A panel operating independently of the club concluded that Manchester City had violated financial regulations across a range of areas, with disputed revenue figures and undisclosed expenditures together totalling upwards of £900 million. Published on 29 September, the partially redacted ruling addresses the club's financial records spanning the 2009/10 through 2017/18 seasons.
Of the financial counts brought forward, every one was sustained on appeal, and the same outcome applied to three out of four clusters of allegations tied to conduct during the inquiry. A separate hearing will determine what penalty applies.
Contesting the verdict as legally and factually flawed, the club has put forward a notice of appeal and maintains that no wrongdoing took place on its part.
Formal proceedings got under way in February 2023, roughly four years after the league opened its inquiry into the matter in December 2018. Spanning four months from September through to December 2024, the proceedings ran across 42 sitting days. The commission's core findings appear in the published decision, while its supporting appendices have not yet been made available. Testimony drew on expert analysis spanning fields from accounting conventions to the politics and governance structures of Abu Dhabi, while the documentary record under review ran into the millions of pages.
According to the commission's findings, City had artificially inflated its reported sponsorship revenues beyond the amounts its commercial partners were genuinely contributing. Contractual fee amounts recorded against sponsors were only partially met by those parties, with Abu Dhabi United Group — the club's owner throughout the period in question — covering the remaining shortfall. That total was entered into the books under sponsorship revenue.
Taken together, the concealment of outgoings and the artificial inflation of revenue figures had the combined effect of reducing reported costs by in excess of £900 million — an accounting picture that portrayed the club as less reliant on proprietorial funding and more financially capable of sustaining its expenditure than the underlying numbers supported.
In an emailed statement, Tim Lowles — who leads the sports practice at Kingsley Napley in London — indicated that the published ruling pointed to something well beyond an administrative oversight. Investigators concluded that the club had deliberately and persistently obscured its financial reliance on its Abu Dhabi ownership group through a pattern of misconduct spanning close to ten years and involving more than £900 million. Lowles indicated that sponsorship deals linked to connected businesses would likely face continued examination. He further stated that valuations tied to sponsorship deals are expected to reflect what the open market would bear, and that those holding oversight responsibilities are becoming both more inclined and better positioned to scrutinise what documentation conceals.
Wage and salary disbursements to staff connected with the club were also routed through separate financial channels rather than the organisation's own books. Three distinct batches of payments — totalling roughly £8.9 million, £7.4 million, and £500,000 in turn — were traced by the commission to transactions ADUG had carried out on City's account. Among the transactions were fees logged beneath consultancy arrangements and sums tied to image rights deals. Across a pair of cases, the regulator's review determined that those payments ought to have appeared as disclosed items within each person's contractual agreement with the club.
Rights to income generated by players' image licences were transferred by the club to an entity known as Fordham through a separate sale of entitlement. Investigators on the commission determined that ADUG had underwritten both the initial acquisition by Fordham and the player payments that followed. Under that arrangement, owner contributions were logged as commercial revenue on one side of the ledger while expenditure on image rights went unrecorded on the other.
Over nine seasons, the club's financial records did not set out the nature of the relationship between City and its Abu Dhabi-based commercial partners. Regulators determined through their review that a number of those transactions fell within related-party disclosure requirements. Revised financial data led the commission to conclude that City had fallen short of both UEFA's financial regulations and the Premier League's rules governing profitability and sustainability.
According to Lowles, the club's failure to disclose those connections pointed to broader gaps in its oversight structures, with independent audits put forward as a potential remedy. He argued that reaching a settlement with a regulator carries limited effect when the underlying conduct driving those violations remains unaddressed.
Three groups of non-cooperation charges were upheld against the club, while a fourth was dismissed, with the panel additionally determining that the organisation had taken deliberate steps to impede the league's inquiry. Testimony from a number of City witnesses was found by the hearing to be deliberately false, with those individuals, in at least some instances, aware at the time that their accounts did not reflect the truth. The ruling further noted that the majority of lay witnesses had given their testimony in good faith.
Under its existing rulebook, the Premier League holds authority to impose financial penalties, strip clubs of points, bar them from competitive fixtures, or put forward a case for full removal from membership. Penalties may be stacked or paired with a compensation order at the commission's discretion.
Three Premier League titles came to City across the span those financial findings cover — the championships of 2011/12, 2013/14, and 2017/18. The FA Cup triumph of 2011 also falls within the stretch of seasons under consideration. Revoking an FA Cup title would fall under a distinct review process handled separately by the FA.
The club's official supporter network, City Matters, described itself as taken aback and let down by the Premier League's statement, while expressing support for the chairman's pledge to vindicate the club. A gathering between the Citizens Trust and the Football Supporters' Association was arranged at short notice, taking place within roughly sixty minutes of the story going to print.
The club has put forward what it describes as thorough documentation backing its position, and maintains that proper procedural standards were followed at every stage of the process. Lowles stated that the actions taken so far represented only an opening move.
The club has lodged notice of an appeal, describing the findings as unreliable, while a ruling on any penalty remains outstanding. The proceedings are expected to extend across several more years before any final outcome takes shape.
Etihad Airways, which holds the position of Manchester City's principal commercial partner, is weighing potential legal proceedings against the Premier League over the way the organisation handled its investigative conclusions. On 30 September, a written communication from the carrier pushed back against any characterisation that it had taken part in questionable commercial dealings. The club, whose identity is withheld in the redacted ruling, contended that how the league presented those findings had done harm to its standing. The organisation further stated that no one had contacted it throughout the inquiry process, nor had it been given any opportunity to put forward information or address material that might reflect negatively upon it.
Counsel names have been withheld from the published record in the matter of The Football Association Premier League against Manchester City Football Club. Legal representation in the dispute fell to Bird & Bird on the Premier League's side, while Manchester City turned to Clifford Chance.
