Recent reports indicate that an independent tribunal has finally delivered its rulings on the massive 115‑charge case facing Manchester City. Sky Sports has broken down the possible next steps in this complex investigation, and the situation is shaping up to be a prolonged legal saga. If any of the alleged breaches are confirmed, Manchester City is expected to lodge an appeal. Both the club and the governing body have a 14‑day window from the date of the judgment to file such an appeal.
Should an appeal be lodged, the matter will be heard by a newly constituted three‑person commission, distinct from the original panel that issued the decision. Appeals can be based on several grounds, including evidence of fraud, procedural misconduct, or a finding that the original arbitrator acted in a grossly unfair manner. It is important to note that the club will not be able to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); the appeal process is confined to the domestic framework established by the Premier League and the independent judicial panel. The stakes are high.
Back in 2014, Khaldoon al‑Mubarak, the chairman of Manchester City, famously declared that he would rather spend £30 million on the world’s top fifty lawyers and pursue a ten‑year legal battle against UEFA than accept a financial penalty for alleged breaches of the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. That statement underscores the club’s willingness to fight any sanction vigorously. Under Section W of the Premier League Rules, any party to the proceedings that wishes to challenge a decision of the original Commission may do so.
The appeal board that will hear such a challenge is 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 act as the chair of the appeal board. All appeal hearings are conducted in private and are strictly confidential.
The appeal board enjoys broad discretionary powers: it may uphold the original decision, overturn it, modify the sanctions, or dismiss the appeal altogether. In practice, this means the board can tailor its orders to the specifics of the case, ranging from financial penalties to more severe sporting sanctions. Speaking of sanctions, the independent commission has a menu of possible penalties at its disposal.
These include monetary fines, deduction of league points, and other sporting sanctions such as transfer bans or restrictions on squad registration. Unlike many other regulatory bodies, the Premier League does not publish a fixed schedule of punishments for financial rule violations. The league has deliberately avoided a rigid sanctions grid because it feared clubs would simply calculate the cost of breaking the rules and accept the penalty as a business expense. However, that stance appears to be shifting.
In February 2025, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters announced that the league was considering the introduction of a “Sanctions Grid” – a transparent framework that would outline predefined penalties for various categories of rule breaches. The aim is to create greater certainty and deterrence, ensuring clubs cannot simply gamble on breaking the rules and paying a known fine. Recent history provides some context for how point deductions have been applied.
During the 2023/24 season, Everton were penalised with a six‑point deduction on appeal, followed by an additional two points for breaches of the Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). In the same season, Nottingham Forest suffered a four‑point deduction for similar infractions. Going further back, Luton Town were stripped of 30 points in the 2008/09 season – ten points for illegal payments to agents and twenty points for exiting administration without a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
More recently, Derby County were docked 21 points in the 2021/22 season – twelve points for entering administration and nine points for other financial irregularities. If Manchester City’s appeal is successful, the appeal process will conclude this particular phase of the investigation.
No further recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport will be available, effectively closing the domestic legal pathway. Nonetheless, the ramifications are likely to spill over into other legal arenas.
Other clubs may consider launching separate actions against City, alleging that the alleged financial breaches gave City an unfair advantage that cost them trophies, Champions League qualification, or other competitive benefits. In summary, the next steps involve a potential 14‑day appeal window, the formation of a three‑member appeal board chaired by a former judge, a confidential hearing, and a wide range of possible outcomes—from upheld sanctions to complete reversal. The broader football community is watching closely, as the case could set precedent for how financial governance is enforced in the Premier League and possibly shape future policy, including the anticipated sanctions grid. The legal battle promises to be lengthy, costly, and highly influential for the sport’s regulatory landscape.