Manchester City and Uefa should hold FFP appeal in public to restore credibility of both organisations

Faith in the game’s governance is low and must be restored by credible means

There is a simple way for Manchester City and Uefa to clarify the truth and reassure supporters that the game is not rancid.

The two warring parties could ask the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to consider City’s appeal against their two-year Champions League ban and €30 million fine in public.

It would be the best thing to happen in the game for a long time. If ever a subject needed transparency and understanding it is the application of Uefa’s financial fair play rules.

There is a mechanism to allow this to happen. Last year, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) took Chinese swimmer Sun Yang to CAS over a controversial out-of-competition drugs test that FINA, the international swimming federation, ruled was not a violation.

It was the first CAS case to be heard in public since 1999. It should not be the last.

So far, City’s fate has been decided by two independent panels, Uefa’s Investigatory and Adjudicatory chambers. The club has put out a forthright but questionable defence. City claim they have “irrefutable” proof of their innocence, although their twin lines of attack so far appear to be that Uefa’s procedure has been flawed and everyone breaks the rules so why pick on us?

An open appeal in Lausanne would offer everyone the chance to decide whether the Premier League club does indeed have a case.

It is little wonder that City fans refuse to accept Uefa’s objectivity. European football’s ruling body has a very grubby past and does not appear particularly clean even now.

Paris Saint-Germain and AC Milan seem to have benefitted from dubious behind-closed-doors deals after committing fiscal transgressions. Whataboutery is no defence but if there is a perceived lack of consistency about which clubs are sanctioned, grievances will fester.

This showdown between one of the world’s richest clubs and the governing body has the potential to be a hugely significant moment in the way the sport is run. It can be the gateway to a more open, trustworthy method of governance.

City have denied wrongdoing over FFP (PA)

Few people trust Uefa to do the right thing. Even those who believe City are guilty and would like to see them punished are sceptical about Nyon’s motives and actions.

The period before the case gets to Lausanne is the time when horse-trading could take place. Uefa’s officials, rather than the independent chambers, are in control of events. No one would be shocked if there was suddenly a compromise that proved lucrative for both sides, despite the bluster of the past months. If Uefa is to retain any credibility, the ruling body must follow their procedures to the bitter end.

For City to be vindicated, the club’s evidence must be laid bare for all to see. A live-streamed hearing would go a long way to reassure the watching world that football was underpinned by a soupçon of integrity; that, even if titles and cups can be bought and paid for, there are, buried deep in the game’s soul, nuggets of trustworthiness.

It does not matter whether City or Uefa are right, things have gone too far to be satisfied by a settlement. A fudge on this fundamental subject, where both parties live happily ever after, would be so demoralising as to undermine any moral basis that still exists in the sport. If the English champions have nothing to hide, they need to prove it – after all, Uefa have already found them guilty of breaching the rules.

The club should be the first to demand the appeal is not behind closed doors. City need to allay the suspicion that, for all their riches, they cannot afford the truth.