Manchester City has raised new legal challenges to the Premier League’s new sponsorship rules.

The Premier League champion's lawyer has contacted Premier League officials for another arbitration hearing on the rules of trading (APT).

The APT rules set out business deals between clubs and companies associated with their owners, requiring them to have "fair market value".

The controversial rules are designed to prevent the wealthiest club from exaggerating such deals and spending more money on players to ensure the Premier League remains competitive.

It seems Manchester City is not satisfied with the changes in the rules and is understood to be considered anti-competitive.

In November, when most of the top flight clubs voted for the change of APT rules, the British champion was defeated, a result of a legal challenge last June. Manchester City sees these rules as part of the “majority dictatorship.”

The arbitration team found that certain elements of the alliance's appropriate rules were illegal, and both sides claimed victory in October last year.

The Premier League requires clubs to vote on changes it believes will make the rules legal and comply with the UK competition law. This includes adding shareholder loans to the Fair Market Value (FMV) assessment, removing some amendments to the APT rules earlier this year, and changes in how clubs access the alliance database (used to make FMV decisions).

The arbitration team found that certain elements of the alliance's appropriate rules were illegal, and both sides claimed victory in October last year.

But the Premier League has won at least 14 votes required by member clubs to pass the amendment, with the City, Aston Villa, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest It is understood that they have voted against them.

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has written to Premier League clubs to inform them of Manchester City’s latest legal action - the letter was sent yesterday afternoon.

The Master said in the letter: "The Premier League remains strongly convinced that the amendment passed in November is legal and complies with all competition laws. We believe that the new arbitration must be resolved as soon as possible for this purpose, and it has been agreed that the same court should be appointed for trial. New case.

He added: “The parties currently correspond to other directions.