Manchester City’s ongoing effort to clear its name after being found guilty of violating more than 100 Premier League financial regulations has hit a fresh snag. The latest complication stems from a 2015 submission made by the club’s principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to several U.S. government agencies. The document appears to contradict the argument that the club’s extra funding originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from its majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
According to Sky Sports News, City’s legal team plans to argue on appeal that the additional money funneled into the club through sponsorship deals was supplied directly by the Abu Dhabi government. This line of defence seeks to separate the financial contributions of the state from those of the private owners, thereby attempting to sidestep the league’s accusations of disguised funding.
However, a May 2015 statement filed by Etihad with the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State appears to undermine that claim. The Etihad filing reads, “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.” It goes on to describe the 2011 ten‑year sponsorship agreement, which granted naming rights to the club’s stadium, as being financed entirely from Etihad’s own liquidity. The airline adds that it is common for carriers to sponsor sports teams and venues, implying no special state subsidy was involved.
The 60‑page document was a response to allegations that Etihad benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies, given that the airline’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government. Later in the same filing, Etihad emphasizes its ownership structure: “We are government‑owned and have been since our founding. We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans.” The airline further argues that the government’s equity injections and loans constitute a sensible investment rather than a subsidy under any applicable definition. 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, from 2009 to 2018.
City’s lawyers are believed to have presented the defence that the extra cash came from the Abu Dhabi government, not directly from the owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected this explanation, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the reality of the “Disguised Funding Scheme.” The club’s defence that the funding was government‑sourced was also raised during a previous Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where City appealed a two‑year ban for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to City were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds,” reinforcing the airline’s earlier statements.
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 timeline: the appeal was lodged on a Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and those days must be held in a single block. After the hearing, a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has up to 30 days to deliver its judgment, potentially extending the final decision into the third week of January.
Solhekol and colleague Amar Mehta noted that the appeal could stretch into the following year if City argues that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not apply retroactively. The club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, a period when the accelerated appeal process was not yet part of the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports suggested that City has a strong case for claiming the new rules are inapplicable to their situation.
The accelerated appeal framework was introduced to ensure that clubs receive punishments within the same season as the infractions, promoting fairness and consistency across the league. Critics, however, argue that applying the rules retroactively could disadvantage clubs that were sanctioned under the older, slower procedures. In summary, Manchester City’s attempt to separate its sponsorship funding from owner contributions faces a significant hurdle.
The 2015 Etihad filing, which explicitly denies any direct government financing of the sponsorship, directly challenges the narrative the club hopes to present on appeal. As the appeal process unfolds under the Premier League’s tightened timelines, the outcome will hinge not only on the factual record of who paid what, but also on legal arguments about the applicability of the league’s new procedural rules to a case that originated before those rules existed.
The situation remains fluid, and the final verdict will have lasting implications for how clubs structure sponsorships and disclose funding sources in the future.