Recent reports indicate that an independent tribunal has rendered its decisions regarding the 115 alleged breaches lodged against Manchester City. Sky Sports has broken down the possible next steps in this complex investigation, and the situation now hinges on how both parties respond to the findings. If any of the alleged infringements are upheld, it is almost certain that Manchester City will lodge an appeal.
The procedural rules allow both the club and the governing body to submit an appeal within fourteen days of the original judgment. Should an appeal be filed, it will be heard by a freshly constituted three‑person commission, distinct from the original tribunal that issued the decision.
An appeal can be brought on a number of specific grounds, including but not limited to 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. Back in 2014, Khaldoon al‑Mubarak, the chairman of Manchester City, famously declared that he would rather allocate £30 million to hire the world’s top fifty lawyers and pursue a decade‑long legal battle against UEFA than accept a financial penalty for alleged breaches of the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
That statement underscores the club’s willingness to fight any sanction vigorously, and it provides context for why an appeal would be a logical next move. The procedural mechanics for challenging a commission’s decision are laid out in Section W of the Premier League Rules. Under these rules, a party that wishes to contest a ruling can bring the matter before an Appeal Board.
This board is appointed by the chair of the independent judicial panel—currently Sir Gary Hickinbottom—and must consist of three members, at least one of whom must have previously held a judicial office and will act as the chair of the board. All proceedings before the Appeal Board are conducted in confidence and are not open to the public. The board enjoys broad discretionary powers: it may uphold the original decision, overturn it, modify any orders, or even impose entirely new sanctions as it sees fit. This flexibility means that the final outcome could differ substantially from the initial tribunal’s recommendations.
The independent commission has a variety of penalties at its disposal. These range from monetary fines to points deductions and other sporting sanctions that could affect a club’s standing in the league, its eligibility for European competition, or its overall financial health. Unlike many other regulatory bodies, the Premier League does not operate a fixed penalty schedule for financial rule violations.
The league deliberately avoided codifying exact punishments because it feared clubs might calculate the cost of breaching the rules against the known penalties and simply accept the fines as a cost of doing business. In February 2025, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters announced that the league was exploring the creation of a “Sanctions Grid.” This grid would outline predetermined penalties for different categories of rule breaches, providing greater transparency and consistency. The move is intended to deter future violations by removing the guesswork around potential punishments. Recent history offers several examples of how points deductions have been applied.
During the 2023/24 season, Everton suffered a six‑point deduction on appeal, followed by an additional two points for breaches of the profit‑and‑sustainability rules (PSR). Nottingham Forest also incurred a four‑point deduction in the same campaign.
Earlier, in the 2008/09 season, Luton Town were stripped of 30 points—10 for illegal payments to agents and 20 for exiting administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). More recently, Derby County’s 2021/22 season saw a 21‑point deduction—12 points for entering administration and nine for other financial irregularities. If the appeal concerning Manchester City proceeds, a separate hearing will be convened to decide on any sanctions that might be imposed. This hearing will mark the conclusion of the current procedural phase; there will be no further avenue to appeal to the CAS.
However, the legal battle is unlikely to end there. It is anticipated that other clubs could initiate separate lawsuits, claiming that City’s alleged violations gave them an unfair advantage and cost them trophies or Champions League qualification. In summary, the immediate future for Manchester City involves a potential appeal within a two‑week window, a confidential review by a newly formed three‑member board, and a possible second‑stage hearing to determine any penalties.
While the club is expected to contest any adverse findings aggressively, the broader football community may see a wave of ancillary legal actions as rivals seek redress for perceived competitive imbalances. The outcome of this process will not only affect City’s standing but could also shape how financial governance is enforced across English football for years to come.