Manchester City’s attempt to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League financial 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 in its upcoming appeal that the additional money flowing through its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). However, the wording of Etihad’s 2015 filing appears to undermine that line of defence.
In a document addressed to the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015, Etihad categorically denied that the Abu Dhabi government funded its sponsorship of Manchester City.
The airline wrote, “The claim that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League club Manchester City is equally false.” The statement went on to describe the original ten‑year agreement signed in 2011, which included naming rights for the club’s stadium, as being financed entirely from Etihad’s own liquidity. "It is not uncommon for airlines to sponsor sports teams and venues," the filing added.
The 60‑page submission was Etihad’s response to allegations that it benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies. While the airline acknowledged that its sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, it insisted that it had never received direct subsidies. Instead, Etihad claimed its financing came from a blend of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. The filing explained that these forms of capital should not be classified as subsidies, but rather as sensible investments by the Abu Dhabi government in a profitable business model.
An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had disguised £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018. City’s legal team is believed to have presented the defence 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 argument in a judgment released on Tuesday, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the true nature of the “Disguised Funding Scheme.” The club’s defence that the funding was government‑sourced was also rejected during its earlier 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 at that hearing that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City had been satisfied "out of Etihad’s own funds," reinforcing the airline’s 2015 claim.
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 process must be completed within twelve weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself is limited to five consecutive days, after which a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has thirty days to issue a judgment, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January. Solhekol and colleague Amar Mehta noted that City could try to extend the timeline by arguing that the new, accelerated appeal rules should not apply retroactively, since the club was charged in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the Premier League Handbook was amended.
A legal expert told Sky Sports News that City might have a compelling case for exempting itself from the fast‑track procedure, which was introduced this season to ensure clubs are punished within the same campaign as the breach. The core of the dispute hinges on the source of the money that was recorded as sponsorship revenue.
If the funds truly came from Etihad’s own commercial operations, as the airline’s 2015 filing asserts, then the club’s claim that the Abu Dhabi government was the ultimate payer loses credibility. Conversely, if the government provided indirect support—through equity injections into Etihad that later flowed to the club—City could argue that the sponsorship was effectively state‑backed, albeit indirectly. The distinction matters because Premier League and UEFA financial regulations treat state‑derived funding differently from private investment. Direct government subsidies are generally prohibited, while private investment from owners is permissible as long as it complies with financial fair play thresholds.
By portraying the sponsorship money as coming from Etihad’s liquidity, the airline positioned itself as a commercial sponsor, insulating both itself and the club from accusations of illicit state aid. The appeal will likely examine the 2015 filing in detail, alongside the CAS testimony and the disciplinary commission’s findings. If the panel determines that the club’s narrative was fabricated after the fact, the sanctions could be upheld or even heightened.
On the other hand, a successful argument that the new appeal timetable does not apply could delay the final decision, potentially allowing the club more time to negotiate settlements or seek further legal remedies. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the complexities of modern football financing, where sovereign wealth, state‑owned enterprises, and private owners intertwine.
It also highlights the growing scrutiny from regulators and governments eager to ensure a level playing field across Europe’s elite competitions. The forthcoming hearing will be closely watched by clubs, fans, and policymakers alike, as it may set precedents for how sponsorships linked to state‑owned entities are evaluated under both domestic and international financial rules.