Yes... Us guys who have a full understanding of a capitalist society and how it works.
So TOD, forget whether you like Manchester City or not for a moment. Look at the situation as a capitalist institution protecting its own economic interests.
The independent commission has found City guilty of 114 of the 115 charges, including allegations that sham commercial arrangements artificially inflated revenue and reduced costs. The scale of the alleged financial manipulation is enormous.
So why wouldn't the Premier League simply throw the book at them?
Because Manchester City isn't just a football team anymore. It is a major commercial asset within a £multi-billion entertainment industry.
The Premier League makes money from broadcasting, sponsorship, international audiences, ticketing and commercial partnerships.
Manchester City contributes to that ecosystem. Removing or severely damaging one of its biggest clubs potentially damages the value of the product for everyone involved.
The Premier League has a financial incentive to preserve the value of Manchester City.
Imagine a normal company discovering that one of its most profitable divisions had seriously breached internal rules. The board wouldn't necessarily choose the punishment that feels morally satisfying. It would ask:
"What action protects the value of the company while demonstrating that the rules still matter?"
Football operates within a similar economic structure.
There is also the issue of precedent.
If City were expelled (fans would love that, especially us United lads TOD) or given an enormous sporting punishment, the Premier League would be establishing a precedent that could potentially affect future cases involving other wealthy clubs. Clubs don't necessarily want a system where the ultimate sanction becomes normalised because eventually the rules could be used against them.
Then there is legal and financial risk.
City has enormous resources to challenge decisions through appeals and potentially further legal processes. The club has already appealed the commission's findings.
A prolonged legal battle involving compensation claims from other clubs could potentially create another layer of financial consequences for the league.
So from a purely capitalist perspective, the rational institutional solution could be something like:
Punish the behaviour enough to maintain the credibility of the rules, but not so severely that you destroy a highly valuable commercial asset.
That doesn't mean City deserves a light punishment. It means there is a difference between justice in principle and economic incentives in practice.
The Premier League isn't simply a sporting competition TOD. It's also a business whose clubs collectively own and operate an enormously valuable entertainment product.
The question therefore isn't only:
"What punishment fits the offences?"
It's also:
"What punishment can the institution impose while protecting the economic system that everybody inside it benefits from?"
And capitalism has a pretty predictable answer to that question.
It's not what you want to hear TOD.
But coming from someone who has run several businesses over several decades, this is the reality we are faced with.