Manchester City’s flagship sponsor, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is contemplating legal proceedings against the Premier League following the recent disciplinary findings against the club. The independent commission tasked with reviewing the Premier League’s financial regulations concluded that Manchester City breached every charge levied against it, accusing the club of orchestrating a series of fictitious contracts with commercial partners between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons.
According to the commission, these arrangements formed part of a "disguised funding scheme" that artificially boosted the club’s reported revenue by an estimated £830 million. The club has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a video address to players and staff, chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the commission’s report as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" and reiterated the club’s belief that it has acted within the rules. Etihad, which has been linked to Manchester City since 2009, issued a strongly worded statement rejecting any implication that the airline was involved in illicit commercial activity.
The carrier stressed that the Premier League never consulted it during the investigation and that it was not afforded an opportunity to present relevant information or defend its reputation. Consequently, Etihad has engaged legal counsel to explore options for protecting its interests and to potentially challenge the league’s public communication of the findings. The commission’s judgment did not name Etihad directly, yet the airline argues that the decision has caused "damaging implications" for its brand. In its statement, Etihad highlighted that the Premier League’s selective leaks and the way the findings were presented have unfairly tarnished the airline’s image, despite the absence of any explicit reference to it in the redacted report.
The airline also underscored its long‑standing partnership with Manchester City, noting that the Etihad name has been prominently displayed on the club’s stadium and that the relationship connects the airline with millions of football fans worldwide. Other sponsors have reacted cautiously.
Lucozade, Kellogg’s, and Revolut declined to comment while the disciplinary process remains ongoing, and Majestic Wines said it would not discuss whether it intends to continue its commercial tie‑up with the club. Sky Sports News reported that it is still awaiting replies from a host of other partners, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho and Champneys. Sky Sports’ chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol provided additional context, reminding readers that Etihad first signed a ten‑year, £400 million sponsorship deal with Manchester City in 2011, a contract that has since been extended. He explained that Etihad’s decision to seek legal advice stems from the commission’s finding that several of the club’s sponsorship deals were "sham" arrangements, effectively inflating the club’s income.
Although Etihad was not specifically named in the published decision, the airline claims the report has nonetheless created reputational damage. The commission also expressed regret that the investigation took an extended period, with hearings conducted between September and December 2024. Manchester City issued its own response, describing the commission’s opinion as both "disappointing" and "surprising".
The club asserted its innocence and claimed to possess a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence supporting its position. It vowed to pursue every regulatory and legal avenue available, emphasizing that the Premier League’s process remains incomplete and that the club will appeal on grounds of material errors of law, principle and fact.
Both Etihad and Manchester City have mistakenly referred to the body reviewing the case as a "Premier League commission"; in reality, it is an independent commission operating separately from the league’s governance structures. This distinction is important because it underscores the perceived lack of direct involvement by the Premier League in the investigative process, a point that both parties have used to argue that they were denied a fair hearing.
The potential legal clash raises broader questions about the relationship between football clubs, their commercial partners, and governing bodies. Sponsorship deals in elite sport often involve complex financial arrangements, and regulators have become increasingly vigilant about ensuring that revenue streams are transparent and compliant with financial fair‑play rules. The Etihad case illustrates how a high‑profile sponsor can become entangled in disputes that originate from a club’s alleged misconduct, even when the sponsor itself claims no direct participation in the alleged wrongdoing. If Etihad proceeds with legal action, it could set a precedent for how sponsors protect their brand integrity in the face of regulatory findings against their partners.
Legal scholars suggest that such cases may hinge on whether the league provided sufficient opportunity for the sponsor to be heard and whether the public statements made by the league were proportionate and accurate. The outcome could influence future sponsorship contracts, prompting clubs and sponsors to include more robust clauses regarding dispute resolution and public communication. Meanwhile, fans and observers are closely watching the unfolding drama. The stakes are high for Manchester City, which faces the possibility of sanctions that could affect its financial standing and competitive edge.
For Etihad, the airline’s reputation and its multi‑billion‑pound investment in the partnership are on the line. Both parties appear determined to defend their positions vigorously, signalling that the dispute is far from resolved and may continue to dominate football headlines for months to come.