Premier League clubs are calling for greater transparency over the 'trial of the century' into Manchester City's 115 alleged rule breaches amid concerns that 'decisions taken behind closed doors are more prone to corruption or neglect'.

Manchester City were charged in February 2023 with multiple alleged breaches of league rules between 2009 and 2023 which could lead to them being expelled from the Premier League if proven,

City deny all charges and the trial into their alleged wrongdoing started on Monday, with the case being heard by a three-person independent commission over around ten weeks and an outcome expected before the end of the current season.

Details of the charges don't go beyond a basic list of rules and the dates of the alleged breaches; the location of the hearing has even been kept under wraps, though photographs have emerged of legal teams arriving at an arbitration centre in London.

"Justice doesn't just need to be done - it needs to be seen to be done," a lawyer who has acted for one Premier League club told The Telegraph.

"There is no reason, in principle, why it is not being held in public. It would ensure it is covered accurately in the media and that the actual detail of any case - what exactly has been alleged and how it is being defended - is picked over and known to the fans.

"That in itself acts as a control over clubs and owners - who generally care very much about their image - to abide by the rules but is also a protection to help ensure a fair hearing."

MORE MAN CITY FFP COVERAGE ON F365... Man City FFP: Football finance expert predicts how many points City could lose; reveals verdict timeline Ten possible punishments for Manchester City and Pep Guardiola after Premier League 'expulsion' claims Five options for Manchester City fans after Premier League expulsion

Nick De Marco, the lawyer who successfully argued that Leicester City's alleged rule breach fell outside of the Premier League jurisdiction, is among those sports lawyers calling for 'for greater transparency, fairness and therefore publicity'.

De Marco said: "Speaking to other sports lawyers recently about when we might finally find out the decisions in the Manchester City/Premier League disputes (or even who sits on the tribunals), and the impact of public judicial review challenges to decisions of the Independent Football Regulator, if and when it comes in, I sense a growing consent ... that we should, and we shall, move further towards public hearings in sport in the next few years."

'Decisions taken behind closed doors are more prone to corruption or neglect,' De Marco wrote in an article for Sports Law Bulletin, also claiming that open hearings would inspire greater public confidence in sports administration.

'Unless you can see what happens at the hearing it is often difficult to work out how the decisions were arrived at,' he added.

'Sport is a matter of genuine and legitimate public interest, and not simply a private matter. There is ... a public interest in sport being fair, in having a level playing field - whether considering doping, match-fixing or financial fair play regimes, and many other things in between, the integrity of sport requires that each participant is treated equally, consistently and fairly.'