Manchester City has formally lodged an appeal against the independent commission’s finding that the club broke Premier League financial rules on a sweeping scale, setting up a protracted legal battle whose outcome could reshape English football’s competitive landscape for years to come.

The club was found guilty on Tuesday of all charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations spanning the 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons. In a brief statement issued Thursday evening, City said the ruling contained “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact” and was “unsafe,” insisting it had submitted “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” supporting its innocence. The appeal was confirmed publicly on Friday.

The commission concluded that City used “sham contracts” with commercial partners to disguise more than £830m in secret funding, and that the club “utilised devices” to mask the true extent of its liabilities. The Premier League has not minced words, stating City “systematically broke Premier League rules for nearly a decade.”

Central to the dispute is where the money behind City’s blockbuster sponsorship deals actually originated. Sources suggest City intends to argue, as part of its appeal, that additional funding behind agreements with commercial partners came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group. That defence, however, may run straight into the club’s own history. In 2015, Etihad Airways — City’s principal sponsor and the name on its stadium — told the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in no uncertain terms that “the assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is false,” adding that the airline funded the ten-year naming-rights deal “from its own liquidity” and had “never” received Abu Dhabi government subsidies. Any attempt to now argue the opposite could prove awkward, to say the least, for lawyers trying to rehabilitate the club’s case.

The ripples from the verdict have travelled well beyond football. The Football Association said the decision carried “significant implications for the integrity of the game” and confirmed it was weighing whether to launch its own investigation and pursue further sanctions, though it stressed it would not comment in detail while proceedings between the Premier League and City remain live.

Westminster has also taken notice. The Treasury Committee, chaired by Dame Meg Hillier, has written to HM Revenue and Customs asking whether the tax authority has requested access to redacted material contained in the commission’s report, saying she would “welcome reassurance” that officials grasp “the public interest in this case.” That intervention follows a report from Tax Policy Associates alleging City may have failed to pay as much as £12m in tax linked to a “sham” contract involving former manager Roberto Mancini — a liability that, with penalties, could reportedly swell to £24m.

Separately, the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee has written to the government and the Financial Reporting Council calling for tougher corporate accounting enforcement. Its chair, Liam Byrne, described the findings as pointing to a “serious failure” in oversight, arguing that clubs playing by the rules “need confidence that those rules are enforced fairly.”

Adding a further layer of intrigue, City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak met business secretary Jonathan Reynolds in the days before the verdict was announced. Government sources insist the club was not discussed and that Al Mubarak attended in his separate role as chief executive of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, with talks focused on UK-UAE cooperation on defence, security, intelligence and trade. The timing, nonetheless, has fuelled speculation about the politics swirling around the case, not least after Downing Street was forced to insist City are not “above the rules” following backlash over comments from Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

Amid the legal and political noise, there is a more immediate human dimension: what happens to the players. With City sitting top of the Premier League table after five straight wins this season, the squad is stocked with international talent whose personal brands and sponsorship deals are tightly bound to competing at the top level of English football. BBC Sport reports that sources close to the dressing room describe “significant concern” among players about the club’s prospects on appeal, tempered by others who retain faith in the public assurances of innocence given by Al Mubarak and chief executive Ferran Soriano.

Any demotion would complicate matters further. Most City players are believed to lack relegation clauses in their contracts, and their deals are reportedly fully guaranteed, meaning no automatic pay cuts if the club drops divisions. That leaves City holding considerable leverage: as one agent put it, “some players want medals, all players want money,” and the club is under no obligation to sell cheaply even if stars seek the exit. Parachute payments could cushion any blow, though there is no certainty City would qualify for them given the unusual circumstances of the case.

For now, City’s Premier League status, and the status of everyone connected to it, hangs on an appeal process that could take months to resolve. What is already clear is that the consequences of this case have moved well beyond the pitch, touching tax policy, corporate governance standards and diplomatic optics — and the football world is bracing for whatever comes next.

