Manchester City’s chief commercial partner, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is evaluating the possibility of initiating legal proceedings against the Premier League following the league’s independent commission’s damning verdict. The commission, which was tasked with examining the club’s compliance with financial regulations, concluded that Manchester City had breached every charge brought against it. Specifically, the panel determined that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club had orchestrated a series of fabricated contracts with various commercial entities.
These arrangements were described as part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to inflate the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The findings have been fiercely contested by the club’s hierarchy. Chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the investigation as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" in a video addressed to players and staff, insisting that the club remains innocent of any wrongdoing. In parallel, Etihad Airways – the airline that has been the club’s principal sponsor since 2009 – issued a strongly worded statement rejecting any implication that it was involved in improper commercial dealings.
The airline stressed that it was never consulted during the commission’s inquiry, was not afforded the chance to submit relevant information, and was omitted from the published judgment. Nonetheless, Etihad said the public release of the findings has caused "damaging implications" for its reputation, prompting the carrier to seek legal advice to protect its interests.
Etihad’s statement clarified that the airline categorically denies any suggestion that it participated in the alleged sham sponsorship contracts. It accused the Premier League of failing to engage with the airline during the investigative process, thereby denying Etihad a fair opportunity to defend itself. The carrier also criticised the league’s communication strategy, describing it as lacking transparency and relying on selective leaks that have unfairly tarnished Etihad’s image despite the airline not being named in the redacted decision.
The controversy has drawn reactions from other Manchester City sponsors. Brands such as Lucozade, Kellogg’s and Revolut have declined to comment while the independent commission’s findings are under appeal. Majestic Wines indicated it would not discuss the future of its partnership, 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.
Etihad’s press release also highlighted the long‑standing nature of its relationship with the club. The airline noted that its name adorns the stadium and that the partnership has connected it with millions of supporters worldwide. It reaffirmed its commitment to Manchester City, its fans and the broader Etihad community, stating that it will stand by the club as it challenges the commission’s conclusions through all available regulatory and legal channels.
The carrier concluded by confirming that it will consult legal counsel to explore the options and recourse necessary to safeguard its interests. Commentary from Sky Sports News chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol provided additional context.
Solhekol reminded readers that Etihad signed a ten‑year, £400 million sponsorship deal in 2011, which has since been extended. He explained that the airline’s decision to seek legal advice stems from the commission’s judgment, which accused Manchester City’s owners of inflating sponsorship revenue and labeling certain deals as "sham" contracts. Although Etihad was not explicitly named in the published decision, the airline argues that the implication of involvement has caused reputational damage. Solhekol further observed that Manchester City appears determined to fight the verdict aggressively.
The club’s own statement, released on the same day as the commission’s opinion, expressed disappointment and surprise at the findings. It asserted that the club possesses a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence supporting its position and that it will pursue every appropriate regulatory and legal avenue, including appeals on the grounds of material errors of law, principle and fact. The club also emphasised its respect for due process over the past eight years, expressing confidence that the Premier League board and executives would act as an independent, impartial regulator.
Both the club’s and Etihad’s statements mistakenly refer to a "Premier League commission"; in reality, the body conducting the investigation is an independent commission appointed to assess compliance with the league’s financial rules. The commission itself expressed regret that its decision took so long to be delivered, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024.
The unfolding dispute underscores the high stakes involved when major football clubs and their sponsors confront regulatory scrutiny. Should Etihad proceed with legal action, the case could set a precedent for how third‑party sponsors are treated in future financial fair‑play investigations. For now, the situation remains fluid, with Manchester City preparing to appeal the ruling and Etihad positioning itself to defend its brand against what it perceives as unfounded allegations. The broader football community watches closely, aware that the outcome may influence sponsorship arrangements and the governance of financial compliance across the sport.