Manchester City’s effort 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 several U.S. government agencies.
The club is expected to argue in its upcoming appeal that the extra 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 directly contradict that line of defence. In May 2015, Etihad submitted a comprehensive 60‑page response to inquiries from the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State. The document was intended to refute claims that the airline benefitted from market‑distorting state subsidies. Within that filing, Etihad made a clear statement: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.” The airline went on to describe the 2011 ten‑year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for the club’s stadium, as being financed entirely from Etihad’s own liquidity.
It noted that it is common for airlines to sponsor sports teams and venues, and that the partnership was not a conduit for government money. Etihad further emphasized its ownership structure, noting that the airline has been wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government since its inception. Yet it insisted that it does not receive any subsidies from the government, explaining that its financing comes from a mixture of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans.
The filing argued that these forms of capital are not subsidies under any relevant definition, but rather represent a prudent investment by the Abu Dhabi government in a profitable commercial enterprise. The timing of this filing is significant because 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. The commission’s judgment, released on Tuesday, dismissed the club’s defence that the extra funding came from the Abu Dhabi government, labeling it a post‑event invention designed to mask the reality of a “Disguised Funding Scheme.” City’s legal team is believed to have already presented the same argument at the original 2024 hearing, claiming that the additional money was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. This line of reasoning was also rejected during the club’s earlier appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where the club contested 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 were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds,” reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim that no government money was involved. The club has confirmed that it has lodged an appeal, maintaining its denial of 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 entire process must be completed 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. After the hearing, a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has up to 30 days to render a judgment, which could push the final decision 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 clubs are punished in the same season that violations occur. However, Manchester City’s lawyers may argue that the club was charged in 2023 and the original hearing took place in 2024, before the speeded‑up appeal rules were adopted. A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports indicated that City could have a strong case for insisting that the newer procedural rules should not apply retroactively to their situation.
If the club’s appeal proceeds under the new timetable, the process could extend into the new year, especially if City contests the applicability of the revised rules. The appeal hearing itself is limited to five days, but the overall deadline of 12 weeks provides a relatively narrow window for both parties to present evidence, cross‑examine witnesses and file legal submissions.
Should the appeal panel find in City’s favour, the club could see its two‑year ban lifted and the financial penalties reduced or waived. Conversely, if the panel upholds the disciplinary commission’s findings, the sanctions are likely to remain in place, reinforcing the Premier League’s commitment to financial transparency and fair play.
The broader context of this dispute highlights the complex relationship between football clubs, their wealthy owners, and state‑linked sponsors. While clubs like Manchester City argue that external funding is essential for competing at the highest level, regulators are increasingly vigilant about ensuring that such funding does not constitute hidden state support that could give a club an unfair competitive advantage.
The Etihad filing of 2015, the commission’s judgment, and the forthcoming appeal together illustrate the ongoing tension between commercial ambition and regulatory oversight in modern football. In summary, Manchester City’s appeal hinges on whether the Premier League’s new, expedited appeal procedures apply to a case that originated before those rules were enacted. Simultaneously, the club must contend with a 2015 Etihad Airways statement that explicitly denies any government subsidy, a claim that directly challenges the narrative the club intends to present. The outcome will not only affect City’s immediate sporting prospects but also set a precedent for how future financial misconduct cases are adjudicated in the Premier League and beyond.