themselves effectively, or face the creation of an independent statutory regulator. In this environment, the way the Premier League applies its owners’ test has become a litmus test of its credibility.
Safeguarding reputations and values
The Premier League brands itself as inclusive, community‑focused, and committed to human rights and equality. When clubs are owned or sponsored by entities associated with alleged human rights abuses, opaque financial practices, or geopolitical agendas, that brand comes under strain. Supporters, campaign groups, and media commentators increasingly question whether there is a contradiction between the League’s stated values and the backgrounds or motivations of some owners.
Enforcing the owners’ test in a visible and principled way is therefore not just a technical legal exercise, but a statement about the values football is prepared to uphold. It sends a message to fans, broadcasters, and commercial partners that the League understands the reputational risks of turning a blind eye to problematic ownership structures.
Recent Reforms: Progress, But Not Enough
The Premier League’s recent reforms to the OADT have introduced several important changes. Among the headline measures are:
- Lowering the control threshold to around a quarter of shares, capturing more minority owners who can still exert significant influence.
- Bringing chief executives and key signatories within the scope of the test, recognising that power is not limited to formal shareholders.
- Requiring more detailed “acquisition material” from would‑be buyers, so the League can carry out more thorough due diligence on ownership structures and sources of funds.
- Committing to annual due diligence on existing directors and to publishing more information about disqualifications and compliance.
These are meaningful steps that respond to high‑profile controversies over recent takeovers and long‑running concerns about transparency. However, critics argue that the reforms still stop short of a genuinely proactive, values‑based regime. The test remains heavily focused on clear, provable offences or regulatory bans, leaving limited room for a wider assessment of an owner’s human rights record, political connections, or broader conduct.
Sheikh Mansour, Manchester City, and the Owners’ Test
Why Sheikh Mansour is central to the debate
Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a senior member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and a prominent figure in the United Arab Emirates government, has been the ultimate owner of Manchester City since 2008. His ownership has transformed the club’s fortunes, funding world‑class facilities, global expansion, and sustained on‑field success. For many fans, this investment has been overwhelmingly positive.
However, his ownership also sits at the heart of the debate about “sportswashing,” state‑linked ownership, and the limits of the Premier League’s regulatory framework. Critics argue that state‑backed owners gain strategic political and reputational advantages that go far beyond commercial motives, while also having access to resources that distort competitive balance. They ask whether a test that focuses mainly on individual misconduct and technical regulatory breaches is capable of addressing this kind of structural power.
Financial regulations, charges, and governance questions
Manchester City has faced extensive scrutiny over alleged breaches of financial and licensing rules, including multi‑year charges related to financial fair play, sponsorship valuation, and cooperation with investigations. While those allegations are subject to ongoing legal and disciplinary processes, they have sharpened questions about how the Premier League oversees clubs whose ownership structures are intertwined with state‑linked commercial entities.
For governance reformers, this is precisely where a stronger and more assertive Owners’ and Directors’ Test should bite. If the League cannot convincingly demonstrate that it is willing and able to hold such a powerful owner to account, the entire framework risks being seen as symbolic rather than substantive. Enforcing the owners’ test “starting with Sheikh Mansour” is, in this sense, about choosing the most visible and consequential test case for the system’s credibility.
What Enforcing the Owners’ Test Should Look Like
Clear standards, not moving goalposts
Enforcement must begin with precise, publicly articulated criteria that go beyond bare legal disqualifications. These should cover:
- Transparency of ownership structures and funding sources.
- Cooperation with investigations and regulatory processes.
- Adherence to financial rules, including fair valuation of related‑party transactions.
- Alignment with basic governance norms, such as board independence and internal controls.
By setting out these expectations clearly, the Premier League can avoid accusations that it is “making it up as it goes along” in high‑profile cases. Consistency across all clubs – big and small, domestically or foreign‑owned – is essential to avoid perceptions of political or commercial bias.
Independent oversight and meaningful sanctions
Recent changes to the OADT have introduced a form of independent oversight panel to review decisions, which is a step towards more credible enforcement. For the system to work, this panel must be visibly independent, adequately resourced, and able to review complex evidence involving international finance and law.
Crucially, sanctions for breaches must be meaningful and proportionate, ranging from fines and conditional approvals to suspensions, forced divestments, or disqualification from ownership. If high‑profile owners are found to have breached standards, but penalties are limited to modest financial penalties that do not affect control or sporting outcomes, the deterrent effect will be minimal.
Why Starting With Sheikh Mansour Matters
Using Sheikh Mansour’s ownership as a benchmark case for tougher enforcement would have both symbolic and practical significance. Symbolically, it would demonstrate that no owner – however wealthy, successful, or politically connected – is above the rules. It would show that the Premier League is prepared to subject even its most powerful stakeholders to rigorous scrutiny.
Practically, such a case would force the League to refine its processes for dealing with complex, state‑linked ownership structures, cross‑border financial flows, and issues that sit at the intersection of sports, politics, and human rights. The lessons learned could then be applied consistently to future takeovers and existing owners, raising the baseline of governance across the division.
Towards a More Accountable Premier League
The future of Premier League governance will hinge on whether its owners’ test evolves from a primarily box‑ticking exercise into a robust framework capable of addressing the realities of modern football ownership. Recent reforms are a meaningful start, but enforcement will define whether they amount to real change or cosmetic adjustment.
Insisting on firm, transparent application of the Owners’ and Directors’ Test – and being prepared to apply it fully in high‑profile cases like Sheikh Mansour’s – is essential to preserving competitive integrity, protecting the League’s reputation, and responding credibly to fan and political concerns. If the Premier League wants to retain control of its destiny and avoid external regulation, enforcing its own rules without fear or favour is no longer optional; it is the minimum standard supporters and stakeholders are entitled to expect.