Manchester City’s attempt to overturn football’s most damning financial verdict is running headlong into an inconvenient paper trail — one written not by prosecutors or rival clubs, but by the club’s own shirt sponsor.

As City formally lodged its appeal this week against an independent commission’s finding of guilt on more than 100 charges of breaching Premier League financial rules, fresh scrutiny has fallen on a decade-old submission by Etihad Airways to the United States government that appears to flatly contradict the defence City is now mounting.

At the heart of City’s case is the claim that lucrative sponsorship deals — which the commission concluded were secretly topped up by owner Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group — were in fact genuinely funded by the Abu Dhabi government itself, not disguised payments from the club’s own ownership structure. It is a fine distinction, but a crucial one for City’s legal strategy.

The trouble is that Etihad, the state-owned airline that has adorned City’s shirts since 2009 and whose name has been on the club’s stadium since 2011, told U.S. authorities in 2015 something rather different. Responding to an investigation into state-owned carriers, Etihad described as “false” any suggestion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for its sponsorship of Manchester City. The airline insisted the £400m naming-rights and sponsorship arrangement was funded “from its own liquidity,” and that government equity and loans to Etihad were not subsidies but ordinary, “sensible” investment in a successful commercial enterprise.

That account sits awkwardly beside the version City is now presenting to overturn the commission’s findings — and it is also hard to square with the club’s own argument six years ago at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, when it successfully fought off UEFA’s financial fair play charges by insisting all its sponsorship income came purely from its commercial partners, not from government or ownership sources at all.

The independent commission was unsparing in its assessment of City’s shifting explanations. In its 40-page core judgment, published this week, it dismissed the club’s account as something “concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme.” City, for its part, says it possesses “a body of irrefutable evidence” that will overturn the ruling, and has accused the commission of errors of law, principle and fact that render the decision “unsafe.”

The Football Association, meanwhile, has made clear it is not simply a bystander. In a statement this week, the governing body said the commission’s verdict carried “significant implications for the integrity of the game” and confirmed it retains the power to pursue disciplinary action — not only against the club itself but against individuals found to have acted dishonestly, a category the commission says applies in this case. The FA is expected to hold off until City’s appeal concludes, a process likely to run until the end of January under Premier League procedure, before deciding whether to pursue its own case. Notably, the names of individuals implicated were redacted from the published judgment, though the FA could request an unredacted version from the Premier League.

The fallout has not stayed confined to football’s governing bodies. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s successor, Andy Burnham, has found himself at the centre of a political row after saying he would be “really concerned” if City’s Abu Dhabi owners sold the club, and praising them as “a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester” in the immediate aftermath of the guilty verdict. Downing Street was forced into two separate clarifications within a day, with a spokesperson stressing that “the initial judgement is serious” and that “there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules.”

The Liberal Democrats have seized on the episode, with the party’s culture, media and sport spokesperson Anna Sabine drafting a pointed letter demanding Burnham publish every meeting and piece of hospitality he has received from City Football Group, the Abu Dhabi United Group or UAE government representatives — going back to his years as Greater Manchester’s mayor. “Football fans up and down the country deserve to know that the rules apply to everyone, however rich and powerful they are,” Sabine said, adding that Burnham’s rapid defence of the club’s owners invited legitimate questions about his relationship with them.

Former Manchester City and FA chairman David Bernstein has echoed those concerns, warning that political interference in an independent regulatory process was corrosive. “It is absolutely vital that this independent regulator can perform independently and without political interference,” he told the BBC, adding that scrutiny may yet need to extend to City’s board and ownership more broadly.

What began as a football governance dispute has thus widened into a story touching sponsorship law, state investment, and the propriety of political figures’ ties to one of the Premier League’s wealthiest and most powerful clubs. With City’s appeal now formally underway and the FA keeping its options open, the next few months promise further scrutiny of a case that, thanks to Etihad’s own words, already looks far harder for City to win than the club’s defiant public statements suggest.

