The latest reports indicate that an independent tribunal has finally rendered its decisions in the massive case involving Manchester City, which faces a total of 115 alleged breaches. Sky Sports has broken down the possible next steps in the ongoing inquiry, and the situation is now entering a new phase that could see appeals, further hearings, and a range of potential penalties. If any of the alleged infractions are confirmed, it is almost certain that Manchester City will lodge an appeal. Under the current procedural rules, both the club and the governing body have a 14‑day window after the judgment to file an appeal.
Should an appeal be lodged, the matter will be heard by a freshly constituted three‑person commission, separate from the original tribunal that issued the decision. An appeal can be based on several grounds, including evidence of fraud, misconduct, or a finding that the original arbitrator acted in a grossly unfair manner. It is important to note that the club does not have the option of taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); the appeal must remain within the framework set out by the Premier League and its independent judicial panel. The background to City’s defensive stance can be traced back to 2014, when chairman Khaldoon al‑Mubarak famously declared that he would rather spend £30 million on the world’s top fifty lawyers and pursue legal action against UEFA for a decade than accept a financial penalty for alleged Financial Fair Play violations.
That statement underscores the club’s willingness to fight any sanctions through the courts rather than simply paying a fine. Procedurally, any party that wishes to challenge a decision of the original commission may do so under Section W of the Premier League Rules. An Appeal Board is then appointed by Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the chair of the independent judicial panel. The board must consist of three members, one of whom must have previously held a judicial office and will serve as the chair of the board.
All appeal proceedings are conducted in confidence and are not open to the public or the media. The Appeal Board enjoys broad discretion: it can uphold the original decision, overturn it, modify the sanctions, or dismiss the appeal altogether. In practice, the board may also issue a range of orders, including adjusting any financial penalties, imposing points deductions, or applying other sporting sanctions deemed appropriate.
The independent commission that originally heard the case has a suite of possible punishments at its disposal. These range from monetary fines to points deductions and other sporting measures. Unlike many other leagues, the Premier League does not publish a fixed schedule of penalties for financial rule breaches. The rationale behind this approach is that clubs might deliberately breach the rules if they know exactly what the punishment will be, treating the penalty as a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
In February 2025, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters announced that the league is exploring the creation of a "Sanctions Grid," a structured framework that would outline predetermined penalties for various categories of rule violations. The aim is to bring greater transparency and consistency to the disciplinary process.
Recent history provides several examples of how points deductions have been applied. Everton, for instance, saw six points removed on appeal during the 2023/24 season, followed by an additional two‑point penalty for breaches of the profit and sustainability rules (PSR). Nottingham Forest also suffered a four‑point deduction in the same campaign.
Going further back, Luton Town was stripped of 30 points in the 2008/09 season—10 points for illegal agent payments and 20 points for exiting administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). More recently, Derby County endured a 21‑point deduction in the 2021/22 season—12 points for entering administration and nine points for other financial irregularities. Should the appeal be successful for City, the case will effectively close on the disciplinary side, as there is no further avenue to the CAS.
However, the legal fallout is likely to continue. Other clubs may initiate separate lawsuits, alleging that City’s alleged breaches gave them an unfair competitive advantage that resulted in missed trophies or Champions League qualification.
Those potential claims could spawn a new wave of litigation, extending the controversy well beyond the immediate appeal. In summary, the tribunal’s decisions mark a pivotal moment in one of the most extensive financial investigations in English football. Manchester City is poised to appeal any adverse findings, triggering a confidential three‑member hearing that will decide whether the original sanctions stand, are altered, or are dismissed. The broader landscape may shift as the Premier League contemplates a formal sanctions grid, while other clubs prepare for possible legal actions rooted in the perceived impact of City’s alleged financial misconduct.
The coming weeks will be crucial in determining not only the fate of Manchester City’s points and fines but also the future of financial regulation and enforcement across the league.