Manchester City will argue in its appeal that sponsorship payments at the centre of the Premier League’s financial case were funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club’s owners.
The club believes that distinction would prove it did not breach regulations, according to the Daily Mail. Sponsorship agreements with state-funded companies, including airlines, are not prohibited in the Premier League.
The league’s independent commission found that more than £900m had been illicitly injected into Manchester City to circumvent financial rules. The largest element was £830.69m, which the commission said came from the club’s owners to supplement commercial sponsorship payments.
It concluded that the “disguised funding” helped City sign players and establish their successful era at Etihad Stadium. The ruling could ultimately result in the club being expelled from the Premier League and stripped of previous titles.
Manchester City will tell a new appeal committee that the relevant money came from the Abu Dhabi government, which owns the sponsors, rather than Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a private company owned by Mansour.
The club is expected to rely on what it describes as “irrefutable evidence”, including bank statements and witness testimony. It will argue that the case, which could affect its achievements between 2009 and 2018, comes down to who funded the sponsorship agreements: the sponsors, their owner or the club’s owners.
The hearing involved more than 700 pages of witness statements and took place in London. The commission then took almost two years to issue its decision.
Emails obtained by hackers are among the Premier League’s key evidence. In 2013, Manchester City’s then-chief financial officer Jorge Chumillas asked Simon Pearce how additional funding for the Etihad Airways agreement moved through ADUG.
“I need to understand the mechanism by which the additional sponsorship funds flow through ADUG,” Chumillas wrote. “Is it ‘ADUG shareholders → ADUG → Etihad Airways → Manchester City’, or ‘ADUG shareholders → Etihad Airways → Manchester City’?”
Other correspondence referred to money being “repaid” through sponsors. Of the Etihad Airways deal, £8m was paid by the airline and £59.5m by ADUG. An April 2010 email concerning Aabar said £2m would come from the company, while “the remaining £12 million will come from other sources of funds provided by His Highness.”
City insists these shortfalls were covered by the Abu Dhabi government as the companies’ main shareholder. It is expected to argue that the emails reflected mistaken assumptions by employees in Manchester. The club says government bank statements show transfers to sponsor accounts, which then paid City.
The commission rejected that explanation, saying: “This explanation was concocted long after the event to disguise and conceal the true nature of the disguised funding arrangements.”
The value of the sponsorship deals is not itself at issue because fair-market-value rules were introduced only in 2021. City’s deadline to appeal is Friday.
The club may also challenge the use of the term “sham transactions”, argue it is difficult to believe Mansour was unaware of approximately £830m of personal funds, and question why the ruling took 20 months rather than three. City says the delay makes the decision “unreliable”.
It provided 24 witnesses, while the Premier League called none who could confirm the alleged conspiracy. The new appeal panel is expected to include retired judges, and legal experts say City barrister Lord David Pannick KC specialises in appellate law.
Chief executive Ferran Soriano said: “The Premier League’s entire case against us is based on a false accusationthat the owner’s personal funds somehow flowed secretly into the club via several sponsors in Abu Dhabi. This is simply not true.”
Etihad Airways said it “firmly rejects” the findings and is considering legal action, claiming the Premier League never contacted it or gave it an opportunity to respond. A spokesperson said the ruling had “adversely affected Etihad Airways”.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer also commented. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said he would be “very concerned” if City lost its owners, who have invested heavily in east Manchester.
The independent football regulator said the ruling “raises serious questions” and reiterated its power to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives. The Premier League declined to comment.
