Sports leagues are built on financial architecture—rules that determine how teams spend, how players are compensated, and how competitive balance is preserved. When those rules are broken, the violations reveal the deeper incentives embedded in the system itself. The Los Angeles Clippers’ salary cap circumvention scheme in the NBA and Manchester City’s alleged breaches of the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play regulations offer an interesting comparison into how league structure shapes financial behavior.
The Clippers operate in a closed, salary cap league where player compensation is centrally restricted. Their misconduct reflects that environment: hiding off‑book payments to a star player in an effort to exceed the league’s artificial compensation ceiling. Manchester City, by contrast, operates in an open, promotion‑and‑relegation system with no salary cap and global competition for talent. Their alleged misconduct took the opposite form: disguising revenue, inflating sponsorships, and masking losses to sustain spending levels that would otherwise trigger regulatory penalties.
Different systems produced different violations. And yet the outcome was the same: a league forced to confront the limits of its own regulatory design.
The NBA’s Closed League: A Financial System Built on Restriction, Centralization, and Wage Suppression
The NBA is one of the most tightly regulated professional sports leagues in the world. It is a closed league—no promotion, no relegation, no external competition for membership—and its financial architecture reflects that insularity. Every team operates under the same centrally enforced rules governing spending, player compensation, and competitive balance. Those rules create the conditions that produced the Clippers’ circumvention scheme.
At the core of the NBA’s economic model is the salary cap, a collectively bargained limit on how much each team can spend on player salaries. While exceptions exist, the cap functions as a hard ceiling on labor costs. It is designed to prevent large market teams from outspending small market teams, stabilize franchise valuations, suppress wage inflation, and ensure predictable financial outcomes for owners. In practice, the cap artificially restricts superstar compensation. A player like Kawhi Leonard cannot be paid what he would earn in a free market. His salary is capped by league rules, not by demand.
The NBA’s max contract system further restricts earnings at the top of the labor market. No matter how valuable a player is, how much revenue he generates, nor how transformative his impact, his salary cannot exceed a fixed percentage of the cap. As a result, superstars are underpaid relative to their market value and teams compete for free agents through non‑salary benefits, including lifestyle perks, organizational influence, and—when rules are broken—off‑book compensation.
The Clippers’ attempt to supplement Kawhi’s compensation through corporate partners reflects this incentive structure. It was a predictable outcome of the NBA’s economic architecture which limits what teams can pay and what players can earn.
The Premier League’s Open System: A Market Built on Competition, Survival, and Unrestricted Spending
The Premier League’s financial architecture begins with what it doesn’t have: no salary cap, no maximum player salary, no restrictions on total payroll, and no centralized contract approval. Clubs can pay players whatever the market demands. The result is wage inflation, escalating transfer fees, and a constant upward pressure on spending. In this environment, the constraint is not how much a club can pay a player; it is how much a club can justify paying under the league’s financial reporting rules.
Because the Premier League does not restrict wages or transfer fees, its regulatory framework focuses on financial reporting and sustainability, primarily through Financial Fair Play (FFP). FFP does not tell clubs how much they can spend; it tells them how much they can lose. Clubs must accurately report revenue, disclose sponsorship arrangements, demonstrate financial sustainability, and avoid losses beyond permitted thresholds.[1] These requirements create a predictable incentive: inflate revenue or disguise owner funding to justify high spending.
Under FFP, the legality of spending depends on where the money comes from. Clubs may spend aggressively, but they must show that the spending is supported by genuine commercial revenue, not by unlimited injections from ownership. This is the core of the rule: FFP regulates the source of funds, not the use of funds. FFP requires clubs to demonstrate that their commercial income is real, independently valued, and reflective of market conditions. If a sponsorship is artificially inflated, for example, a £10 million market value deal reported as £60 million, the club appears far more profitable than it actually is. That inflated revenue then “justifies” higher spending on wages and transfers while masking losses that would otherwise violate FFP.
The Premier League charged City with 114 violations, many of which involve inflated sponsorship deals with companies tied to the club’s ownership, disguised equity injections presented as commercial revenue, misreported financial statements that overstated the club’s profitability, and failure to disclose accurate financial information over multiple seasons.[2] In other words, City allegedly hid the source and nature of the money used to fund player compensation. The goal was not to pay players secretly, but to make the club appear financially stronger than it was so it could pay players openly. This is the inverse of the Clippers’ logic. City hid money coming in. The Clippers hid money going out.
City’s alleged conduct reflects the incentives of an open, promotion‑and‑relegation system where spending is unrestricted but financial sustainability is regulated. Violations emerge from inflated sponsorships, disguised owner funding, misreported commercial revenue, and accounting structures designed to satisfy FFP’s loss limits.
Integrity, Incentives, and the Future of Sports Governance
The Clippers and Manchester City cases prove that financial misconduct is a product of incentives embedded in a league’s economic design. Closed leagues like the NBA suppress wages and restrict compensation, creating pressure to pay players outside the cap. Open leagues like the Premier League permit unlimited spending but regulate financial sustainability, creating pressure to inflate revenue and disguise owner funding. Different systems produce different violations, yet both expose the same structural vulnerability: when competitive ambition collides with financial regulation, clubs will search for loopholes.
The implications for the integrity of sport are significant. Financial rules exist to preserve competitive balance, protect smaller clubs, stabilize franchise valuations, and maintain public trust in the legitimacy of results. When those rules are manipulated, whether through hidden compensation or disguised revenue, the credibility of the competition erodes. Fans begin to question whether success is earned or engineered. Rival clubs lose faith in the fairness of the system. And leagues are forced into reactive enforcement rather than proactive design.
Protecting the game requires more than punishing violations after they occur. It requires reforming the incentives that produce them. Closed leagues must confront the reality that artificially suppressing superstar compensation encourages circumvention through corporate partners and off‑book benefits. Open leagues must strengthen valuation standards, auditing mechanisms, and disclosure requirements to prevent disguised owner funding from masquerading as commercial revenue. Both systems must invest in independent oversight, transparent reporting, and modern compliance infrastructure capable of detecting sophisticated financial manipulation.
The Clippers and Manchester City cases are reminders that financial regulation in sports is only as strong as the incentives it creates and the enforcement mechanisms that sustain it. If leagues want to preserve competitive integrity, they must design systems that anticipate pressure rather than merely respond to it. The future of sports governance will depend not on catching cheaters, but on building economic architectures that make cheating irrational.
The integrity of sport is not protected by rules alone. It is protected by the incentives that make those rules worth following.
[1] Keith Jenkins, How Does Financial Fair Play Work in Soccer? Rules to Know, ESPN (July 30, 2024), https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/40398483/how-financial-fair-play-work-soccer-rules-know
[2] David Ornstein, Manchester City Found Guilty on Almost All Premier League Charges Relating to Financial Breaches, The Athletic (Sept. 25, 2026).
Kaitlin Gruber is a third year law student at the University at Buffalo School of Law whose work focuses on sports law, collective bargaining, and the regulatory structures that shape professional basketball. Her research examines how legal doctrine intersects with competitive integrity in the NBA. She brings a lifelong love of basketball to her writing, exploring how legal rules shape the modern game.
Leave a Reply