Manchester City’s ongoing effort to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than one hundred Premier League financial regulations has hit a fresh obstacle. The obstacle comes from a 2015 statement submitted by the club’s principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to several U.S. government departments.
That document appears to contradict the argument City plans to use in its upcoming appeal, namely that the extra money flowing into the club originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). According to Sky Sports News, City’s legal team intends to claim that the sponsorship cash was a direct government contribution, thereby distancing the club’s owners from the alleged wrongdoing. However, the May 2015 filing Etihad provided to the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State tells a different story. In the filing Etihad wrote, "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 partnership with the club, which included naming rights for the 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. The 60‑page document was prepared as a response to accusations that Etihad was benefitting from market‑distorting state subsidies.
While Etihad acknowledges that the Abu Dhabi government is its sole shareholder, the airline insists it has never received direct subsidies. Instead, it claims to be financed through a blend of equity, shareholder loans and commercial borrowing. In Etihad’s own words, "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." These claims matter because an independent disciplinary commission recently concluded that Manchester City had disguised £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship revenue over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018.
The commission rejected the club’s defence that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government, describing the explanation as a post‑event invention designed to hide the true nature of the so‑called Disguised Funding Scheme. The panel’s judgment, released on Tuesday, stated that the club’s narrative was concocted after the fact in an attempt to conceal the realities of the funding arrangement. City’s lawyers had already presented a similar defence at the original 2024 hearing, arguing that the extra cash was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by the owners themselves.
That line of reasoning was also dismissed by the disciplinary body. Moreover, during the club’s earlier appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne—where City sought to overturn a two‑year ban for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules—former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that sponsorship obligations to Manchester City had been paid "out of Etihad's own funds." Despite the mounting evidence, the club has confirmed that it will proceed with an appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing. Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was lodged on a Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the appeal must be resolved within twelve weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself can last a maximum of five days, and those five days must be taken in a single block. After the hearing, a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has thirty days to reach a decision, potentially extending the final judgment into the third week of January. This accelerated timeline was introduced in the Premier League handbook for the current season to ensure that clubs are punished in the same season that breaches occur. Solhekol and colleague Amar Mehta noted that City could try to argue that the new, speeded‑up appeal rules should not apply to their case because the charges were filed in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the revised handbook came into force.
A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports indicated that Manchester City might have a strong argument for exempting themselves from the new timetable, given that the procedural changes were not in effect at the time the alleged violations were identified. If the club succeeds in convincing the panel that the updated rules are inapplicable, the appeal could stretch well into the next calendar year.
Conversely, if the Premier League’s expedited process is enforced, the club will have a limited window—five days of hearing and a month for the panel’s deliberation—to present its case and hope for a favorable outcome. The broader context of this dispute highlights the increasing scrutiny of football clubs’ financial structures, especially those with state‑linked owners.
Over the past decade, several high‑profile clubs have faced investigations into whether public money or sovereign wealth funds have been used to circumvent financial fair play regulations. The Etihad filing underscores how intertwined corporate sponsorships and governmental ownership can create opaque financing arrangements that regulators find difficult to untangle. For Manchester City, the stakes are high.
A successful appeal could mitigate the damage to the club’s reputation and potentially reduce or overturn sanctions that threaten its competitive standing. A failure, however, would likely confirm the disciplinary commission’s findings and could lead to further penalties, including fines, points deductions, or restrictions on player registrations.
In summary, the 2015 Etihad statement adds a new layer of complexity to Manchester City’s appeal strategy. While the club hopes to argue that the sponsorship money originated from the Abu Dhabi government, the airline’s own filing explicitly denies that claim, asserting that the funds came from Etihad’s internal resources. The upcoming appeal will need to reconcile these contradictory narratives, navigate the Premier League’s newly introduced accelerated timeline, and address the broader issue of state‑linked financing in modern football.