Manchester City’s ongoing effort to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League financial regulations has been called into question by a document submitted in 2015 by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities.
According to Sky Sports News, the club intends to argue during its appeal that the additional money flowing through its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). However, a statement that Etihad provided to the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to undermine that line of defence. The Etihad filing explicitly rejects the claim that the Abu Dhabi government financed the airline’s sponsorship of Manchester City. In its own words, the submission reads: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false." The document goes on to describe the original ten‑year partnership signed in 2011, which granted Etihad naming rights to the club’s stadium, and emphasizes that the sponsorship was funded from Etihad’s internal liquidity. It notes that airline‑team sponsorships are a common commercial practice and that no public money was involved.
The 60‑page response was produced in reaction to accusations that Etihad benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies. While Etihad acknowledges that its sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, it insists that the airline has never received direct subsidies. Instead, it states that its financing comes from a blend of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans.
The filing adds that these equity injections and loans should not be classified as subsidies; rather, they represent the Abu Dhabi government’s prudent investment in a profitable business model. An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had broken financial rules by disguising £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons spanning 2009 to 2018. City’s legal team is believed to have advanced the defence at the original 2024 hearing that the extra cash was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government, not by the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected that argument, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the true nature of the so‑called “Disguised Funding Scheme.” The same government‑funded defence was also presented during the club’s appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where City sought to overturn a two‑year ban for violating UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City were settled "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s claim of independence from state money. Manchester City confirmed on Friday that it has lodged an appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Sky Sports News correspondent Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was lodged on a Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the appeal must be resolved within 12 weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself is limited to a single block of five days, after which a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has 30 days to issue its verdict, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January. These accelerated timelines were introduced in the Premier League handbook for the current season to ensure that disciplinary outcomes are delivered in the same season as the alleged breaches.
Legal analysts suggest that Manchester City could argue that the new, speed‑up appeal rules should not apply retroactively because the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the revised handbook took effect. If successful, this argument might extend the appeal process into the following year.
A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports News indicated that City has a strong case for seeking an exemption from the newer procedural requirements. The broader context of the dispute highlights the tension between club finances, state involvement, and regulatory oversight in modern football.
The Premier League and UEFA have been tightening financial fair play and sponsorship transparency rules to prevent clubs from using state‑backed entities to circumvent spending caps. Critics argue that such measures are essential to maintain competitive balance, while clubs with sovereign wealth backing contend that they are merely leveraging legitimate commercial partnerships. In summary, the 2015 Etihad filing presents a clear narrative that the airline’s sponsorship of Manchester City was financed from its own resources, not directly from the Abu Dhabi government. This narrative clashes with the club’s current appeal strategy, which seeks to attribute the disputed funding to the government rather than to its owners.
As the appeal proceeds, the outcome will hinge not only on the factual accuracy of the financial records but also on the interpretation of the Premier League’s newly introduced procedural rules. The case remains a focal point in the ongoing debate over the role of state‑linked investors in European football and the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks designed to ensure fiscal responsibility and fair competition.