Source link

Gary Neville believes that Manchester City’s owners should be tossed out of the Premier League as punishment for breaches of the English top flight’s financial rules. Speaking on Stick to Football, he said: “Manchester City will recover as a football club because Manchester City have been there longer than these owners, they’ll be there long after them, and it’s got an immense history.

“Points deductions, fines, transfer bans, removing the titles – not giving them to others, just removing the titles – it’s significant punishments. The only punishment that would be fair would be have huge consequences – the biggest consequence – would be removing the owners.

“That is the only consequence if I was Manchester City that I would be worried about. And as a fan of Manchester City, if you wanted to keep the investment that you’ve currently got, that would be the one I’d be most concerned about.

“However, if you’re in football and you’re thinking about consequence, what can be more serious than industrial-level financial doping that we’ve seen and they’ve been found guilty of? I’m not celebrating. I’m chilled. This is chilling.”

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

European football’s international window delivered an evening of rapid-fire drama on Thursday, as three of the five Nations League fixtures were settled inside the opening quarter of an hour, while Germany and Serbia played out a tense stalemate at the other grounds in action.

In Cardiff, Norway continued to look like one of the form sides in the competition, taking the lead inside 11 minutes through Oscar Bobb. The Manchester City forward was picked out by a typically incisive piece of play from captain Martin Odegaard, who ghosted into a pocket of space in front of the Wales back line before threading a perfectly weighted through ball. Bobb’s give-and-go finish gave the visitors an early cushion and left Wales, who went into the match searching for their first win of the campaign, chasing the game once again.

There was similarly swift breakthrough in Denmark, where Portugal struck in the 13th minute. With Cristiano Ronaldo left out of the matchday squad — a selection call that has reignited debate about the veteran forward’s long-term international future — it was Joao Cancelo who stepped into the spotlight. The Barcelona full-back combined in a slick one-two with Goncalo Ramos to split the Danish defence, before coolly dinking the ball over goalkeeper Kasper Hermansen to put the visitors ahead. Bruno Fernandes wore the captain’s armband in Ronaldo’s absence, underlining how Roberto Martinez’s side are beginning to plan for a future without their record goalscorer, even as questions swirl over whether the 1,000-goal milestone is being prioritised ahead of the team’s wider interests.

The night’s standout individual moment, however, came in Dublin, where Troy Parrott produced a goal that will take some topping all season. Ireland broke with a long clearance from goalkeeper Caoimhin Kelleher, flicked on into Parrott’s path some 45 yards from goal. What followed was a mesmerising solo run: the striker nutmegged one defender, shrugged off another, cut back onto his favoured angle and slotted coolly under the onrushing Austrian goalkeeper. It was the kind of goal more readily associated with street football than international management-team tactics, and it sent the home crowd into raptures inside the opening 13 minutes.

Elsewhere, Germany and Serbia could not find a way through each other in the early stages, though it was not for the want of trying. Bayern Munich’s Aleksandar Pavlovic came closest for the hosts, curling a free-kick narrowly wide of the far post as Jurgen Klopp watched on from the touchline with his trademark composure. Group A4 continues to take shape, with Wales now facing an uphill task to salvage anything from their remaining fixtures, while Norway’s attacking depth — led by the Erling Haaland generation of talent — continues to make them one of the most feared sides outside the traditional top tier.

Further afield, Greece hosted the Netherlands in a fixture still finding its rhythm as the evening’s other results flashed up around Europe. With qualification battles intensifying across every group, these October fixtures carry outsized weight: for sides like Wales and Denmark, who found themselves behind inside the first quarter-hour, there is now a familiar scramble to respond, while Ireland, Norway and Portugal will take real encouragement from starts that put the pressure squarely back on their opponents.

