Manchester City is preparing to mount a detailed defence in its Premier League appeal, asserting that the additional money recorded as sponsorship revenue between 2009 and 2018 actually originated from the government of Abu Dhabi rather than from the club's private owners. This claim stands in stark contrast to the findings of an independent commission, which concluded that the club had breached Premier League financial regulations by disguising roughly £830.69 million of owner‑derived funding as legitimate sponsorship income.
During the 2024 hearing, City’s legal team maintained that the funds in question were supplied by the Abu Dhabi government, a position that the commission promptly dismissed as unfounded. In its written judgment, the commission described the club’s explanation as a story concocted after the fact, intended to hide the true nature of what it termed 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 is a senior member of the ruling Al Nahyan family of Abu Dhabi and serves as the United Arab Emirates’ Vice‑President and Deputy Prime Minister.
The club has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has signalled its intention to lodge an appeal before the statutory deadline on Friday. Sky Sports News commentator Kaveh Solhekol highlighted two major weaknesses in City’s line of argument. First, the club had already presented this same rationale during the original hearing in the autumn of 2024, and the independent commission had already rejected it.
Second, the distinction between the Abu Dhabi government and the club’s owners is blurred, given the close personal and financial ties between Sheikh Mansour, his investment vehicle, and the state itself. Solhekol noted that while the strategy might be a long‑shot, it will nevertheless form part of the broader appeal approach.
The commission’s report, released earlier in the week, detailed how City’s defence was systematically dismantled. City had argued that the Abu Dhabi sponsors were always liable for, and had paid, the amounts shown in the club’s financial statements. They insisted that the money did not come from the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG)—the company owned by Sheikh Mansour that controls the City Football Group—but rather from direct government support.
According to City’s lawyers, sponsors occasionally sought financial assistance from the Abu Dhabi government to meet their sponsorship obligations, and the Premier League had mistakenly identified this assistance as ADUG funding. The report recorded City’s claim that, in every instance, the level of government support matched the amount the Premier League had incorrectly attributed to ADUG. The commission rejected this narrative, labeling it a post‑event fabrication designed to obscure the reality of the disguised funding operation.
One illustrative case cited by the commission dates back to May 2013. At that time, City faced a potential breach of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations after an unexpected shortfall appeared on their books just days before the close of the financial year.
In response, the club allegedly produced revised sponsorship agreements that recorded additional Abu Dhabi‑sourced sponsorship income. The report alleges that these amended agreements were generated without any actual engagement with the sponsors, effectively plugging the shortfall and allowing City to avoid an FFP violation.
Looking ahead, the appeal process could extend well into the following year if City argues that the new Premier League appeal rules—introduced for the current season—should not apply retroactively. Under the updated regulations, the disciplinary phase must be wrapped up within twelve weeks, and the hearing itself cannot exceed five days. City’s lawyers may contend that the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the speed‑up provisions were codified in the Premier League Handbook.
A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports suggested that City could have a persuasive case for exempting itself from the newer, stricter timeline. The new appeal framework was designed to ensure that clubs are punished promptly for any infractions, ideally within the same season in which the breach occurred. Critics argue that applying these rules to past cases could be unfair, especially when clubs were not operating under those expectations at the time of the alleged violation.
In summary, Manchester City’s forthcoming appeal will revolve around a nuanced argument that the contested sponsorship income was state‑funded rather than owner‑funded, despite the commission’s firm rejection of that premise. The club’s legal team faces the dual challenge of overcoming the commission’s characterization of their explanation as a post‑hoc invention and navigating the procedural complexities introduced by the Premier League’s recent reforms. The outcome will hinge on how convincingly City can separate the financial actions of the Abu Dhabi government from those of Sheikh Mansour’s private investment entities, and whether the tribunal will accept their contention that the new appeal timetable should not govern a case that originated under an earlier set of rules.