Manchester City have formally submitted an appeal against the findings of an independent commission that concluded the club was guilty of every charge relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. In a press release the club reiterated its claim of innocence, describing the commission's decision as merely an "opinion" riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and therefore "unsafe". According to the commission's report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly orchestrated a series of sham commercial contracts that formed part of a so‑called "disguised funding scheme".
The purpose of these arrangements, the report asserted, was to artificially inflate Manchester City’s revenue figures by roughly £830 million, giving the club a financial advantage over its rivals. The club was required to lodge an appeal by the close of business on Friday, and it confirmed that it had done so just before midday. The official statement, dated 1 October 2026, 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." It is worth noting that the statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission" when the body in question is in fact an independent commission set up under the league's disciplinary framework.
Manchester City remain a member of the Premier League and have, by virtue of that membership, accepted the league’s rules governing disciplinary investigations and appeals. The original tribunal that delivered the guilty verdict was composed of three independent members and took almost two years to draft 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.
Later on the same Friday, the Premier League confirmed that the club’s appeal had indeed been lodged. The appeal has been submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel, and the hearing will be conducted by an independent Appeal Board.
The board’s proceedings will remain private until a formal outcome is permitted for publication. Sky Sports News correspondent Kaveh Solhekol explained the timetable: "The appeal was lodged on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League's rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, which pushes the deadline into the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself can last no longer than five days, and those five days must be taken in a single block. The appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original tribunal – will have 30 days to reach a decision, meaning a judgment could be issued in the third week of January." Solhekol added that Manchester City might argue the accelerated timeline should not apply because the case has been ongoing for years, while the fast‑track appeal rules were only introduced this season.
Such a procedural argument could potentially extend the appeal process well into the following year. Further commentary from Sky Sports News' Lyall Thomas highlighted a key element of the club’s defence: the source of the extra funding tied to the disputed sponsorship deals. City’s legal team has previously claimed that the additional money originated from the government of Abu Dhabi rather than from the club’s private owners. The independent commission rejected that argument, describing it as a post‑hoc explanation concocted to mask the reality of the alleged disguised funding scheme.
Nonetheless, the club is expected to continue pressing this line of argument during the appeal. Manchester City is majority‑owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, a vehicle 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 positions of Vice‑President and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.
The intertwining of state‑linked investment and private ownership has long been a subject of scrutiny and criticism, especially in the context of financial fair play regulations. The commission also expressed regret that the investigation and hearing process took so long, noting that the hearing itself spanned from September to December 2024. After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City issued a statement on Tuesday expressing disappointment and surprise. The club reiterated its innocence, claimed to possess a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supporting its case, and promised to pursue every appropriate regulatory and legal avenue.
It also stressed that it had respected due process over an eight‑year period, trusting that the Premier League board and executive would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. Again, the statement incorrectly referred to a "Premier League commission" rather than the independent commission that issued the opinion. The appeal, as outlined by Sky Sports News analysts Kaveh Solhekol and Amar Mehta, could potentially be protracted if the club successfully argues that the newly introduced speeded‑up appeal rules should not apply retroactively.
The current rules stipulate that the entire appeal phase must be wrapped up within 12 weeks, with the hearing itself limited to a five‑day block. However, because the original charge and hearing occurred before these rules were codified, legal experts suggest Manchester City may have a strong case for an exemption.
The new procedural framework was introduced to ensure that disciplinary actions are resolved within the same season as the alleged breaches, thereby providing clubs with timely certainty. Whether Manchester City’s appeal will be judged under the old or new timetable remains to be seen, and the outcome could set an important precedent for future financial fair play cases in English football. In summary, Manchester City has formally appealed a landmark decision that accused the club of engineering a massive revenue‑inflation scheme through sham sponsorship contracts.
The club maintains that it acted within the law, that the commission’s findings are fundamentally flawed, and that the appeal process should respect the procedural context that existed when the alleged breaches occurred. The next few months will determine whether the club can overturn the guilty verdict or whether the Premier League’s independent commission will see its decision upheld, potentially resulting in significant sporting and financial consequences for one of England’s most high‑profile clubs.