As the Nations League campaign builds towards its business end, nights like this one are a reminder of how quickly fortunes can turn in international football — a moment of individual brilliance, a well-worked move, or a single lapse in concentration can define 90 minutes, and with it, a team’s entire campaign trajectory.

Manchester City has won the English Premier League eight times over the last 14 years. Whether those titles will remain is one of a plethora of issues at stake after England’s top division charged one of its most high-profile clubs with more than 100 breaches of its financial regulations.

On Tuesday, the Premier League announced that an independent commission had found City had drawn up “sham contracts” as well as “relying on sham agreements to artificially inflate the club’s revenues and reduce its costs.” These contracts, dubious sponsorships and a number of other methods were, according to the commission’s report, used to inflate the club’s revenue to the tune of about £900 million (€1.05 billion) over the period between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons.

The case has been ongoing for eight years after initial revelations from Der Spiegel, a German magazine, and Rui Pinto of the ‘Football Leaks’ website. City continues to deny any wrongdoing.

“The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case,” read a club statement. “Manchester City FC will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe.”

Advertisement

On Friday, the club issued a further statement saying it had lodged a “comprehensive Appeal.” 

What was the Premier League verdict on the Manchester City charges?

The 750-page report was damning, accusing City of inflating contracts and sponsorship deals, running secondary contracts off the books, making “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the Premier League investigation” and signing off inflated image rights deals to artificially boost their earnings. The report says all this enabled them to pass both Premier League and UEFA financial spending limits.

The Premier League’s chief ­executive, Richard Masters, described the case “as the most significant in Premier League history,” adding that the club “systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.”

Although the Premier League, the world’s most commercially successful football league, has drawn some praise for its actions, others point out that it took Pinto leaking emails and media reports to take action. The report shows that Manchester City, which had won the league once in 71 years before being taken over by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2008, were consistently posting revenues way higher than any of their more established and successful rivals.

Advertisement

Who are the key figures at Manchester City?

In this context, its the owners. The Abu Dhabi United Group, essentially an investment vehicle for the UAE royal family, bought the club in 2008. Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, know simply as Sheikh Mansour, fronted the takeover. He is a member of the ruling Al Nahyan family and the UAE’s vice president and deputy prime minister. Khaldoon Al Mubarak, who also holds several government positions in the UAE, was brought in as chairman.

Nation-state ownership of this type is controversial in European football. Manchester City’s owners have long been criticized for the country’s human rights record and using the club for sportswashing. Similar criticisms have been made of European champions Paris Saint-Germain, which Qatar owned and City’s Premier League rivals Newcastle United, which is owned 85% by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

City’s CEO, Ferran Soriano, joined in 2012 as City expanded their ownership into foreign leagues, buying up clubs in the US, Japan and Australia. He replaced former head coach Roberto Mancini with fellow Spaniard Manuel Pellegrini before former Bayern Munich and Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola took over in 2016, ushering in the club’s most successful period.

How did Manchester City’s system work?

The club immediately started splashing out on big-money transfers after the UAE investment arrived. At the time, neither UEFA nor the Premier League had the tight financial rules they now have. UEFA introduced its Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules for the 2011-12 season, while the Premier League followed with its Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) in 2013-14.

Advertisement

City’s free spending and relatively low commercial income meant they were likely to fall foul of such rules. The club was handed a conditional €60 million UEFA fine for losses in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons. They would later be banned from the Champions League on similar grounds in 2020 before being reinstated on appeal.

In an attempt to try and comply with these financial rules, City set up a system they called “Project Longbow” in 2012. The commission said much of this was genuine, but one arm of it was an agreement with a third party called Fordham that was, according to the ruling, “little more than a front.” Essentially, it reads, the club’s UAE owners “would be used (and were used) to enable Fordham to acquire from the club (at a sizeable, artificially inflated price) the club’s entitlement to benefit financially from its players’ image rights.”

