Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the decision of an independent commission that found the club guilty of every charge relating to serious violations of Premier League financial regulations. In a press release the club maintained that it is "innocent" and characterised the commission's finding as merely an "opinion" riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and therefore "unsafe".
According to the independent commission's report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly arranged a series of sham contracts with several commercial partners. The commission described these arrangements as part of a "disguised funding scheme" intended to artificially boost Manchester City’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The report concluded that the scheme was designed to circumvent the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play rules and give the club an unfair competitive advantage.
Manchester City were given a deadline of Friday to submit an appeal and, as the club confirmed in a statement released just before midday, they met that deadline. The statement read in part: "Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7 p.m.
on Thursday 1 October 2026 the club lodged its comprehensive appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter. The club's firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.
We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete." The club’s statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission"; the body that issued the decision is in fact an independent commission appointed under the league’s disciplinary framework. Manchester City remain a member of the Premier League and have signed up to its rules, including the procedures governing disciplinary investigations and appeals. The original tribunal that delivered the guilty verdict was composed of three independent members and spent nearly two years drafting its judgment. The investigation that fed into that tribunal began eight years ago, and the club was formally charged three and a half years ago.
After the club’s appeal was lodged, the Premier League confirmed the filing and added that the appeal would be heard by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. The hearing before the independent Appeal Board will be conducted in private, and the outcome will only be made public when the league permits it. Sky Sports News commentator Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal was submitted on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League's rules the appeal must be concluded within twelve weeks, which pushes the deadline into the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and those five days must be taken as a single block. A new three‑person panel, different from the original tribunal, will then have thirty days to reach a decision, meaning the judgment could be delivered in the third week of January. This accelerated timetable was introduced into the Premier League's handbook for the current season." Solhekol added that Manchester City might argue the new, speed‑up rules should not apply to their case because the matter has been ongoing for years and the accelerated timeline was only introduced this season.
Legal analysts agree that the club has a plausible argument, given that the original investigation and hearing pre‑date the rule change. Further reporting from Sky Sports News’ Lyall Thomas noted that Manchester City are likely to contend that the extra funding linked to their sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s private owners. During the 2024 hearing the club’s lawyers had advanced that explanation, but the independent commission rejected it, describing the claim as a post‑hoc invention designed to mask the reality of the disguised funding scheme.
Despite the commission’s dismissal, City’s legal team is expected to continue pressing that line of argument in the appeal. Manchester City are majority‑owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, a company controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Sheikh Mansour is a member of the ruling Al Nahyan family of Abu Dhabi and holds the posts of vice‑president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.
The intertwining of state‑linked investment from the UAE and private capital from the royal family has long been a point of scrutiny and criticism from observers who question the transparency of the club’s financial backing. The commission also expressed regret that the decision took so long to be reached, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024. After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City issued a statement on the following Tuesday stating: "Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League commission, that has been published today.
The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. The club will therefore be relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums. The Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements uncompleted. Manchester City FC will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe.
The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair‑minded regulator, free from partisan influence. The club is obviously restricted in what it can say further until all future proceedings are complete." Again the club’s wording incorrectly refers to a "Premier League commission" rather than the independent commission that issued the opinion. The appeal process, as outlined by the Premier League’s updated handbook, requires the hearing to be completed within twelve weeks of filing, with the actual hearing limited to a maximum of five consecutive days.
After the hearing, the appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original tribunal – has thirty days to deliver its judgment. This accelerated schedule is intended to ensure that disciplinary matters are resolved within the same season in which the alleged breaches occurred. Legal experts quoted by Sky Sports suggest that Manchester City could have a strong case for arguing that the new, accelerated appeal rules should not be applied retroactively to a case that began years before the rule change.
If successful, the club might secure an extension of the timeline, potentially pushing the final decision into the next calendar year. In summary, Manchester City have formally appealed a landmark verdict that accused them of a massive, multi‑year scheme to inflate revenue through sham commercial contracts. The club maintains its innocence, alleges procedural errors, and plans to challenge the applicability of newly introduced appeal timelines. The outcome of the appeal will be closely watched, not only for its impact on City’s financial standing but also for the precedent it could set regarding the enforcement of financial fair play rules across the Premier League.