Manchester City is preparing to contend in its Premier League appeal that the additional money recorded as sponsorship revenue between 2009 and 2018 actually originated from the Abu Dhabian government rather than from the club’s private owners. The appeal follows an independent commission’s finding that the club breached Premier League financial regulations by disguising roughly £830.69 million of owner‑derived funding as commercial sponsorship income.
During the 2024 hearing, City’s legal team asserted that the funds in question were supplied by the Abu Dhabian state, a claim that the commission promptly dismissed as unfounded. The commission’s judgment was scathing, stating that the club’s explanation was "a narrative concocted after the fact in an effort to hide the true nature of the Disguised Funding Scheme." Manchester City is principally owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, a vehicle controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Sheikh Mansour belongs to the ruling family of Abu Dhab and also serves as the United Arab Emirates’ vice‑president and deputy prime minister. Despite these close ties, the club continues to deny any misconduct and intends to lodge an appeal before the Friday deadline.
Sky Sports journalist Kaveh Solhekol highlighted two major weaknesses in City’s line of argument. First, the club has already presented the same rationale during the original hearing in the autumn of 2024, and the independent commission rejected it at that time. Second, the distinction between the Abu Dhabian government and the club’s owners is blurred, given that Sheikh Mansour’s investment vehicle effectively controls the club and he is a senior member of the Abu Dhab ruling family.
This overlap makes it difficult to argue convincingly that the money came from a sovereign entity rather than from the owners themselves. Solhekol warned that pursuing this strategy could be a long shot, but it remains one component of City’s broader appeal plan. The commission’s report, released earlier this week, detailed how City’s attempt to distance the funding from Abu Dhab United Group (ADUG)—the company owned by Sheikh Mansour that controls the City Football Group—failed.
City claimed that the sponsors had always been responsible for paying the amounts shown in the club’s accounts and that any financial assistance from the Abu Dhabian government was separate from ADUG funds. The club’s lawyers further argued that sponsors sometimes sought government support to meet their sponsorship obligations, and that the Premier League had mistakenly categorized this support as ADUG money. The commission, however, dismissed these assertions, labeling them a post‑hoc invention designed to obscure the reality of the disguised funding arrangement.
A concrete example cited in the report involved May 2013, when City faced a potential breach of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules due to an unexpected shortfall in their accounts just days before the fiscal year ended. In response, the club allegedly produced revised sponsorship contracts that recorded additional Abu Dhabian sponsorship income, without any actual engagement with the sponsors. This rapid amendment allegedly allowed City to plug the deficit and avoid an FFP violation. Looking ahead, City’s appeal could extend into the following year if the club argues that the new Premier League appeal procedures—introduced for the current season—should not apply retroactively to cases that originated before the rule change.
Under the new framework, appeals must be resolved within 12 weeks and the hearing cannot exceed five days. City’s lawyers may contend that the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, a period when the accelerated‑appeal rules were not yet part of the Premier League handbook. A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports suggested that City might have a compelling argument that the newer procedural rules should not be enforced for this particular case. The new appeal guidelines were designed to ensure that clubs face sanctions in the same season as the alleged infractions, thereby promoting timely accountability.
Nonetheless, City’s legal team appears poised to challenge the applicability of these rules, potentially buying the club additional time to mount a comprehensive defense. In summary, Manchester City’s forthcoming appeal hinges on a contentious claim that state‑derived sponsorship money, rather than owner‑funded contributions, underpins the disputed £830 million. The independent commission has already rejected this narrative as a post‑event fabrication, and commentators note the difficulty of separating the interests of the Abu Dhabian government from those of Sheikh Mansour’s investment vehicle.
As the deadline approaches, the club must decide whether to pursue this line of reasoning despite its prior dismissal, while also navigating the newer, stricter appeal timelines that could shape the ultimate outcome of the case.