Manchester City’s effort to clear its reputation after being found guilty of violating more than a hundred Premier League financial regulations has been called into question by a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to several U.S. government agencies. According to Sky Sports News, the club plans to argue in its upcoming appeal that the additional money behind its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
However, the wording of Etihad’s 2015 filing appears to directly contradict that line of defence. In the May 2015 submission to the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, Etihad explicitly denied that the Abu Dhabi government financed its sponsorship of Manchester City. The airline wrote, "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false." It went on to describe the 2011 ten‑year partnership, which granted naming rights to the club’s 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 statement added, suggesting a routine commercial relationship rather than a state‑backed subsidy.
The 60‑page document was Etihad’s response to allegations that it benefitted from market‑distorting state subsidies. Although the airline is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, the filing stressed that it had never received direct subsidies.
Instead, Etihad claimed its financing came from a mix of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. The airline described these sources as "the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model," emphasizing that such investments should not be classified as subsidies under any applicable definition. An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had breached 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 advanced the defence that the extra cash was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities.
The commission rejected that argument in its judgment, published on Tuesday, describing it as a post‑hoc invention designed to conceal the reality of the so‑called Disguised Funding Scheme. The club’s defence that the funding came from the Abu Dhabi government was also raised during its Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where Manchester City appealed a two‑year ban for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to City were paid "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim of financial independence from the state.
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 appeal must be resolved within 12 weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and it must be conducted in a single block. The appeal panel, which must be a different three‑person panel from the original disciplinary committee, has 30 days to deliver its verdict, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January.
Solhekol and colleague Amar Mehta noted that the appeal could extend into the following year if City argues that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not apply retroactively. The club was charged in 2023 and faced a hearing in 2024, before the Premier League Handbook was amended to include the accelerated timeline. A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports suggested that Manchester City has a strong case for arguing that the new procedural rules should not be imposed on a case that began under the previous regulatory framework.
The new appeal rules were introduced to ensure that clubs are punished within the same season as the infractions, thereby providing greater certainty and deterrence. Critics, however, argue that applying these rules to ongoing cases could disadvantage clubs that were sanctioned before the rule change, creating a potential procedural unfairness. In summary, the 2015 Etihad statement adds a layer of complexity to Manchester City’s appeal strategy. While the club seeks to shift responsibility for the disputed sponsorship money onto the Abu Dhabi government, the airline’s own filing asserts that its sponsorship was financed independently, using its own cash reserves and standard commercial financing.
This apparent contradiction may force the appeal panel to scrutinise the credibility of City’s defence more closely, especially in light of the disciplinary commission’s finding that the explanation was concocted after the fact. The outcome of the appeal will hinge not only on the factual evidence about who paid for the sponsorship but also on the legal arguments surrounding the applicability of the Premier League’s newly introduced fast‑track appeal procedures.