Sheffield United's legal challenge to avoid relegation from the Premier League has ended in defeat.

An arbitration panel dismissed the Blades' claim that West Ham should have had points deducted over the Carlos Tevez controversy.

Sheffield United had wanted the panel to order a new independent disciplinary commission deal with West Ham but had their claim dismissed today.

The club also lost another claim — made jointly with Fulham — that the Premier League should have forced West Ham to de-register Tevez.

A statement from the arbitration panel read: "The tribunal have found in favour of the FA Premier League on both issues and dismissed the claims of Sheffield United FC and Fulham FC."

West Ham breached Premier League regulations by including third-party
agreements when they signed Tevez and Javier Mascherano last summer, and as a punishment they were fined £5.5million in April by an independent commission.

Sheffield United, who were relegated from the Premiership on the last day of the season, claimed the Hammers should have been deducted points instead.

The three-man panel, headed by retired High Court judge Sir Philip Otton, did not have the power to change West Ham's punishment but could have ordered a new independent commission to judge the case.

The Blades' failure effectively ends their battle to avoid relegation to the Coca-Cola Championship.

The ruling from the arbitration panel said United would not normally have been allowed to dispute another club's punishment but that there were "exceptional circumstances" due to their relegation and therefore it affected their membership of the Premier League.

The tribunal said they had "sympathy" with the Blades, for whom relegation will cost around £50million, while West Ham had been "deliberately deceitful" and yet remained in the Premier League. They could not, however, rule that the independent commission's decision had been wrong.

The panel's ruling states: "Ian Mill QC [representing Sheffield United] mounted a strong attack on the legality of the decision and the tribunal had much sympathy for Sheffield United's grievances.

"However the tribunal had to apply the priniciples of judicial review and determine whether the decision was irrational or perverse.

"This is a very strict test and is very difficult to satisfy.

"It concluded that it was impossible for this tribunal to find that the decision was irrational or perverse."

In relation to Sheffield United's and Fulham's claim that the Premier League should have immediately terminated Tevez's registration, the tribunal ruled they had acted reasonably in allowing the Argentina striker to continue to play for the last three games of the season.

The ruling said: "The offending third-party agreements still existed and the FAPL endeavoured to seek assurances from West Ham that they were no longer valid and effective.

"These were sought on April 27 and again on May 4. As a result of the assurances given the FAPL permitted the registration to stand.

"The tribunal concluded it was not unreasonable for the FAPL board to reach that conclusion in the light of the assurances given that the third parties were not able 'materially to influence the West Ham's policies or the performance of the team'.

"The arrangement may not have been legally watertight but was a practical and workable solution to a difficult situation.

"It is to be doubted that the FAPL (or anyone else) foresaw the spectacular results of the last three matches which saved West Ham from probable relegation."