In a stunning turn of events, Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League has shed light on a power struggle and potential threats looming over English football. The case, which has been dubbed a "coup" of the Premier League, has exposed the consequences of allowing hyper-ambitious nation states to acquire and control football clubs.

The emergence of this legal battle has raised concerns about the lack of oversight and governance in the football industry over the past 25 years. The initial pursuit of financial gain led to a league founded on greed that now finds itself facing internal detonation fueled by the same greed.

While greed may have opened the door, it is ultimately about control and hard power. Allowing ambitious nation states to own and influence sporting institutions has led to an unsettling imbalance of power and a sense of unpredictability about how it will all unfold.

As details of City's legal claim became public, several aspects of the case drew attention. One nauseating aspect is the populist narrative presented by City's lawyers and spokespersons, framing the battle against "the elites." This rings hollow considering the immense wealth and influence of the club's ownership, positioning themselves as outsiders while being part of the overclass.

Another unsettling aspect is the free market libertarian rhetoric that equates allowing non-commercial entities to spend unlimited amounts on propaganda with "allowing the market to function." In reality, it distorts the market by enabling state subsidies and PR motives that have little to do with fair competition and value.

The City case also highlights the misinterpretation of the phrase "tyranny of the majority," using it to criticize democratic decision-making, instead of highlighting its intended meaning of mob rule. It reflects the autocratic billionaire lens, prioritizing the exercise of power above the essence of sport.

It is crucial to remember that behind the pursuit of these ends lies the government entity that owns and controls Manchester City, with its clear policy agenda. The question arises: why would anyone want a government to own a football club, considering governments are not benevolent enterprises?

The potential consequences of this ownership structure are dire for English football. City's legal claim seeks to remove the Associated Party Transaction rules, effectively allowing limitless financial injections by state owners. This would undermine the integrity of the game, making it solely dependent on cash rather than team-building and player development.

In theory, the Premier League could counteract this threat by threatening to eject City from the league. However, the unlikelihood of this happening underscores the financial and structural power City holds. Their budget will always surpass other commercial entities due to their state ownership.

Moreover, the lack of government intervention in this matter raises questions about the acceptability of a state owning a Premier League club while regulations limit state ownership in other sectors. The significant influence and global reach of Manchester City, with their ability to project messages and destabilize industries, should not be ignored.

This legal battle between Manchester City and the Premier League unveils deeper issues within the football industry, highlighting vulnerabilities to engineered tribalism and the erosion of basic concepts of fairness, meaning, and agency. The Premier League's future now hangs in the balance, with potential threats from various quarters, including shipping tycoons, US hedge funds, and states driven by soft power.

As the football world watches this high-stakes battle unfold, it becomes evident that the Premier League must confront the structural elements that have allowed this situation to arise. Failure to do so may result in irreversible consequences for English football, leaving us with a future that is far from pretty.