Manchester City’s flagship sponsor, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is contemplating legal proceedings against the Premier League following the league’s independent commission ruling that found the club guilty of serious financial breaches. The commission concluded that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons, Manchester City had entered into a series of fabricated contracts with various 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 has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
In a video addressed to players and staff, chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the findings as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" and reiterated that the club believes it has acted within the rules. Meanwhile, Etihad, which has been linked to Manchester City since 2009, issued a forceful statement rejecting any implication that the airline was involved in illicit commercial practices.
The airline emphasized that the Premier League never consulted it during the investigation, denied being given an opportunity to submit relevant information, and claimed that the public release of the commission’s opinion has caused unwarranted damage to its reputation. Etihad’s statement clarified that the airline "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements." It also highlighted that the Premier League’s communication of the findings, which included selective leaks and partial disclosures, amplified the negative impact on Etihad even though the airline was not named in the redacted decision. The carrier expressed deep concern over the lack of transparency and fairness in the process, insisting that the league should take responsibility for the consequences of its public handling of the case. The airline added that it remains proud of its long‑standing partnership with Manchester City.
The Etihad name adorns the club’s stadium and is featured in a wide array of marketing initiatives that connect the airline with millions of football fans worldwide. Despite the current dispute, Etihad affirmed that its commitment to the club, its supporters, and the broader Etihad community remains strong, and that it will seek appropriate legal counsel to protect its interests.
The situation has also drawn reactions from other Manchester City sponsors. Brands such as Lucozade, Kellogg’s, and Revolut have declined to comment while the independent commission’s findings are under appeal. Majestic Wines indicated it has not yet decided whether to continue its commercial relationship with the club.
Sky Sports News is still awaiting responses 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 further context, noting that Etihad originally signed a ten‑year sponsorship deal in 2011 worth £400 million, a partnership that has since been extended. He explained that Etihad’s decision to seek legal advice stems from the commission’s judgment, which labelled several of the club’s sponsorship agreements as "sham" deals that did not reflect genuine commercial contracts.
Although Etihad was not specifically named in the published decision, the airline argues that the wording of the findings has created “damaging implications” for its brand. According to Solhekol, Etihad is one of the world’s largest airlines, with an estimated valuation of around £4 billion.
He suggested that the airline’s willingness to consider legal action signals the seriousness with which Manchester City and its principal sponsor are contesting the commission’s conclusions. The club, for its part, released a statement expressing disappointment and surprise at the opinion.
Manchester City asserted that it is innocent of the accusations, that a substantial body of irrefutable evidence supports its position, and that it will pursue every regulatory and legal avenue available. The club’s statement also pointed out procedural concerns, claiming that the Premier League’s process has been ongoing for eight years and that the league’s board and executives were expected to act as an independent, impartial regulator.
Manchester City indicated that it will appeal on the grounds that the commission’s opinion contains material errors of law, principle and fact, and is therefore unsafe. It added that, while the club is restricted in what it can publicly disclose until the appeal is resolved, it remains committed to defending its reputation. Both Etihad and Manchester City have mistakenly referred to the body that issued the ruling 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 separate legal and procedural frameworks involved.
The broader implications of this dispute extend beyond football. Sponsorship agreements of this magnitude involve complex financial structures, and allegations of inflated revenue can affect not only club finances but also tax obligations, broadcasting rights, and the integrity of competition. If Etihad proceeds with legal action, the case could set a precedent for how third‑party sponsors are treated in future investigations of club finances.
For fans and observers, the unfolding drama highlights the increasingly intricate relationship between sport, commerce, and regulatory oversight. While the Premier League seeks to enforce its financial fair play rules, clubs and their commercial partners are equally determined to protect their interests and reputations. The outcome of Etihad’s potential legal challenge, as well as Manchester City’s appeal, will likely shape the narrative around financial transparency in football for years to come.