Etihad Airways, the flagship carrier of Abu Dhabi and the chief sponsor of Manchester City since 2009, has announced that it is exploring the possibility of taking legal steps against the Premier League. This development follows the recent ruling by an independent commission that found Manchester City guilty of multiple serious violations of the league's financial regulations. The commission’s investigation uncovered that, over the period spanning the 2009/10 season through to 2017/18, the club had orchestrated a series of so‑called “sham” contracts with a number of its commercial partners.
These arrangements were described as a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The findings have sent shockwaves through the football community, prompting intense scrutiny of the club’s financial practices and the broader governance structures of English football.
Manchester City has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a video address directed at players and staff, chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the commission’s conclusions as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" and vowed to challenge the decision through all available legal and regulatory channels.
The club’s stance is that the process was biased, lacked transparency, and failed to give the organization a fair opportunity to present its side of the story. Etihad Airways, which has been closely linked with the club for more than a decade, issued a strongly worded statement rejecting any implication that it was involved in improper commercial arrangements.
The airline emphasized that it was never named in the published judgment, yet it claims the Premier League’s public communication of the findings has caused “damaging implications” for its reputation. According to Etihad, the league did not engage with the airline during the investigation, denying it the chance to submit relevant information or to defend itself against any adverse inferences.
In response, Etihad said it is now seeking legal counsel to protect its interests. The statement highlighted several key points: the airline categorically denies any involvement in the alleged sham deals; it was excluded from the commission’s process and therefore could not ensure the accuracy of the information used to reach the conclusions; and the selective leaks and partial disclosures by the Premier League have unfairly tarnished Etihad’s image. The carrier reiterated its pride in the long‑standing partnership with Manchester City, noting that the Etihad name has become synonymous with the club’s stadium and global fan base. The situation has also drawn reactions from other sponsors associated with Manchester City.
Brands such as Lucozade, Kellogg’s, and Revolut have opted not to comment while the independent commission’s findings remain under review. Majestic Wines declined to state whether it will continue its commercial relationship with the club, and Sky Sports News is still awaiting responses from a host of other partners, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho, and Champneys.
Sky Sports’ chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol provided additional context, noting that Etihad originally signed a ten‑year sponsorship deal in 2011 worth £400 million, a contract that has since been extended. He explained that the airline’s decision to seek legal advice stems from the commission’s judgment, which labeled several of the club’s sponsorship agreements as “sham” deals that did not reflect genuine commercial contracts.
Although Etihad was not explicitly named in the published decision, the airline argues that the mere association with the judgment has caused reputational damage. The commission also expressed regret over the length of the proceedings, which took place between September and December 2024. Manchester City issued its own statement, describing the commission’s opinion as both disappointing and surprising. The club maintains that it is innocent of the accusations and that a substantial body of irrefutable evidence supports its position.
It pledged to pursue every regulatory and legal avenue available, asserting that the commission’s opinion contains clear errors of law, principle, and fact, rendering it unsafe. Both Etihad and Manchester City have pointed out a common inaccuracy in each other’s statements: the reference to a "Premier League commission" is technically incorrect.
The body that conducted the investigation was an independent commission, not a panel directly appointed by the Premier League. This distinction is important because it underscores the perceived independence of the investigative process, even as both parties criticize the way the findings were communicated.
The potential legal confrontation between Etihad Airways and the Premier League raises broader questions about the responsibilities of sponsors in high‑profile football investigations. Sponsors invest heavily in clubs, not only financially but also in terms of brand association and global outreach. When a club is implicated in financial misconduct, sponsors may find themselves entangled in the fallout, even if they were not directly involved in the alleged wrongdoing.
Legal experts suggest that Etihad’s next steps could involve seeking an injunction to prevent further dissemination of the commission’s findings, or filing a defamation claim if the airline believes the Premier League’s public statements have caused measurable harm to its reputation. The airline may also explore contractual remedies, arguing that the league’s handling of the investigation breached any implied duties of fairness or confidentiality.
From the Premier League’s perspective, the organization must balance transparency with the need to protect the integrity of its disciplinary processes. The league’s decision not to engage Etihad during the commission’s work has been criticized as a procedural oversight, potentially opening the door to legal challenges. Moreover, the league’s communication strategy—characterized by selective leaks and partial disclosures—has been described by Etihad as damaging and lacking clarity. As the dispute unfolds, fans and stakeholders will be watching closely.
The outcome could set precedents for how sponsors are treated in future investigations and may influence the drafting of sponsorship agreements to include explicit clauses addressing reputational risk and procedural rights. For now, both Etihad Airways and Manchester City appear resolute in defending their positions, while the Premier League faces the task of navigating a complex legal and public‑relations landscape. The broader football community is also likely to feel the ripple effects.
Other clubs with high‑profile sponsors may reassess their own contractual arrangements, ensuring they have robust protections against unintended consequences of regulatory actions. Meanwhile, governing bodies may consider revising their investigative protocols to incorporate more comprehensive stakeholder engagement, thereby reducing the risk of future disputes.
In summary, Etihad Airways is contemplating legal action against the Premier League after an independent commission’s report implicated Manchester City in a massive financial misconduct scheme. The airline denies any involvement, criticizes the league’s handling of the investigation, and is seeking legal counsel to safeguard its interests.
Manchester City, backed by several of its sponsors, maintains its innocence and plans to appeal the decision. The situation underscores the intricate interplay between football clubs, their commercial partners, and the regulatory frameworks that oversee the sport.