Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the finding of an independent commission that deemed them guilty of every charge relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. In a press release the club reiterated its claim of innocence, describing the commission's opinion as merely an "opinion" riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and consequently "unsafe".
According to the commission's report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly arranged a series of sham contracts with a number of commercial partners. These contracts were said to be part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially inflate Manchester City’s reported revenues by roughly £830 million. The commission characterised the scheme as a systematic attempt to mislead the league’s financial monitoring mechanisms.
The club was required to submit an appeal by the deadline of Friday, and it confirmed that it had done so just before midday on that day. The statement released by Manchester City on Friday read in part: "Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7 p.m.
on Thursday 1 October 2026 the club lodged its comprehensive appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter. The club's firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete." It is worth noting that the club’s statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission"; the body that issued the verdict is, in fact, an independent commission appointed by the league.
Nevertheless, Manchester City remains a member of the Premier League and is bound by the competition’s disciplinary framework. The original tribunal that delivered the guilty opinion was composed of three members and took almost two years to draft its judgment. The investigation that led to the charges began eight years ago, and formal accusations were brought against the club three and a half years ago. Later on Friday the Premier League confirmed that the appeal had indeed been lodged.
The appeal was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel, and the club indicated that the subsequent independent Appeal Board hearing would be held in private, with any outcome only published when the league permits it. Sky Sports News analyst Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal was filed on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last a maximum of five days, and it must be conducted in a single block. The appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original – has 30 days to reach a decision, meaning a judgment could be delivered in the third week of January.
This accelerated timetable was introduced into the Premier League rules for the current season." Solhekol added that Manchester City might argue that the new, speeded‑up timeline should not apply to their case because the matter has been ongoing for years and the accelerated rules were only adopted this season. Legal experts have suggested that such an argument could have merit, given the retrospective application of procedural changes. Further commentary from Sky Sports News’ Lyall Thomas highlighted another key point of contention: the source of the extra funding that underpinned the alleged sham sponsorship deals.
The club is expected to maintain that the additional money came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than directly from its owners. During the 2024 hearing, City’s lawyers put forward this argument, but the independent commission dismissed it, concluding that the explanation was concocted after the fact in an attempt to conceal the true nature of the disguised funding scheme.
The club appears set to continue contesting that finding. Manchester City is majority‑owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan through Newton Investment and Development LLC. Sheikh Mansour is a member of the ruling Al Nahyan family of Abu Dhabi and serves as the United Arab Emirates’ vice‑president and deputy prime minister. The intertwining of state investment and private ownership within the Abu Dhabi royal family has long been a subject of debate and criticism, especially when it comes to the financing of high‑profile football clubs.
The commission also expressed regret that the decision took so long to reach, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024. After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City issued a statement on Tuesday stating: "Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League commission, that has been published today. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. The club will therefore be relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums.
The Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements uncompleted. Manchester City FC will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe. The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair‑minded regulator, free from partisan influence.
The club is obviously restricted in what it can say further until all future proceedings are complete." Again, the club’s statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission" rather than the independent commission that issued the opinion. The appeal process, as outlined by the Premier League’s updated handbook, requires the hearing to be concluded within 12 weeks, with the actual hearing limited to a five‑day block. Manchester City may argue that these new rules should not be applied retroactively, given that the charges were brought in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the speeded‑up appeal procedures were codified.
Legal analysts have indicated that City could have a strong case for arguing that the procedural changes introduced for the 2024‑25 season should not govern a matter that originated under the previous set of rules. If successful, this argument could extend the appeal timeline well into the next calendar year, potentially delaying any final resolution until after the winter transfer window. In summary, Manchester City’s appeal marks the latest chapter in a protracted dispute over alleged financial misconduct.
The club maintains that it acted within the rules, that the evidence against it has been misinterpreted, and that the procedural framework applied to its case is flawed. The independent Appeal Board will now review the case in private, and its decision—expected sometime in early 2025—will determine whether the £830 million alleged over‑statement of revenue will stand or be overturned. The outcome will have significant implications not only for City’s financial standing but also for the broader conversation about transparency, state involvement, and regulatory consistency in elite football.