Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the decision of an independent commission that found the club guilty of every charge relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. In a press release the club insisted it is "innocent" and characterised the commission's opinion as merely an "opinion" that is riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and therefore "unsafe". According to the commission's findings, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly set up a series of sham contracts with a number of commercial partners.
These arrangements were described as part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to inflate the club's reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The commission’s report, which took almost two years to draft, concluded that the scheme was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play rules. Manchester City were given a deadline of Friday to submit an appeal and confirmed that they had done so just before midday on the day the deadline expired. The club’s statement, released at 7 p.m.
on Thursday 1 October 2026, 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." The statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission"; the body that issued the decision is in fact an independent commission appointed under the league’s disciplinary framework.
City remain a member of the Premier League and are bound by the league’s rules on disciplinary procedures. The three‑person tribunal that delivered the guilty verdict spent almost two years preparing its judgment, while the Premier League’s investigation began eight years ago and the club was formally charged three and a half years ago.
Later on Friday the Premier League confirmed that Manchester City’s appeal had indeed been lodged. The club indicated that the appeal was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel and that the subsequent hearing before the independent Appeal Board would be held in private, with any outcome only published when the league permits it. Sky Sports News analyst Kaveh Solhekol explained the timetable for the appeal: "The appeal was filed on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League's rules the appeal must be concluded within twelve weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can only last five days, and those five days must be taken as a single block.
A new three‑person panel, different from the original one, will have thirty days after the hearing to reach a decision, meaning the judgment could be delivered in the third week of January. This accelerated timeline was introduced into the Premier League handbook this season. Manchester City may argue that the fast‑track procedure should not apply to their case because the matter has been ongoing for years and the new rules were only adopted recently." Further commentary from Sky Sports News' Lyall Thomas highlighted another key argument that City are expected to raise: the source of the extra funding for their sponsorship deals. The club is likely to maintain that the additional money came from the government of Abu Dhabi rather than from the owners themselves.
During the 2024 hearing the club’s legal team put forward this explanation, but the independent commission dismissed it, stating that the claim was fabricated after the fact in an attempt to hide the true nature of the disguised funding scheme. Despite the commission’s rejection, City’s lawyers appear set to continue contesting the finding.
Manchester City is majority‑owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, a vehicle controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Sheikh Mansour is a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and serves as the United Arab Emirates’ Vice‑President and Deputy Prime Minister. The intertwining of state‑linked investment and private ownership has long been a source of scrutiny and criticism, especially in the context of football finance. The commission also expressed regret that the decision took so long to reach, noting that the hearing took place between September and December 2024.
After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City issued a statement on Tuesday saying they were "disappointed and surprised" by the opinion. The club reiterated its innocence and the existence of "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supporting its position, promising to be "relentless and, where necessary, proactive" in all regulatory and legal forums. City’s statement again mistakenly referred to a Premier League commission rather than the independent commission. The club stressed that it has respected due process for eight years, trusting that the Premier League board and executive would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence.
The club also noted that it is limited in what it can say further until all proceedings are complete. Looking ahead, the appeal could extend into the next calendar year if Manchester City successfully argues that the newly introduced accelerated appeal rules should not apply to a case that originated before those rules existed. The current appeal framework mandates that the entire disciplinary process, from filing to judgment, be completed within twelve weeks, with the hearing limited to five consecutive days. However, legal experts have suggested that City may have a strong case for an exemption, given that the charges were brought in 2023 and the hearing occurred in 2024—well before the speed‑up provisions were added to the Premier League Handbook.
A legal commentator told Sky Sports News that the club’s argument could be persuasive, as the new rules were designed to ensure clubs are penalised within the same season that breaches occur. Since City’s case spans several seasons and predates the rule change, there is a plausible basis for seeking an exception.
If the appeal panel accepts this reasoning, the timeline could be extended, potentially delaying a final decision until well into 2027. In summary, Manchester City have formally appealed a landmark guilty verdict that accused them of orchestrating a sophisticated scheme to artificially boost revenue.
The club maintains its innocence, challenges the commission’s findings on both factual and legal grounds, and may contest the applicability of the Premier League’s newly introduced fast‑track appeal procedure. The outcome will hinge on the independent Appeal Board’s interpretation of the procedural rules and the substantive evidence presented by both sides. The case remains a focal point of debate about financial fairness, governance, and the influence of state‑linked ownership in elite football.