In other words, City’s owners were pumping money into their own club through vastly inflated sponsorship and image rights deals so their income looked higher and they could spend more, particularly on player transfers and wages. The report also claims that City paid three individuals, whose names are redacted, through a third party to keep them off the books.

What happens next?

That’s the question on everyone’s lips. So far, no sanctions have been imposed on City, and the appeal will likely drag proceedings out even longer. Meanwhile, the club, which is top of the Premier League, faces Liverpool on October 11, after the international break.

While there is no precedent for such a tranche of charges, clubs have previously fallen foul of the Premier League’s PSR regulations. Everton were handed a 10-point penalty for a £19.5 million breach over a period ending with the 2021-22 season. This was based on a Premier League tariff of six points for the initial breach, plus an additional point for every £5 million the club overspent. Given that City’s overspending is close to a billion pounds, applying that would certainly relegate them, though the Premier League does not operate England’s second-tier league, the Championship.

Advertisement

For now, it looks like City and the league will play on under a cloud. But if the verdict remains after appeal, clubs and individuals whose careers and honors stand to be impacted will likely come forward and litigate. City themselves could be relegated, docked points over successive seasons, face transfer bans or any combination of those things. The titles won in the relevant period could also be stripped.

This article was originally published on September 30, 2026. It was updated on October 2, 20206 with Manchester City’s statement confirming that it had lodged an appeal.

Edited by: Chuck Penfold

Source link

The Republic of Ireland took an early lead over Austria on Thursday evening at the Aviva Stadium, with Troy Parrott converting inside the opening quarter of an hour to give the hosts a 1-0 advantage in their UEFA Nations League Group B3 fixture.

Parrott, who has established himself as a key attacking presence for Ireland in recent campaigns, found the net in the 12th minute, with the goal credited as an assist from striker Adam Idah. The early breakthrough gave Ireland the kind of start managers dream of in front of a home crowd, settling nerves and forcing Austria onto the back foot in Dublin.

Ireland manager’s side lined up with Caoimhin Kelleher in goal behind a back four of Dara O’Shea, John Egan, Liam Scales and Jayson Molumby’s compatriot Jemal Abankwah. In midfield, the hosts fielded a blend of experience and energy with Festy Ebosele — known in matchday squad sheets as F Azaz — alongside Chiedozie Coventry Ogbene-adjacent options, and captain duties falling to O’Shea. Parrott and Idah combined up front to deliver the goal that broke the deadlock.

Austria, managed to a roster featuring Bundesliga-experienced names such as Stefan Posch, Philipp Lienhart and Patrick Wimmer, were forced to respond after falling behind early. Their side also included Christoph Chukwuemeka and Romano Schmid in a bid to unlock an Irish defence that, on the balance of the game’s opening stages, held firm.

Both nations arrived at this Group B3 encounter looking to build momentum in the Nations League, a competition that has increasingly doubled as a proving ground for squad depth and tactical experimentation outside of major tournament windows. For Ireland, a home win would represent a significant statement result against an Austrian side that has regularly featured among Europe’s more competitive mid-tier nations in recent years.

The match was officiated by Allard Lindhout, with both benches showing strength in depth — Ireland could call upon the likes of Troy Parrott’s attacking partner Tom Cannon and midfielder Josh Cullen-type cover from the bench, while Austria held options including Michael Gregoritsch and Konrad Laimer in reserve, underlining the strength in depth Ralf Rangnick’s successor-era Austria sides have become known for.

Further details of the match, including any second-half developments, were not available at the time of writing. Ireland supporters inside the Aviva Stadium will hope Parrott’s early strike proves to be the foundation for a result that keeps their Nations League ambitions firmly on track, while Austria will be looking to their bench and tactical adjustments to find a way back into a contest that got away from them early.

The political and financial aftershocks of Manchester City’s guilty verdict in football’s biggest-ever financial fair play case are spreading well beyond the Premier League, with tax authorities, Westminster and Downing Street all now entangled in a row that shows no sign of settling before the club’s appeal deadline on Friday.

