Manchester City’s primary sponsor, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is weighing the possibility of initiating legal proceedings against the Premier League. The club was found guilty on every count of serious breaches of the league’s financial regulations by an independent commission, which concluded that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club orchestrated a series of fictitious contracts with several commercial partners. These arrangements were described as a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The club continues to reject the allegations.
Chief executive Ferran Soriano has labelled the whole process a "Premier League conspiracy theory" in a video addressed to players and staff. In parallel, Etihad Airways – the state‑owned airline of Abu Dhabi that has been linked to the club since 2009 – issued a forceful statement denying any involvement in improper commercial activity. The airline stressed that it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements". Etihad also complained that the Premier League never approached the airline for comment or gave it an opportunity to submit relevant information during the commission’s investigation.
As a result, the carrier is now seeking legal advice to protect its interests and to explore possible recourse against what it describes as damaging implications arising from the published judgment, even though the airline’s name does not appear in the redacted decision. The commission’s report, released on a Tuesday, highlighted that the alleged sham deals were part of a broader strategy to inflate sponsorship income.
While Etihad was not specifically named, the airline argues that the public communication of the findings has nevertheless harmed its reputation. The statement from Etihad continued, "The Premier League’s selective leaks and reporting have created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the redacted published findings." Etihad’s spokesperson added that the airline is proud of its long‑standing partnership with Manchester City.
The Etihad name has been displayed on the club’s stadium and on a range of merchandise, linking the airline with millions of supporters worldwide. "Our commitment to Manchester City, its supporters and our shared partnership remains strong," the statement read, before concluding that the airline will obtain legal counsel to examine all options for safeguarding its interests.
Other sponsors have largely stayed silent in the wake of the verdict. Lucozade, Kellogg’s and Revolut declined to comment while the independent commission’s findings are still being reviewed. Majestic Wines said it would not comment on whether its commercial relationship with the club would continue. Sky Sports News is still awaiting replies from a host of other partners, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho and Champneys.
Sky Sports’ chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol provided additional context, noting that Etihad originally signed a ten‑year, £400 million deal with the club in 2011, a contract that has since been extended. He explained that Etihad’s legal threat stems from the commission’s finding that Manchester City’s owners had allegedly inflated sponsorship revenue through sham agreements. Although Etihad was not named in the decision, the airline claims the publication has caused “damaging implications” for its brand.
Solhekol also pointed out that the commission described the length of the investigation – which took place between September and December 2024 – as “regrettable”. He quoted Manchester City’s own response, which expressed disappointment and surprise at the commission’s opinion, asserting that the club is innocent of the accusations and possesses a substantial body of irrefutable evidence to support its position. Manchester City’s statement emphasized that the club will pursue every appropriate regulatory and legal avenue, arguing that the commission’s opinion contains clear errors of law, principle and fact, and is therefore unsafe.
The club also highlighted that it has respected due process for eight years, trusting that the Premier League board and executives would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. However, the club noted that it is limited in what it can publicly disclose until all future proceedings conclude. Both Etihad and Manchester City mistakenly referred to the body that issued the findings as a "Premier League commission".
In reality, the investigation was carried out by an independent commission appointed by the league, a distinction that underscores the complexity of the governance structure surrounding the case. The unfolding dispute illustrates how high‑profile football clubs and their commercial partners can become entangled in intricate regulatory battles. If Etihad proceeds with legal action, the case could set a precedent for how sponsors are involved – or excluded – from investigations into alleged financial misconduct.
It also raises broader questions about transparency, the rights of third‑party commercial partners to be heard during disciplinary processes, and the potential reputational damage that can arise from public disclosures, even when a party is not explicitly named. As the situation develops, fans, sponsors and the wider football community will be watching closely to see whether the Premier League’s disciplinary mechanisms withstand legal scrutiny and whether Manchester City’s appeal will succeed. The outcome could have far‑reaching implications for the governance of football finances, the structuring of sponsorship deals, and the balance of power between clubs, leagues and commercial partners.