Sky Sports News senior reporter Kaveh Solhekol breaks down the Premier League’s extensive charge sheet against Manchester City, outlines how the investigation unfolded, and examines the range of penalties that could be imposed, noting that the case now appears to be moving toward an appeal stage. According to circulating reports, an independent tribunal has already rendered decisions on a staggering 115 separate allegations lodged against the club. The consensus among those sources is that the majority of the accusations have been substantiated, prompting the process to advance to the appeal phase.
The Premier League has declined to comment publicly, citing the confidential nature of the proceedings and its policy of not providing guidance on ongoing matters. A Manchester City spokesperson reiterated the club’s stance, stating that the Premier League’s inquiry remains active and that many elements are still pending. The club emphasized its commitment to respecting due process over the past eight years, trusting that the Premier League Board and Executive will act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. This mirrors the club’s public statement issued in February 2023, which asserted that City has consistently complied with procedural requirements.
The core of the controversy centres on alleged breaches of the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations spanning a nine‑year window from 2009 to 2018. In addition to the FFP infractions, the club faces accusations of failing to cooperate fully with the league’s financial investigations.
When the Premier League first announced the charges in 2023, it listed 115 alleged violations, although some insiders suggest the true count could be as high as 130. During the period under scrutiny, Manchester City—despite denying every allegation—secured three Premier League titles. The league’s FFP rules are intended to ensure clubs operate within their means, essentially requiring that spending does not exceed revenue.
Clubs can, however, manipulate the system by inflating reported income or concealing expenditures. Under the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) that preceded the current FFP framework, artificially boosting revenue could theoretically permit a club to spend more on player transfers and wages than it truly earns. The Premier League alleges that City systematically misrepresented its financial picture across nine seasons, failing to provide accurate data to the regulator. Specific charges include the alleged non‑disclosure of substantial remuneration paid to a senior manager over a four‑year period, suggesting the existence of a secret contract that paid the individual significantly more than the official records indicate.
The league also claims that City did not adhere to UEFA’s FFP regulations for a five‑year stretch. The first public revelations of these alleged breaches appeared in a series of 2018 articles by Germany’s Der Spiegel, which were based on emails leaked by convicted Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto and subsequently published on the Football Leaks website. Those disclosures triggered a UEFA investigation in 2019, followed by a parallel probe by the Premier League.
In February 2020, UEFA found City guilty of violating its FFP rules, imposing a two‑year ban from European competition and a €30 million fine. However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later lifted the ban after five months and reduced the fine to €10 million. CAS criticised City for showing a "blatant disregard of UEFA's investigative process" but cleared the club of accusations that it had disguised equity funding as sponsorship income. The tribunal noted that many of the alleged breaches were either unproven or fell outside UEFA’s five‑year statute of limitations.
City welcomed the CAS decision, describing it as validation of the club’s position and of the evidence it had presented. Unlike UEFA, the Premier League does not impose a strict time limit on investigations, which is why it has pursued allegations dating back to 2009.
When the Premier League formally charged City in February 2023, the club expressed surprise and insisted that its defence was backed by a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence." The subsequent hearing, which ran from 16 September to 6 December 2024, lasted twelve weeks and was conducted before a three‑person independent commission at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London. Given the volume of charges—over a hundred—and the complexity of the financial data, the interval between the hearing’s conclusion and the issuance of a judgment was always expected to be several months. Should the commission find City culpable, it possesses wide‑ranging powers to impose sanctions. The Premier League’s rulebook does not prescribe fixed penalties for financial misconduct, allowing the commission to tailor its response.
Potential punishments include a points deduction, a monetary fine, or even expulsion from the league. The lack of a predetermined sanctions grid is intentional; league officials have argued that if clubs could predict the exact penalty for a given breach, they might be more inclined to test the limits of the rules. In February 2025, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters indicated that the league was considering the introduction of a "sanctions grid"—a structured schedule of penalties matched to specific violations—but this framework has yet to be implemented. Recent precedent illustrates the variety of possible outcomes.
Everton suffered a six‑point deduction, later reduced to two points, for PSR breaches in the 2023/24 season. Nottingham Forest incurred a four‑point penalty for similar infractions 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 required Company Voluntary Arrangement. More recently, Derby County was stripped of 21 points in 2021/22—12 for entering administration and nine for other financial irregularities.
If any of the charges against Manchester City are upheld, the club is expected to appeal. In 2014, City chairman Khaldoon al‑Mubarak famously declared that he would rather spend £30 million on the world’s best legal team and pursue litigation against UEFA for a decade 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. Any appeal would be heard by a newly constituted three‑person commission. Grounds for appeal include allegations of fraud, procedural misconduct, or gross unfairness by the original arbitrator. Notably, City cannot take its case to CAS, as the Premier League’s appeal mechanism is distinct from UEFA’s.
The Premier League’s appeal rules are set out in Section W of its governing documents. 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 must have previously held a judicial office and will act as the board’s chair. Like the initial proceedings, appeal hearings are confidential and conducted in private.
The board enjoys broad discretion: it may uphold the original decision, modify it, or overturn it entirely, and it may impose any order it deems appropriate, including altering any sanctions originally imposed by the commission. In summary, the Manchester City case represents one of the most extensive financial investigations in English football history. With over a hundred alleged breaches, a lengthy hearing, and the prospect of a high‑stakes appeal, the outcome will have significant implications not only for the club’s future but also for how the Premier League enforces its financial regulations moving forward.