Manchester City has formally lodged an appeal against an independent panel’s ruling that found the club guilty of breaching Premier League financial regulations through disguised funding of sponsorship deals between 2009 and 2018. The commission’s verdict, announced last week, determined that City artificially inflated their commercial revenue by more than £900 million, primarily by using owner Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) funds to bolster sponsorship income. This was described as involving “sham” agreements with entities linked to the Abu Dhabi government.
Central to the case are sponsorship deals with government-affiliated companies such as Etihad Airways and Aabar Investments. The commission concluded that only a minority of the recorded sponsorship revenue was genuinely paid by the sponsors themselves, with the majority being funded by ADUG, owned by Sheikh Mansour, City’s owner. Emails submitted as evidence reportedly showed discussions among club executives about how funds from ADUG were routed through sponsors before reaching the club, framing the arrangements as a deliberate attempt to circumvent financial rules.
However, Manchester City disputes these findings, maintaining that the money used did not come directly from the club’s owners but rather from the Abu Dhabi government in its official capacity. The club asserts that government entities, such as the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Court (CPC), provided financial support to the sponsors, enabling them to honor their agreements legitimately. City officials argue that these sponsorships were therefore compliant with Premier League rules, which allow state-owned companies to sponsor football clubs. Club executives, including chief executive Ferran Soriano and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, emphasize that they have presented what they describe as “irrefutable evidence,” including bank statements and witness testimonies, to demonstrate that the funds originated from government accounts and not from ADUG personal resources.
The commission, however, rejected this defense in its 40-page core decision, labeling the government funding explanation as a post hoc “concocted” narrative intended to obscure the true nature of the funding scheme. It also noted that Sheikh Mansour was unlikely to have been unaware of the alleged use of around £830 million of his own money to inflate sponsorship deals. City is expected to challenge both the characterization of the deals as “sham” agreements and the commission’s conclusion about the owner’s knowledge.
Legal experts note that the appeal will focus heavily on this distinction between government and owner funding, as well as procedural issues, including the length of time it took for the initial ruling—almost 20 months after hearings ended—potentially impacting the case’s fairness. The club's legal team, which includes specialists in appellate law, has indicated it will argue the initial panel’s judgment was “unsafe.” City also points out that while they presented 24 witnesses during the prior proceedings, the Premier League did not produce testimony supporting the alleged conspiracy.
The fallout from the ruling has raised concerns across English football, with rival Premier League clubs reportedly considering compensation claims for lost revenues linked to European qualification that they allege City’s breaches affected. The financial impact on clubs missing out on Champions League and Europa League places over several seasons is estimated in the hundreds of millions of pounds.
The appeal will be heard by a new panel, likely composed of retired senior judges with expertise in appeals, who will review whether the original findings stand or should be overturned. City has signaled confidence in its defence strategy and is seeking full exoneration to restore its standing. The Premier League has declined to comment on the ongoing proceedings. Meanwhile, sponsors such as Etihad Airways have rejected the commission’s findings and are reportedly considering legal action in response to the damage caused by the allegations.