Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the finding of an independent commission that deemed the club guilty of every charge relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. In a press release the club maintained its innocence, describing the decision as merely an "opinion" riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and asserting that it was "unsafe".
The independent commission concluded that, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons, Manchester City had orchestrated a series of sham contracts with various commercial partners as part of what it called a "disguised funding scheme". According to the commission, this arrangement was designed to artificially boost the club's reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The club was required to submit an appeal by the deadline of Friday, and it confirmed that the appeal had been filed just before midday on that day.
In the statement released on Friday, Manchester City said: "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"; the body that issued the ruling is, in fact, an independent commission appointed to investigate the matter. Manchester City remains a member of the Premier League and has signed up to the league's disciplinary framework.
The original three‑person tribunal took almost two years to draft its judgment, following an investigation that began eight years ago and charges that were formally laid three and a half years ago. Later on Friday, the Premier League confirmed that the club's appeal had indeed been lodged.
The club’s filing indicated that the appeal was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel and that the subsequent independent Appeal Board hearing would remain private and confidential until a final decision could be published. Sky Sports News correspondent Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal was lodged at 7 p.m. on Thursday, and under the Premier League's rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself can only last five days, and those five days must be taken as a single block. A different three‑person panel from the original tribunal will hear the case and will have 30 days to reach a verdict, meaning a decision could be delivered in the third week of January. This accelerated timeline was introduced into the Premier League's handbook this season.
Manchester City may argue that the new, speeded‑up timeline should not apply because the case has been ongoing for years and the rule was only introduced this season. That will be an interesting point to watch." Further commentary from Sky Sports News' Lyall Thomas added that Manchester City are likely to argue that the extra funding behind their sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club's private owners.
During the 2024 hearing, City’s lawyers put forward the claim that the government of Abu Dhabi had provided the additional money, but the independent commission dismissed the argument, describing it as a post‑event invention designed to conceal the true nature of the disguised funding scheme. Nonetheless, sources suggest the club will continue to contest that finding.
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 serves as the United Arab Emirates' vice‑president and deputy prime minister. The overlap between state investment from the UAE and private capital from the royal family has long been a source of debate and criticism, particularly in the context of football club ownership and financial fair play. The commission also expressed regret that the decision took so long to reach, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024.
After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City issued a statement on Tuesday saying they were "both disappointed and surprised" by the commission's opinion. The club reiterated its innocence, emphasized the existence of a substantial body of irrefutable evidence supporting its position, and pledged to be "relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums." The statement also highlighted that the Premier League process remained incomplete and that the club would pursue every appeal avenue, asserting that the opinion contained clear material errors and was unsafe. Again, the club's statement incorrectly referred to a Premier League commission rather than the independent commission that issued the ruling. Sky Sports News analysts Kaveh Solhekol and Amar Mehta noted that the appeal could extend into the following year if Manchester City successfully argues that the newly introduced accelerated appeal rules should not apply to a case that predates them.
The new rules, designed to ensure that disciplinary sanctions are imposed within the same season as the alleged breach, require that the appeal phase be wrapped up within 12 weeks and that the hearing itself not exceed five days. Legal experts have indicated that Manchester City may have a strong case for exempting themselves from these provisions, given that the charges were laid in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024—before the handbook was amended. In summary, Manchester City have taken the formal step of appealing the independent commission's finding of serious financial misconduct.
The appeal process is governed by newly introduced, accelerated timelines, but the club is likely to challenge the applicability of those timelines on procedural grounds. The outcome will hinge on whether the appeal panel accepts the club's arguments about procedural fairness, the source of the alleged disguised funding, and the alleged errors in law and fact identified by the club. The situation remains fluid, with both the Premier League and the club awaiting the confidential hearing's conclusions before any final public determination is made.