Sky Sports News senior correspondent Kaveh Solhekol breaks down the Premier League’s extensive charge sheet against Manchester City, outlines the background of the investigation, and discusses the range of possible penalties as the case moves toward an appeal. According to multiple sources, an independent tribunal has already delivered its findings on the 115 alleged infringements lodged against the club. The consensus appears to be that the majority of the accusations have been substantiated, prompting the process to advance to the appeal stage. The Premier League has declined to comment publicly, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings and the fact that it does not provide guidance on ongoing matters.
A Manchester City spokesperson reiterated the club’s position, stating that the Premier League’s investigation remains active, with several key elements yet to be resolved. The club emphasised its continued adherence to the statements issued in February 2023, noting that it has respected due process for eight years and expects the Premier League Board and Executive to act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan pressure. The core of the case centres on alleged breaches of the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations over a nine‑year span from 2009 to 2018, as well as accusations that the club failed to cooperate fully with the league’s financial inquiries.
When the Premier League first announced the charges in 2023, it listed 115 distinct alleged violations, although some insiders suggest the true count could be as high as 130. During the period under scrutiny, Manchester City, which has consistently denied any wrongdoing, secured three Premier League titles.
The FFP framework is intended to ensure clubs operate within their means, matching spending to revenue. Critics argue that clubs can manipulate the system by overstating income or concealing expenditures, thereby inflating their apparent profitability and enabling higher spending on transfers and wages. The Premier League alleges that City deliberately misreported financial data across nine seasons, including the omission of full remuneration details for a senior manager over a four‑year stretch.
The implication is that a secret contract existed, paying the manager substantially more than the official figures suggested. In addition, the league claims City violated UEFA’s FFP rules over a five‑year period. Those allegations first emerged in a series of 2018 articles by Germany’s Der Spiegel, which relied on emails leaked by convicted hacker Rui Pinto and subsequently published on the Football Leaks website.
The revelations triggered a UEFA investigation in 2019 and a parallel inquiry by the Premier League. In February 2020, UEFA found City guilty of FFP breaches, imposing a two‑year ban from European competition and a €30 million fine. The ban was later overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and the fine reduced to €10 million. CAS criticised the club for "blatant disregard of UEFA's investigative process" but cleared it of accusations that it had disguised equity funding as sponsorship.
The tribunal noted that many alleged violations were either unproven or fell outside the five‑year limitation period prescribed by UEFA statutes. City hailed the CAS decision as validation of its stance and the evidence it had presented.
However, the Premier League does not operate under a five‑year limitation, which is why it has pursued charges dating back to 2009. When the league formally charged the club in February 2023, City described the move as "surprising" and insisted that a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supported its position. The hearing on the Premier League charges ran from 16 September to 6 December 2024, lasting twelve weeks before a three‑person independent commission at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London.
Given the volume of allegations and the complexity of the financial data, the commission warned that a judgment could take several months to render. Should the commission rule against Manchester City, it possesses broad discretion to impose any sanction it deems appropriate.
Potential punishments under Premier League regulations include points deductions, hefty fines, or even expulsion from the competition. The league has deliberately avoided publishing a fixed "sanctions grid" for financial breaches, fearing clubs would calculate the cost of rule‑breaking against known penalties. In February 2025, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters indicated that a structured grid is under consideration, but no formal system is yet in place. Recent precedent shows the league is willing to levy severe penalties for financial misconduct.
Everton suffered a six‑point deduction, later increased by two points, during the 2023/24 season for breaches of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Nottingham Forest incurred a four‑point penalty in the same campaign.
In the English Football League, Luton Town was docked a total of 30 points in 2008/09—10 for illegal agent payments and 20 for exiting administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement. Derby County faced a 21‑point deduction in 2021/22 for administration and other financial irregularities. If any of the Premier League’s accusations are upheld, Manchester City is expected to appeal.
In 2014, club chairman Khaldoon al‑Mubarak famously declared he would rather spend £30 million on top legal counsel and pursue a decade‑long lawsuit against UEFA than accept a financial penalty for alleged FFP violations. Both parties have a 14‑day window to lodge an appeal after the commission’s judgment.
Appeals are heard by a newly appointed three‑person commission, which may consider grounds such as fraud, procedural misconduct, or gross unfairness. Notably, City cannot take the case to CAS; the appeal must remain within the Premier League’s own framework. The Premier League’s appeal rules, outlined in Section W of its regulations, allow any party to challenge a commission decision. An Appeal Board, appointed by the chair of the independent judicial panel Sir Gary Hickinbottom, must consist of three members, at least one of whom has held judicial office and will act as chair.
The appeal proceedings are confidential and conducted in private. The board holds extensive discretion: it may uphold the original decision, modify it, or dismiss the appeal entirely, and it can issue any order it deems fit, including altering sanctions imposed by the commission. In summary, Manchester City faces a complex, high‑stakes legal battle over alleged financial misconduct spanning nearly a decade. The outcome could reshape the club’s future in the Premier League and set a precedent for how financial regulation is enforced across English football.
The next few months will be crucial as the club prepares its appeal and the league determines the final consequences, if any, for the alleged breaches.