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 violations of Premier League 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".
The commission’s investigation concluded that, over the period from the 2009/10 season through to 2017/18, Manchester City had orchestrated a series of sham contracts with several commercial partners. According to the report, these contracts formed part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially inflate the club’s revenue figures by roughly £830 million. The club was given a deadline of Friday to submit an appeal and confirmed that it had done so just before midday on the stipulated day. In the official statement released on Friday, the club said: "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 wording of the statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission"; the body that issued the verdict is, in fact, an independent commission appointed by the league. Manchester City are a member club of the Premier League and have signed up to the league’s disciplinary framework, which obliges them to follow the established appeals process. The original tribunal that delivered the guilty opinion was composed of three independent members and took almost two years to draft its decision.
The Premier League’s investigation into the alleged financial misconduct began eight years ago, and the club was formally charged three and a half years ago. Later on Friday, the Premier League confirmed that Manchester City’s appeal had indeed been lodged. According to the club’s filing, the appeal was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Panel, and the subsequent independent Appeal Board hearing will remain private and confidential until the league permits publication of the outcome.
Sky Sports News commentator Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: "The appeal was lodged on Thursday at 7 p.m., and under Premier League rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, which pushes the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can only last five days and must be conducted in a single block.
A different three‑person panel from the original tribunal will hear the case, and they have 30 days to reach a decision, meaning a judgment could be delivered by the third week of January. This accelerated timeline was introduced into the Premier League handbook this season.
Manchester City may argue that the new, speeded‑up timeline should not apply to their case because the matter has been ongoing for years and the rule was only introduced this season. That argument will be closely watched." Further reporting from Sky Sports News’ Lyall Thomas added that Manchester City are likely to contend that the extra funding behind their sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club’s owners. In the 2024 hearing, City’s legal team put forward that the Abu Dhabi government had provided the additional money, a claim the independent commission dismissed as a post‑hoc invention intended to conceal the true nature of the disguised funding scheme. Nonetheless, the club appears prepared to continue defending that line of argument.
Manchester City is 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‑linked investment and private ownership has long been a source of debate and criticism, particularly when it comes to the transparency of club finances. The commission also expressed regret that the decision took so long to be rendered, 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 stating: "Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League commission, that has been published today. 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. The club will therefore be relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums.
The Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements uncompleted. Manchester City FC will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe.
The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair‑minded regulator, free from partisan influence. The club is obviously restricted in what it can say further until all future proceedings are complete." Again, the club’s statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission" rather than the independent commission that issued the opinion.
The latest commentary from Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol and Amar Mehta suggests that Manchester City’s appeal could extend into the next calendar year if the club argues that the newly introduced accelerated appeals procedure should not apply to a case that predates those rules. Under the new framework, the entire appeals phase must be wrapped up within 12 weeks, and the hearing itself cannot exceed five days. City’s lawyers may argue that the charges were brought in 2023 and the original hearing took place in 2024—well before the speeded‑up rules were added to the Premier League Handbook.
A legal expert told Sky Sports that Manchester City would have a strong case for seeking an exemption from the new timetable. The accelerated rules were introduced to ensure that clubs are punished in the same season that breaches occur, thereby preventing prolonged uncertainty.
Whether the league will grant City an exception remains to be seen, but the case is set to be a landmark test of the Premier League’s disciplinary and appeals mechanisms. In summary, Manchester City have officially appealed the independent commission’s guilty finding, arguing that the decision is fundamentally flawed and that procedural changes introduced after the fact should not dictate the pace of their appeal. The outcome will hinge on the new Appeal Board’s interpretation of both the substantive financial allegations and the procedural safeguards enshrined in the league’s handbook.