Manchester City’s effort to clear its name after being judged guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League regulations has come under fresh scrutiny following a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities. According to Sky Sports News, the club plans to argue during its upcoming appeal that the extra cash flowing through its sponsorship agreements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
However, a document that Etihad filed with the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to undermine that line of defence.
The 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 partnership between Etihad and Manchester City, noting that the deal granted naming rights to the club’s stadium and that Etihad financed the sponsorship "from its own liquidity." The airline added that it is common for carriers to sponsor sports teams and venues, implying no special state involvement. Etihad’s 60‑page response was prepared to counter allegations that the airline benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies. Although the carrier’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, the document stresses that the airline has been government‑owned since its inception and that it does not receive direct subsidies. Instead, Etihad claims it is funded through a mix of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans, which the airline argues are legitimate investments rather than subsidies under any applicable definition.
An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had broken financial rules by disguising £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship revenue over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018. City’s legal team is believed to have already presented the argument at the original 2024 hearing that the extra money came from the Abu Dhabi government, not from the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected that explanation in its judgment published on Tuesday, describing it as a post‑event fabrication designed to conceal the true nature of the so‑called "Disguised Funding Scheme." The club’s defence that the funding was government‑sourced was also raised during its Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where City appealed a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s financial fair play rules.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City were paid "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim of financial independence. 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 Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the club has 12 weeks to complete the process, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself may last a maximum of five days, all to be held in a single block, and the three‑person appeal panel – which must be different from the original panel – has 30 days after the hearing to deliver its decision, potentially extending the resolution into the third week of January. The new, accelerated timeline was introduced in the Premier League Handbook for the 2024‑25 season to ensure that disciplinary matters are concluded in the same season they arise. However, City’s lawyers may argue that the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the speed‑up rules were in force, and therefore the new timetable should not apply retroactively.
A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports News indicated that Manchester City could have a strong case for such an argument. If the appeal panel decides that the accelerated rules are not applicable, the process could stretch well into the following year, giving City more time to mount a detailed defence. Conversely, if the panel adheres to the new schedule, the club will need to compress its arguments into a five‑day hearing and await a decision by late January. The broader context of this dispute touches on the ongoing debate about state involvement in football club financing.
Critics argue that clubs backed by sovereign wealth funds or government‑owned enterprises enjoy an unfair advantage, while supporters claim that such investment can elevate the sport’s global profile and competitiveness. Etihad’s 2015 filing attempted to distance the airline from direct government subsidies, emphasizing a commercial rationale for its sponsorship. Yet the parallel investigation by the Premier League disciplinary commission suggests that the money flow between the airline, the Abu Dhabi government and Manchester City was more intertwined than the airline’s statements admit. In summary, Manchester City faces a complex legal battle that hinges on whether its sponsors and owners can convincingly separate state money from private investment.
The outcome will not only affect the club’s immediate sanctions but could also set a precedent for how future cases involving state‑linked funding are evaluated under both domestic and international football regulations.