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 maintained that 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".
The independent commission concluded that, over the period from the 2009/10 season through to 2017/18, Manchester City had entered into what it described as "sham" agreements with a number of commercial partners. These arrangements were alleged to form part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club's reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The commission’s findings were the culmination of a protracted investigation that began eight years ago, with formal charges being brought three and a half years ago. City confirmed that the appeal had been lodged before the Friday deadline, submitting a comprehensive appeal at 7 p.m.
on Thursday 1 October 2026. The club’s statement read: "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 wording of the statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission" when, in fact, the body that issued the verdict is an independent commission appointed to examine the case.
Manchester City, as a member of the Premier League, has agreed to abide by the league's disciplinary framework, which includes a right of appeal to an independent appeal board. The original tribunal that delivered the guilty finding was composed of three members and spent almost two years drafting its judgment. The appeal process, as outlined in the Premier League's updated handbook, requires that an appeal be filed within a specified window and that the subsequent hearing be concluded within twelve weeks. The hearing itself may not exceed five days and must be conducted by a different three‑person panel than the one that rendered the original decision.
Following the hearing, the appeal panel has up to thirty days to render its judgment, meaning a final decision could be expected in the third week of January, assuming the timeline proceeds without further complications. Sky Sports News analyst Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal went in on Thursday at 7 p.m., and according to the Premier League's rules, the appeal must be completed within twelve weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The appeal can only last five days, and those five days must be taken in a single block.
The appeal panel, which must be a different three‑person panel, has thirty days to reach a decision, taking us into the third week of January. This accelerated timetable was introduced this season to ensure disciplinary matters are resolved more quickly." One potential line of argument for City is that the accelerated timetable should not apply retroactively to a case that began years before the new rules were introduced.
Legal experts have suggested that the club could make a strong case for an exemption, given that the investigation and prior hearings occurred under the previous procedural framework. Another focal point of the appeal is the source of the extra funding that underpinned the disputed sponsorship deals.
Sky Sports News reported that Manchester City is likely to argue that the additional money originated from the government of Abu Dhabi rather than from the club's private owners. During the 2024 hearing, City’s lawyers presented this argument, but the independent commission dismissed it as a post‑hoc rationalisation designed to conceal the true nature of the "Disguised Funding Scheme." The club is expected to continue contesting that finding, maintaining that the funding was state‑sponsored and therefore permissible under Premier League rules.
Manchester City is majority‑owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan through Newton Investment and Development LLC. 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 investment and private club ownership has long been a subject of scrutiny and debate, with critics arguing that it creates an uneven playing field in European football. The commission also expressed regret that the process took so long, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024.
Following the publication of the guilty verdict, Manchester City issued a statement on Tuesday expressing disappointment and surprise. The club reiterated its innocence, claimed to possess an "irrefutable body of evidence" supporting its position, and pledged to pursue all regulatory and legal avenues available. The statement again mistakenly referred to a Premier League commission rather than the independent commission. Looking ahead, the appeal could extend into the next calendar year if City successfully argues that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not be applied to a case that originated under the old regime.
The club’s legal team may contend that the charges were laid in 2023 and the original hearing took place in 2024, before the handbook was amended to enforce faster appeal timelines. A legal commentator told Sky Sports News that City would have a compelling argument for an exemption, as applying the new rules retroactively could be seen as unfair. In summary, Manchester City has taken the formal step of appealing the independent commission’s finding of serious financial misconduct. The appeal will be heard in private, and the outcome will be published only when the appeal board is authorised to do so.
The case remains a high‑profile dispute that touches on broader issues of financial fair play, state involvement in club ownership, and the procedural fairness of the Premier League’s disciplinary system. The next few months will be crucial in determining whether the club can overturn the verdict or whether the league’s sanctions will stand, potentially impacting the club’s finances, reputation, and competitive standing in both domestic and European competitions.