Manchester City is facing a potential legal hurdle in its appeal against an independent commission’s guilty verdict regarding over 100 alleged breaches of financial regulations. The club’s current defense hinges on the claim that commercial sponsorship contracts, which the commission ruled were partially funded by the club’s owner, were instead financed by the Abu Dhabi government. However, this assertion sits in direct contrast to prior statements made by the club’s primary shirt sponsor, Etihad Airways. We will, however, continue to monitor developments closely.”.
In a 2015 submission to the United States Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, and the State Department as part of an investigation into state-owned airlines, the UAE-based carrier explicitly addressed this issue. At that time, Etihad stated, “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false.” The airline further clarified that it funded the sponsorship from its own liquidity, describing the government’s equity and loans not as subsidies, but as sensible investments in a successful business model.
Etihad, which has been the club’s principal shirt sponsor since 2009, played a central role in the financial transformation following the takeover by Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group. This history includes a significant 10-year, £400 million naming rights deal for the Etihad Stadium established in 2011, which was later extended on improved terms in 2021.
The club’s current stance also marks a departure from arguments used during their 2020 successful appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport against UEFA’s financial fair play charges. During those proceedings, the club maintained that all sponsorship income originated from genuine commercial partners. In its recent core decision, however, the independent commission dismissed the club’s current explanation as “untrue.” The judgment explicitly stated that the club had concocted this narrative long after the events in an effort to obscure the reality of a “Disguised Funding Scheme.” Paragraph 77 of the judgment states: “We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme. Make sure you’re on the most recent version, if you already have app. Download it from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for ”, if you don’t have app.
Manchester City submitted its appeal on Thursday evening, asserting that it possesses a body of irrefutable evidence to debunk the commission’s findings. The Football Association (FA) is now closely monitoring the situation. While the governing body typically waits for league-led disciplinary processes to conclude—expected by the end of January based on the Premier League rule book—it has confirmed it holds the authority to take separate action. In app, tap the Profile settings button at the top right, then select Notifications. Such as the Premier League or EFL, to run their course before taking action, the FA’s standard practice is to wait for disciplinary proceedings conducted by leagues.
The FA has noted that the commission’s decision carries significant implications for the integrity of the sport. While the names of individuals involved remain redacted in the current 40-page report, the FA maintains the power to pursue disciplinary action against both the club and specific individuals found to have acted dishonestly. The organization has signaled it will intervene where appropriate once the current proceedings reach their conclusion.
Precedent for such intervention exists, as seen in July when the FA issued a £10 million fine and a suspended two-window transfer ban against Chelsea for 74 breaches of agent regulations. That action followed a similar £10.75 million fine imposed by the Premier League for related unlawful payments. While the FA declined to sanction individuals in the Chelsea case as they were no longer active in football, the association continues to exercise oversight, recently charging Southampton manager Tonda Eckert regarding his involvement in the Spygate saga. The FA charged Southampton’s manager, Tonda Eckert, with misconduct for his role in the so-called Spygate saga involving Middlesbrough in May, with a disciplinary hearing taking place last month that could result in the German being given a lengthy ban from football.
