Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the finding of an independent commission that declared 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 commission’s opinion as merely an "opinion" that is riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and therefore unsafe.
According to the commission’s report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons the club allegedly set up a series of fictitious contracts with a number of commercial partners. These arrangements were characterised as a "disguised funding scheme" intended to inflate the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million.
The commission’s conclusion was that the contracts were sham agreements designed to mislead the league’s financial oversight mechanisms. Manchester City were required to submit an appeal by the preceding Friday and confirmed that they had done so just before midday on the deadline. Their statement, issued on Friday, read in part: "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." The club’s statement mistakenly referred to a "Premier League commission" when, in fact, the body that issued the opinion was an independent commission set up under the league’s disciplinary framework.
City are a member of the Premier League and have signed up to the league’s rules governing disciplinary procedures. The three‑person tribunal that delivered the guilty verdict spent almost two years drafting its judgment; the Premier League’s investigation into the matter began eight years ago, and the club was formally charged three and a half years ago.
Later on Friday the Premier League confirmed that City’s appeal had indeed been lodged. The league added that the appeal had been submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel and that the independent Appeal Board hearing would remain private and confidential until a formal outcome could be published. Sky Sports News analyst Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal was lodged on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s rules the appeal must be concluded 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 one continuous block.
The appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original tribunal – has thirty days to reach a decision, meaning the judgment could be delivered in the third week of January. This accelerated timetable was introduced into the Premier League’s handbook this season." Solhekol added that Manchester City might argue that the new, speed‑up timeline should not apply to their case because the matter has been ongoing for years and the rule was only introduced this season. Such an argument could become a focal point of the appeal. Further commentary from Sky Sports News’ Lyall Thomas highlighted another line of defence the club is likely to pursue.
City are expected to maintain that the extra funding appearing in their sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s owners. During the 2024 hearing the club’s lawyers put forward that explanation, but the independent commission dismissed it, stating that the claim was concocted after the fact in an attempt to conceal the reality of the disguised funding scheme. Nevertheless, the club appears set to continue contesting the commission’s rejection of that argument.
Manchester City are 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 intertwining of state investment and private wealth from the Abu Dhabi royal family has long been a subject of public debate and scrutiny. The commission also expressed regret that the decision had taken 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 the following Tuesday saying they were "both disappointed and surprised" by the commission’s opinion. The club reiterated its innocence and claimed to possess a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supporting its position, promising to be "relentless and, where necessary, proactive" in any regulatory or legal forum.
City’s statement again mistakenly referred to a Premier League commission rather than the independent commission that issued the opinion. The club emphasised that it had respected due process for eight years, trusting that the Premier League board and executive would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence.
It also noted that it remained limited in what it could say publicly until all future proceedings were concluded. Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol, joined by analyst Amar Mehta, noted that the appeal could stretch into the next calendar year if City successfully argue that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not apply retroactively. The new appeal rules, introduced to ensure clubs are punished in the same season that breaches occur, stipulate that the appeal phase must be wrapped up within twelve weeks and that the hearing itself cannot exceed five days.
City’s legal team may contend that the charges were laid in 2023 and the original hearing took place in 2024 – a period when the accelerated rules were not yet part of the Premier League handbook. A legal expert quoted by Sky Sports suggested that City would have a strong case for arguing that the new procedural timetable should not be imposed on a case that predates its introduction.
In summary, Manchester City have taken the formal step of appealing a landmark verdict that accused them of a massive financial manipulation scheme. The appeal will be heard by a new independent panel, and the process is governed by recently revised Premier League rules that aim to resolve disciplinary matters more swiftly.
Whether the club can persuade the appeal board that the original decision was flawed – either because of alleged procedural errors, the timing of the new rules, or the source of the disputed sponsorship funding – remains to be seen. The outcome will have significant implications not only for City’s financial standing but also for the broader conversation about financial fair play, state‑linked investment in football, and the integrity of the Premier League’s regulatory framework.