Manchester City’s flagship sponsor, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is evaluating the possibility of initiating legal proceedings against the Premier League following the league’s independent commission ruling that found the club guilty of multiple serious breaches of financial regulations. The commission concluded that, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons, the club had orchestrated a series of fabricated contracts with several commercial partners.
These arrangements were described as part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million. The airline, which has been linked to the club since 2009, immediately rejected any implication that it had taken part in illicit commercial practices. In a formal statement, Etihad said it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements." The carrier also complained that the Premier League had failed to consult it during the investigation, denying Etihad the opportunity to submit relevant information or defend its reputation. Consequently, the airline is now seeking legal counsel to explore options for protecting its interests and mitigating the damage caused by the publicised findings.
Etihad’s grievance centres on the fact that, although the airline’s name does not appear in the redacted judgment, the commission’s language has nevertheless created "damaging implications" for the carrier. The statement highlighted a perceived lack of transparency and selective disclosure by the Premier League, which the airline believes has unfairly tarnished its image.
Etihad reiterated its pride in the long‑standing partnership with Manchester City, noting that the Etihad name has been emblazoned on the club’s stadium and associated with millions of fans worldwide for more than a decade. The airline affirmed its continued commitment to the club, its supporters, and the broader Etihad community, while insisting that any legal recourse will be pursued if necessary. The situation has sparked a broader reaction among City’s commercial partners.
While some sponsors have chosen to remain silent, others have issued brief comments. Lucozade, Kellogg’s and Revolut declined to comment while the independent commission’s findings are under review. Majestic Wines declined to confirm whether it will maintain its partnership with the club. Sky Sports News reported that it is still awaiting responses from a host of other sponsors, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho and Champneys.
The independent commission’s report also noted that the hearing, which took place between September and December 2024, took an unusually long time to reach a decision. The panel described the delay as "regrettable" and emphasised that the extensive duration had added to the uncertainty surrounding the case. Manchester City’s own response was swift and defensive. In a statement released on Tuesday, the club described itself as both "disappointed and surprised" by the commission’s opinion.
City asserted that it is innocent of the accusations and that a substantial body of irrefutable evidence supports its position. The club pledged to be "relentless" and, where necessary, proactive in pursuing all appropriate regulatory and legal avenues. It also indicated that it intends to appeal the decision, arguing that the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, rendering it unsafe. City’s chief executive, Ferran Soriano, has previously dismissed the investigation as a "Premier League conspiracy theory" in a video addressed to players and staff.
The club maintains that it has respected due process for eight years, trusting that the Premier League’s board and executive would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. However, the club also acknowledged that it is limited in what it can publicly disclose until all future proceedings are concluded. Industry observers, such as Sky Sports News chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol, have noted the broader implications of Etihad’s potential legal action. Solhekol reminded readers that Etihad signed a ten‑year sponsorship deal with Manchester City in 2011, reportedly worth £400 million, and that the agreement has since been extended.
He highlighted the airline’s status as one of the world’s largest carriers, with a valuation of around £4 billion, underscoring the seriousness of the dispute. According to Solhekol, the airline’s decision to seek legal advice signals a willingness to fight back aggressively, reflecting City’s broader strategy of contesting the commission’s findings. The controversy also raises questions about the governance of the Premier League’s disciplinary processes. Critics argue that the league’s handling of the investigation—particularly the lack of engagement with parties not directly named in the judgment—may set a concerning precedent for future cases involving high‑profile clubs and their commercial partners.
Transparency advocates have called for clearer guidelines on how independent commissions should interact with external stakeholders to ensure fairness and avoid reputational harm. From a financial perspective, the alleged "sham" contracts, if proven, could have significant ramifications for the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) framework. The league has long relied on accurate reporting of sponsorship income to enforce spending caps and maintain competitive balance.
An artificial inflation of £830 million would represent a substantial breach of those rules, potentially leading to sanctions such as fines, transfer bans, or points deductions for the club. Nevertheless, the legal complexities of the case are considerable. Etihad’s claim that it was not given an opportunity to present evidence could be interpreted as a procedural flaw, potentially strengthening the airline’s position in any future litigation. Conversely, the Premier League may argue that the independent commission’s remit was limited to assessing the club’s compliance, not the conduct of third‑party sponsors, thereby justifying its limited engagement.
As the dispute unfolds, fans, sponsors, and regulators alike will be watching closely. The outcome could reshape the relationship between football clubs and their commercial partners, influence future sponsorship structures, and perhaps prompt reforms to the Premier League’s disciplinary mechanisms.
For now, both Manchester City and Etihad Airways appear prepared to pursue every available avenue—legal, regulatory, and public relations—to defend their respective interests and preserve the integrity of their long‑standing partnership. The situation remains fluid, and further statements from the Premier League, the independent commission, and the involved parties are expected in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, the football community continues to debate the fairness of the process, the validity of the findings, and the broader implications for the sport’s financial governance.