An independent commission this week found City guilty on all but one of 115 charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons, concluding that the club had used “sham” sponsorship arrangements and disguised funding, backed by owners Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), to mask the true scale of its finances from regulators. City deny all wrongdoing and say the decision contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact” that render it “unsafe.”

Now the Treasury Committee has waded in. Its chair, Dame Meg Hillier, has written to JP Marks, permanent secretary at HM Revenue and Customs, asking whether the tax authority has sought an unredacted copy of the commission’s report and whether it is alive to the “public interest” in the case. Her intervention follows a report from Tax Policy Associates alleging City may have failed to pay as much as £12m in tax tied to a “sham” contract involving former manager Roberto Mancini — a liability that, with penalties, could reportedly balloon to £24m.

Hillier was careful to acknowledge the limits of what HMRC can say publicly, noting that “taxpayer confidentiality may inhibit what you can disclose,” but pressed for assurance that the department understands the stakes. The request centres partly on the commission’s finding that City “utilised devices” to “disguise the true extent of certain club liabilities” — language that has caught the eye of MPs well beyond football’s usual regulatory bodies.

City, meanwhile, are preparing a defence for their appeal that could reignite one of the most sensitive questions in modern football governance: where the line sits between a private football club and the state that surrounds it. According to reports first carried by the Daily Mail and the Times and corroborated by BBC Sport sources, City intend to argue that money which flowed into major sponsorship deals came directly from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from ADUG, the private investment vehicle owned by Sheikh Mansour. Premier League rules explicitly permit state bodies to sponsor clubs, meaning the distinction, if accepted, could undercut the commission’s central finding of a “disguised funding scheme” worth an alleged £830.69m.

The commission has already heard — and rejected — a version of this argument once. It described City’s prior explanation, that Abu Dhabi sponsors had simply sought and received government assistance to cover their own liabilities, as “untrue” and something the club had “concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme.” Whether a fresh appeal board reaches the same conclusion will likely determine not just City’s sporting punishment but the broader debate about ownership transparency across the league.

That debate has taken on an added edge given the position of City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, who insists there is “irrefutable evidence” supporting the club’s case. Al Mubarak is listed as an Emirati diplomat on the UK government’s register of foreign representatives, a status that confers immunity from prosecution under criminal, civil and administrative law — a detail likely to fuel further questions about how closely the club’s leadership is bound to the Gulf state. Sheikh Mansour himself is a senior member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and brother to the UAE president, a lineage human rights campaigners have long cited in accusing the club’s ownership of using English football to “sportswash” the UAE’s international image.

Separately, City’s shirt sponsor Etihad Airways has said it is weighing legal action against the Premier League over the fallout from the ruling, adding a commercial dimension to a dispute that has already drawn in regulators, tax officials and now, improbably, the Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham found himself at the centre of a political storm of his own this week after telling the BBC he would be “really concerned” if City’s Abu Dhabi owners sold the club following the verdict, praising them as “a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester.” The Prime Minister went further, drawing a comparison to the disciplinary case against Everton — the club he has long supported — suggesting history might judge the City verdict as harshly as he believes it judged Everton’s.

The remarks prompted swift criticism, with shadow sports minister Louie French urging the government to “keep politics out of football.” Downing Street moved quickly to contain the row, with a spokesperson stressing on Thursday that “the initial judgement is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules,” while insisting the independent process “must be allowed to run its course and the outcome respected.” A spokesperson for Burnham similarly stressed the verdict was “serious” rather than retreating from the comparison entirely.

With City expected to formally lodge their appeal before Friday’s deadline, the case now sits at the intersection of sports governance, tax law and diplomatic politics — a combination that suggests the Premier League’s reckoning with its richest club is only just beginning, regardless of what a sanctions hearing eventually decides.