"Of course. We can do what we want.” That's the line, in the hacked emails published by Der Spiegel in 2018, that sums up the sense of entitlement that fuelled Manchester City's cheating under this ownership. In the past, yes, you could do what you want, spend what you like. That was no longer sustainable in an era of clubs being bought by oligarchs, sovereign wealth funds and politicians with the wealth of a nation behind them. There are things I deeply dislike about FFP/PSR/SCR, but this #MCFC ownership model, among others, made financial regulation necessary. And then, as anyone who has read the material could have concluded even before the Premier League case began, they behaved like the rules shouldn't apply to them. Personally I struggle with the Lance Armstrong talk. There is a huge difference between a) a cyclist pumping himself full of performance-enhancing drugs as part of what USADA called “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen”, and b) breaches of financial regulations. Yes there are parallels — financial doping, as Arsene Wenger called it — but there are considerable differences too. This desperation to portray #MCFC players, managers and staff (even supporters) as cheats? Not for me. But the damage to City's reputation is enormous. And the Premier League must now accept that a huge chunk of its recent history will be tainted and overshadowed by the findings of its regulatory commission. The question of sanctions — and then, possibly, compensation claims — will be complicated and fiercely divisive. Turbulence lies ahead for the Premier League as well as for Manchester City. So much of what has happened in the Premier League since the early 2010s is now tainted. What we don't yet know is how the damage done might shape the future nytimes.com/athletic/7631415…