It used to be chatter around Isco that feverishly erupted every now and then for Manchester City, but these days it tends to be Financial Fair Play (FFP).

Everton were handed a wincing 10-point penalty on Friday for a breach of the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules in a stinging judgment from an independent panel that instantly provoked two strong reactions around a club that had nothing to do with the verdict.

Why were Everton being punished when City had not yet been, and if Everton were given such a strong punishment for one breach, surely City should face an even stronger one for over 100 alleged breaches?

The short answers are that simpler cases resolve more quickly and the City will face a far more formidable one if found guilty of the most serious offenses (i.e., not only non-cooperation), but we already knew this when the accusations were made public in February. But the way people have been shouting these two questions so loudly and often since Friday has only served to highlight the battle the Blues are facing in the court of public opinion.

It should not be too difficult to show out that Everton’s case is not the same as City’s, and that it would be futile to try to apply to City the rulings made in an entirely different case. If Everton’s case resembled a dispute with the Premier League about fault sharing for a traffic accident that both parties admitted happened, then City’s case is more akin to the Premier League needing to demonstrate that City intentionally caused a 20-car collision that the Blues maintain never happened.

The reasons it takes so long and the severity of the penalties are because there is a lot more to dispute with the city and larger issues.

Football finance specialist Kieran Maguire said that “the position for one of the two parties is going to be untenable by the end of this,” as the Manchester Evening News reported more than nine months ago. This is because of how serious the charges are.

Everton as a club contributed to this by stating in their official response to their points deduction that they would monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.

This statement added to the noise surrounding City’s case since Friday, suggesting that the legal and financial details aren’t interesting enough to headline a lot of mainstream commentary.

Put another way, if you’re going to punish us so severely for this, you better punish Chelsea and City even more (assuming they are proven guilty).

Everton has every right to be upset about their punishment, but it would be incorrect to mix up their case with City’s when one team has acknowledged misconduct and the other hasn’t. The Premier League has a heavy burden of proof when it comes to extremely serious claims, and while City has not provided any evidence to bolster their argument, neither has the Premier League.

For the sake of football, Everton is more concerned with finding out if they are receiving worse treatment than other teams than they are with other situations.

Not to be critical of them, but to show that all clubs, including City, and the Premier League are constantly trying to negotiate the best price for

The issue facing City following Everton’s severe punishment is that, despite the fact that this is a completely different situation, clubs at all levels, from the boardroom to the terrace, will now anticipate harsher penalties for City (and Chelsea). Not bothering to seek proof, many had already presumed guilt, and it doesn’t seem like that will change; as Pep Guardiola stated in the immediate aftermath, they feel ‘already sentenced’.

Even if the Everton ruling has no bearing on City’s circumstances, the misguided calls for swift and harsh penalties will only get louder for a Premier League trying to prove to the UK government that it is capable of acting as its own regulator. Whatever the proof or rudimentary knowledge of the legal system, there is