Manchester City to argue Abu Dhabi state funds backed

Manchester City’s appeal against the Premier League’s financial-rule findings will turn on a central institutional question: who actually funded the club’s sponsorship deals. According to BBC Sport, the club is expected to tell an appeal board that it holds evidence showing money directed to sponsors came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than from Abu Dhabi United Group, the private investment company belonging to owner Sheikh Mansour.

That argument has already been tested and rejected. The independent commission, which found City guilty of 114 of the 115 charges brought over alleged breaches spanning the 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons, dismissed the claim in its findings. It described the government-funding explanation as one the club had allegedly developed after the events, in an attempt to conceal what the commission called a “disguised funding scheme”.

The commission’s account of the scheme is set out in detail. City are said to have used sponsorship arrangements to artificially inflate their revenue. Sky Sports reported that the commission found the club had arranged “sham” contracts with several commercial partners. The numbers are stark. The club’s accounts recorded commercial income of £949.94m from Abu Dhabi sponsors between 2009-10 and 2017-18, while those sponsors actually paid £119.25m. The remaining £830.69m came from ADUG, according to the findings.

The club’s response has been to challenge the process itself. City have rejected the commission’s findings and are expected to appeal by Friday. In a statement, the club described the decision as containing “clear material errors of law, principle and fact” and said it was unsafe. Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak has maintained that the club has “irrefutable evidence” supporting its position.

Meanwhile, a second party with its own grievance against the league’s process has entered the dispute. Etihad Airways, City’s principal sponsor since 2009, says it is considering legal action against the Premier League over the publication of the commission’s findings. The airline said it “categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication” suggesting it was involved in improper commercial arrangements.

Etihad’s complaint is procedural as much as reputational. The airline said it was not contacted by the Premier League during the commission’s process and was therefore given no opportunity to provide information or respond to matters that could affect its reputation. Although the published judgment did not name Etihad, Sky Sports reported that the airline said the findings had nevertheless created “damaging implications” for it. Etihad said it would seek legal advice on the options available to protect its interests, while stating that its longstanding relationship with Manchester City remains strong. The Premier League has been contacted for comment.

What follows is now a matter for the league’s own mechanisms. Manchester City have confirmed their intention to appeal the findings, and Sky Sports reports that the club has until Friday, October 2, to lodge its appeal. Any appeal would be heard by a new three-person commission, a fresh panel rather than the body that reached the original conclusions.

The stakes of that process are considerable. The commission’s findings, and the outcome of any appeal, will determine the sanctions City could face. Possible punishments include a points deduction, a fine, a transfer ban and expulsion from the Premier League, although no sanction has yet been imposed.

For now, the accountability question sits with the appeal board. City’s argument that the Abu Dhabi government, rather than its owner’s investment vehicle, stood behind the sponsorship money will be tested against findings that already rejected that explanation. Whether the club can persuade a new panel that the original commission erred in law, principle or fact, and whether Etihad’s separate challenge to the league’s process gains traction, will shape the next stage of the long-running 115-charge case.