Manchester City’s attempt to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League regulations has been thrown into doubt by a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to several U.S. government departments.
According to Sky Sports News, the club plans to argue in its upcoming appeal that the extra money flowing through its sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). The Etihad filing, however, appears to undermine that line of reasoning.
In May 2015 Etihad sent a formal response to the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, contesting claims that its sponsorship of Manchester City was subsidised by the Emirate’s government. The document stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.” The airline went on to describe the terms of its ten‑year partnership with the club, signed in 2011, which granted naming rights to the stadium and other commercial benefits. Etihad insisted that the sponsorship was funded entirely from its own liquidity, noting that “it is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.” The 60‑page filing was part of a broader defence against accusations that Etihad enjoyed market‑distorting state subsidies.
Although the airline is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, the submission stressed that it had never received direct subsidies. Instead, Etihad claimed it was financed through a mixture of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. The document clarified that these sources of capital, while provided by the government, should not be classified as subsidies because they represent a strategic investment in a profitable business model rather than a gratuitous grant.
An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had breached financial rules by disguising £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018. The club’s legal team is believed to have already presented the defence that the additional funding came from the Abu Dhabi government, not from the owners themselves, despite the obvious connection between the two entities. The commission rejected that argument in its judgment, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the reality of the “Disguised Funding Scheme.” The same line of defence was also raised during the club’s earlier hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where Manchester City appealed a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to the club were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds,” reinforcing the airline’s 2015 claim that no government money was involved. Manchester City confirmed on Friday that it has lodged an appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was filed on a Thursday evening, and under the Premier League’s current rules the entire process must be completed within 12 weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and the appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original disciplinary committee – has 30 days after the hearing to deliver its verdict, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January. The new, accelerated timeline was introduced this season to ensure that clubs are punished in the same campaign in which the breach occurred.
However, Manchester City’s lawyers may argue that the club should not be subject to the revised rules because the alleged offences and the original charge were made in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the speed‑up provisions were added to the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports News suggested that City could have a strong case for applying the older, more lenient procedural framework. If the club succeeds in convincing the appeal panel that the newer rules are inapplicable, the process could extend well beyond the 12‑week window, potentially dragging into the following year. Conversely, if the panel adheres to the accelerated schedule, the hearing will be brief, the evidence will be tightly constrained, and a decision will be rendered quickly, leaving the club and its supporters with little time to react.
The broader context of this dispute highlights the complex relationship between football clubs, their wealthy owners, and state‑owned sponsors. While Etihad emphasizes its commercial independence, the fact that its sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government blurs the line between private sponsorship and public funding. Critics argue that such arrangements give clubs like Manchester City an unfair financial advantage, allowing them to spend beyond the limits imposed by domestic and European regulations. Regardless of the legal outcome, the 2015 Etihad filing provides a clear record of the airline’s stance at the time: the sponsorship was financed from internal resources, not from direct government subsidies.
This record stands in stark contrast to Manchester City’s current narrative that the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club’s owners, supplied the extra cash. The disciplinary commission’s judgment, the CAS testimony, and the upcoming appeal will all be scrutinised against the backdrop of that 2015 document, making it a pivotal piece of evidence in the club’s fight to overturn its sanctions. In summary, Manchester City faces a multi‑layered battle: it must rebut the independent commission’s finding that it concealed owner funding, counter the CAS decision on Financial Fair Play, and navigate a newly‑imposed fast‑track appeals process.
The Etihad statement from five years ago adds a further complication, as it directly contradicts the club’s claim that the Abu Dhabi government was the source of the disputed money. The next weeks will reveal whether the appeal panel accepts the club’s argument, applies the newer procedural rules, or upholds the original sanctions, potentially reshaping the financial landscape of English football for years to come.