Manchester City’s effort to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League financial regulations has been thrown into sharp relief by a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities. The club hopes to argue on appeal that the extra money flowing into its sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from its majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). Yet the language in Etihad’s 2015 filing appears to directly contradict that line of defence.
In May 2015 Etihad addressed the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, stating unequivocally that the claim "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 and including naming rights for the stadium, as being funded entirely from Etihad's own liquidity.
"It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues," the submission read, emphasizing that the money came from commercial sources rather than from any state grant. The 60‑page document was Etihad's response to allegations that it was benefitting from market‑distorting state subsidies. Although the carrier is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, the filing 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 airline described these inputs as "the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model," arguing that such investments do not meet the legal definition of a subsidy. 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, from 2009 to 2018. The club’s legal team is believed to have presented the argument at the original 2024 hearing that the extra cash came from the Abu Dhabi government, not from the owners themselves, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected that explanation, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the realities of the so‑called "Disguised Funding Scheme." The same defence was put forward during the club’s earlier appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, where City sought to overturn a two‑year ban imposed for violating UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that sponsorship obligations to Manchester City had been satisfied "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s 2015 claim that no state 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 at 7 p.m., 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 may last a maximum of five days, all in a single block, and the three‑person appeal panel – which must be different from the original panel – has 30 days to render its judgment, 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 matters are resolved promptly, ideally within the same campaign as the alleged breaches. However, the club’s lawyers may argue that the new fast‑track rules should not apply retroactively. They could contend that Manchester City was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the revised appeal procedures were codified.
A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports suggested that the club has a strong case for seeking an exemption from the newer timetable, given that the alleged infractions and the original proceedings pre‑date the rule change. The broader context of this dispute highlights the complex relationship between state‑owned enterprises and football clubs in the modern era. While Etihad Airways is a government‑owned airline, its public statements emphasize a commercial operating model, distancing itself from direct state subsidies.
This distinction matters because the Premier League’s Financial Conduct Regulations treat state‑derived funding differently from private investment, aiming to prevent clubs from gaining an unfair advantage through public money. If Manchester City’s appeal is successful, it could set a precedent for how clubs linked to sovereign wealth funds or government‑owned sponsors navigate financial fair play scrutiny.
Conversely, a rejection of the club’s arguments would reinforce the league’s stance that disguised funding, regardless of its nominal source, constitutes a breach of the rules designed to maintain a level playing field. The appeal process will also test the new procedural safeguards introduced by the Premier League.
By limiting appeal hearings to five days and imposing a strict 12‑week deadline, the league hopes to avoid protracted legal battles that can drag on for months or years, creating uncertainty for clubs, players, and fans alike. Whether these measures will be applied uniformly, especially in cases with pre‑existing legal frameworks, remains to be seen. In summary, the 2015 Etihad filing underscores a key tension in Manchester City’s defence: the club claims the extra money came from the Abu Dhabi government, yet its sponsor publicly asserted that all sponsorship funds were generated internally without state subsidies.
The disciplinary commission’s finding that the club’s explanation was fabricated after the fact adds weight to the league’s allegations. As the appeal proceeds, the outcome will hinge not only on the factual record of who paid what, but also on the interpretation of newly introduced procedural rules and the broader principle of financial fairness in English football.