Manchester City’s effort to clear its name after being found guilty of breaching more than one hundred Premier League financial regulations has been called into question by a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities. The club hopes to argue on appeal that the additional money flowing through its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). However, the language used in Etihad's 2015 filing appears to undermine that line of defence.
In May 2015 Etihad sent a written response to the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, asserting that the claim "the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false." The airline explained that in 2011 it entered into a ten‑year partnership with Manchester City, which granted Etihad naming rights to the club’s stadium and other commercial benefits.
According to the submission, Etihad financed the deal entirely from its own liquidity, noting that "it is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues." The 60‑page document was prepared as a rebuttal to allegations that Etihad was receiving market‑distorting state subsidies. Although Etihad is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, the filing emphasized that the carrier does not receive direct subsidies.
Instead, it is financed through a mix of equity contributions, shareholder loans and commercial borrowing. The airline described these financial inputs as "the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model," rather than as subsidies under any legal definition. 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, spanning 2009 to 2018. The club’s legal team is believed to have maintained, at the original 2024 hearing, that the extra money came from the Abu Dhabi government and not directly from the owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities.
The commission rejected that explanation, stating in its published judgment that the defence was "concocted well after the event in an attempt to conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme." City’s argument that the funding was a government contribution also featured in its appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where the club challenged a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified at that hearing that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City had been paid "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim that no direct state money was involved. Despite the mounting evidence, Manchester City confirmed on Friday that it will proceed with its appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing. Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was lodged on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the entire process must be completed within twelve weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas.
The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and it must be conducted 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, a deadline that could extend into the third week of January. The new, accelerated timeline was introduced this season to ensure that clubs are punished in the same campaign in which the breach occurred.
However, Manchester City’s lawyers may argue that the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the speeded‑up appeal rules were incorporated into the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports News suggested that City could have a strong case for claiming the new rules should not apply retroactively. If the club succeeds in convincing the appeal panel that the updated procedures are inapplicable, the process could be prolonged well into the next year.
Conversely, if the panel adheres strictly to the current handbook, the hearing will be brief and the decision will be rendered by late January at the latest. The broader context of this dispute highlights the complex interplay between football clubs, sovereign wealth, and commercial sponsors. Manchester City’s rapid rise over the past decade has been closely tied to substantial investment from Abu Dhabi, both through direct equity from ADUG and through the branding partnership with Etihad. Critics argue that the blurred lines between state ownership and private investment create an uneven playing field, while supporters contend that the funds have helped elevate the Premier League’s global profile.
Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores the heightened scrutiny that elite clubs face under increasingly stringent financial regulations. The Premier League, UEFA and other governing bodies are keen to enforce transparency and fairness, especially as the sport grapples with the financial ramifications of the post‑pandemic era. For Manchester City, the appeal represents a final opportunity to reshape the narrative around its financing and to preserve its competitive standing without the shadow of a lengthy ban or hefty fines. In summary, Etihad’s 2015 filing challenges the core of Manchester City’s appeal strategy by asserting that the airline’s sponsorship money came from its own resources, not from a direct government grant.
The disciplinary commission, the CAS hearing and the forthcoming Premier League appeal panel will each weigh that evidence against the club’s claims. The resolution will have significant implications not only for City’s immediate future but also for how football’s financial governance evolves in the years to come.