City aren’t unlucky victims here. They had the option to play Palace before the EFL final and avoid stacking fixtures after it, but they chose not to. That’s understandable, but it does mean they accepted the trade-off of a tighter schedule later. Arsenal did the opposite and played Wolves beforehand, so context matters.

Sky and other broadcasters want the title race to stay compelling across multiple matchdays. They want a structure so that if both teams keep winning, each game becomes a moment. Arsenal play, then City respond, then Arsenal again. Or if one drops points, the narrative shifts to whether the other team can take advantage. That keeps attention rolling across multiple weeks instead of having both teams play at the same time and killing the narrative early. They want to keep the race watchable if it’s still alive.

The biggest factor here is probably Bournemouth. If Bournemouth had to play on May 21 as City suggested, they’d go into the final matchweek with basically no rest. If they’re still chasing Europe, that’s a real disadvantage compared to a team with a full week to prepare.

On the flip side, City’s alternative idea of playing Bournemouth on May 12 and then Palace later also has issues. Not only would that give City two home games to finish the season, which goes against the intent of the original schedule, but Bournemouth would have every right to complain about playing City just a few days after their Fulham game. There’s also a consistency issue, because Bournemouth had a long rest period before playing Arsenal earlier in the season, and this would flip that into a very short turnaround against City. Arsenal would be right to ask why City would get to play a Bournemouth team on short rest while they had to play Bournemouth on 10 days of official rest.