Manchester City’s effort to clear its reputation after being judged guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League regulations has come under fresh scrutiny following a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities. According to Sky Sports News, the club plans to argue in its upcoming appeal that the additional money received through its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from its majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
However, a document Etihad filed with the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to contradict that line of reasoning.
The filing reads, "The claim that the Abu Dhabi government financed Etihad’s sponsorship of Premier League side Manchester City is equally false." It goes on to explain that in 2011 Etihad and Manchester City signed a ten‑year partnership that granted the airline naming rights to the club’s stadium. "Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues," the statement continues. The 60‑page dossier was Etihad’s response to allegations that it benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies.
Although the airline’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, the submission stresses that Etihad has been government‑owned since its inception and that it does not receive direct subsidies. Instead, it is financed through a mix of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. "Our shareholder’s equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model," the document asserts. An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had broken financial rules by disguising £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons between 2009 and 2018.
City’s legal team is believed to have already presented the defence that the extra money came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected that argument in its judgment released 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 was government‑sourced was also put forward during its Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where it appealed a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that sponsorship obligations to Manchester City were paid "out of Etihad’s own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim that no state money was involved. 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 regulations the process must be completed within 12 weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last a maximum of five days, all in a single block, and the three‑person appeal panel – which must be different from the original panel – has 30 days to deliver its verdict, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January.
These time limits were introduced this season to accelerate disciplinary outcomes. Solhekol and fellow reporter Amar Mehta noted that Manchester City could try to extend the appeal into the following year by arguing that the new, speed‑up rules should not apply retroactively, since the club was charged in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the revised handbook was in force. A legal expert told Sky Sports News that City may have a strong case for claiming the updated procedures are inapplicable to their situation.
The new appeal framework was designed to ensure that clubs are punished, wherever possible, in the same season that the breach occurs, thereby preventing prolonged uncertainty and maintaining the integrity of the competition. Whether Manchester City’s challenge will succeed, and whether the 2015 Etihad filing will undermine their narrative of government‑funded sponsorship, remains to be seen. The outcome will have significant implications not only for the club’s future in the Premier League but also for the broader discussion about state involvement in football financing and the enforcement of financial fair‑play regulations.