Manchester City’s effort to clear its reputation after being found to have breached more than a hundred Premier League regulations has come under fresh scrutiny following a 2015 statement submitted by its principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to U.S. authorities.
According to Sky Sports News, the club plans to argue in its upcoming appeal that the extra money tied to its sponsorship arrangements originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). However, a document filed by Etihad with the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to undermine that line of defence. The filing reads, “The claim that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League club Manchester City is equally false.” It goes on to explain that in 2011 Etihad and Manchester City signed a ten‑year partnership that granted the airline naming rights to the club’s stadium.
Etihad financed this deal "from its own liquidity," noting that it is common for airlines to sponsor sports teams and venues. The 60‑page submission was prepared in response to allegations that Etihad enjoyed market‑distorting state subsidies. Although the airline is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, the document stresses that it has never received direct subsidies. Instead, Etihad’s funding comes from a blend of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans.
The statement adds that these equity injections and loans should not be classified as subsidies; rather, they represent a prudent investment by the Abu Dhabi government in a profitable business model. An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had broken financial rules by disguising £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship revenue over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018. City’s legal team is believed to have already presented the argument at the original 2024 hearing that the additional money was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government and not by the club’s owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities.
The commission rejected that explanation in its judgment released on Tuesday, describing it as a post‑event fabrication designed to hide the true nature of the so‑called Disguised Funding Scheme. The club’s defence that the extra cash came from the Abu Dhabi government was also raised during its Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where Manchester City appealed a two‑year ban for violating UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to City were settled "out of Etihad’s own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim that the money was not a government handout.
Manchester City confirmed on Friday that it has lodged an appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing. Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was filed on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current regulations the club has twelve weeks to complete the process, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself may last up to five days, but those days must be held in a single block.
After the hearing, a new three‑person panel—different from the original disciplinary panel—has thirty days to render a decision, potentially extending the final judgment into the third week of January. This accelerated schedule was introduced in the Premier League handbook for the current season.
Solhekol, joined by Amar Mehta, noted that Manchester City could attempt to argue that the new, faster‑track appeal rules should not apply to their case because the charges were brought in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the revised procedures were codified. A legal expert told Sky Sports News that City may have a strong case for exempting themselves from the updated timeline, given that the alleged infractions and the original disciplinary process occurred under the previous rulebook. The new appeal framework was designed to ensure that clubs are punished in the same season that violations are identified, thereby preventing prolonged uncertainty and maintaining the integrity of the competition. Critics, however, argue that the accelerated process could limit clubs’ ability to mount comprehensive defences, especially in complex financial cases involving multiple parties and cross‑border transactions.
In summary, the 2015 Etihad statement challenges Manchester City’s narrative that state funding, rather than owner investment, underpinned the disputed sponsorship income. The club’s appeal will need to reconcile this contradictory evidence while navigating the Premier League’s tightened procedural deadlines. Whether the appeal panel will accept City’s argument that the newer rules should not govern a case rooted in earlier regulations remains to be seen, but the outcome will likely have significant ramifications for the governance of financial compliance in English football.