It is one of the biggest talking points from the Manchester City case.
Should City be stripped of the eight trophies they won between 2009 and 2018, the period in which they were accused of breaking Premier League financial rules?
Judging by social media, many fans of rival clubs (and others) are now hoping for such an outcome.
However BBC Sport has been told there has been little appetite from within the Premier League - both the organisation and clubs - for past titles to be stripped from City
Does that put an end to it?
Not quite, as the decision will be made by an independent panel which is yet to hold the "sanction hearing". That means it cannot be completely ruled out, although a points deduction, huge fine or possibly even expulsion from the Premier League are thought to be more likely.
Here, BBC Sport analyses this difficult issue and decision the panel is now facing.
"I think we still have a chance to win that league… and then they have to pay me the bonus and give me the medal."
It was almost two years ago that Jose Mourinho mischievously raised the possibility that his former club Manchester United could be handed the 2018 Premier League title held by Manchester City.
Under Mourinho, United finished second to City by 19 points in 2018, his final full campaign in charge at Old Trafford.
City have always denied wrongdoing. But now we know they have been found guilty of the majority of the 115 charges, was Mourinho right?
Premier League rules do not directly make reference to such a sanction, with a fine, points deduction or expulsion listed as possible punishments. However, they also allow for a disciplinary commission panel to impose a penalty "as it shall think fit". That theoretically could include retrospectively-applied points deductions, or the stripping of titles.
Many will argue that if upheld after any appeal, the nature and scale of the wrongdoing City have been found guilty of warrants such as sanction on the basis that titles were won unfairly, and any misrepresentation of revenue and costs gave them a crucial competitive advantage.
City were accused of a wide range of rule breaches, centred around claims that they inflated sponsorship revenue from connected companies and made other "off the books" payments to circumvent football's financial rules.
So with a cloud hanging over the trophy-laden era City have enjoyed since the takeover of the club by Abu Dhabi billionaire Sheikh Mansour in 2008, could asterisks now be applied to the titles City won during the period in which they have been found to have broken the rules?
Could they be left blank? Or, as implied by Mourinho, reallocated to those teams who finished runners-up to City?
Those clubs are:
Premier League
2011-12: Manchester United
2013-14: Liverpool
2017-18: Manchester United
FA Cup
2010-11: Stoke City
EFL Cup
2013-14: Sunderland
2015-16: Liverpool
2017-18: Arsenal
Community Shield
2012-13 Chelsea
Such a move would threaten to open the proverbial can of worms, raising questions over other accomplishments.
For instance, there is now scepticism towards the various trophies Chelsea won in the 2010s, after the club were found to have made a catalogue of secret payments to agents over transfers, between 2011 and 2018.
Some will ask that if retrospective action is applied to City, should the same not happen to Chelsea?
It is impossible to know exactly to what extent City benefited on the field from their rule breaches. And which players they may not have been able to afford if they had adhered to the regulations.
And what about the period between December 2018 and February 2023, when City stand accused of a failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations?
Should retrospective action be applied then too? Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool finished runners-up to Pep Guardiola's City twice during that time. Last year, the German coach joked he would host a party in his garden if his former club were suddenly awarded those titles.
Some will conclude that the rule breaches between 2009 and 2018 helped City to lay the foundations on which Guardiola built on to achieve so much success, culminating in the Treble triumph of 2023. Does that come into scope? Where does it end?
For some, the mass reallocation of titles over such a long period would risk making a mockery of Premier League history, jeopardising its reputation and commercial viability. Others would argue that some 17 years after the first alleged breach, and with City accused of distorting the competition over multiple seasons, serious damage has already been done to the league's standing.
And while there is no Premier League precedent, such concerns have not prevented such punishments being applied before in football. Juventus had the Serie A titles they won in 2005 and 2006 revoked as a result of the Calciopoli match-fixing scandal - when five Italians teams were penalised for attempting to influence results by picking certain referees. The first title was left blank by authorities, with the second reallocated to Inter Milan.
There is also a British precedent. Elgin City won the 1992-93 Highland League, but were later stripped of the title after having been found to have fielded ineligible players.
There are examples in other sports too. In 2012, Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the UCI, cycling's governing body, for doping. And the reallocation of medals has become commonplace in athletics as a result of positive drugs tests that can emerge long after events have taken place.
In cases such as City's, involving financial rule breaches, the argument for such a punishment is more complicated. Many will see it as unfair that players and fans unconnected to any rule breaches should suffer by losing titles.
On Friday, former City midfielder Rodri dismissed talk of the club being stripped of some of the titles they won.
"What we did, they cannot take out of us," he added.
"It's something that is not paid by money. It's paid with effort, with the damage, with, you know, being shoulder to shoulder every day.
"I can tell you that everything was deserved, and I'm glad that I could live one of the best eras of English football in here."
Others, however, will insist the rewriting of history is the only way of restoring the competition's official record, and rewarding clubs that competed within the rules.
In terms of retrospective action, the compensation claims for lost earnings that several clubs are known to be considering launching against City are more likely than the stripping of titles.
A lawyer told me: "The question isn't whether the clubs can take legal action... it's: Where does the line of people who have a case actually end?
"The clubs who didn't win/qualify/stay up; the players who didn't get bonuses, contract extensions; the staff who missed out on bonuses; the agents who didn't get their uplift on their player deals...
"It's endless and potentially so destructive to the whole ecosystem."
Whatever happens, more division and disruption seems guaranteed.
