Manchester City’s planned appeal against findings that they breached more than 100 Premier League rules has been called into question by a 2015 statement from main sponsor Etihad Airways.
Sky Sports News understands City are expected to argue that additional money supporting their sponsorship agreements came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club’s majority owners, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
However, in a submission to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015, Etihad rejected the claim that its Manchester City sponsorship had been funded by the Abu Dhabi government.
“The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false,” the airline said.
“In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium.
“Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”
The 60-page submission was made in response to allegations that Etihad had benefited from market-distorting state subsidies. The airline, whose sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, wrote: “We are government-owned and have been since our founding.
“We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans.”
Etihad added that its shareholder equity and loans were not subsidies under any applicable definition, but represented how the Abu Dhabi government had invested in the business.
An independent disciplinary commission ruled this week that City had disguised £830m of owner funding as sponsorship income across nine seasons between 2009 and 2018.
City’s legal team is understood to have advanced the argument that the additional funding came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the owners, during the original hearing in 2024. The commission rejected that explanation in its judgment, published on Tuesday, saying the club had “concocted” it after the event to conceal the realities of the “Disguised Funding Scheme”.
That position also contrasts with City’s case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, where they challenged a two-year ban for breaches of UEFA’s financial fair play rules. Former Etihad Airways chief executive James Horgan told that hearing that sponsorship obligations to City were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds”.
City submitted their appeal at 19:00 on Thursday. Under Premier League rules introduced this season, the process must be completed within 12 weeks, with the hearing limited to five days in one continuous block. A different three-person panel would then have 30 days to issue its judgment, creating a timetable that could take the case into the third week of January.
However, City may argue the accelerated rules should not apply because they were charged in 2023 and their hearing took place in 2024, before the changes appeared in the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert told Sky Sports News the club would have a strong case, meaning the appeal could continue into 2027. The rules were introduced to help ensure clubs are punished in the same season as the relevant breaches where possible.
