Manchester City’s flagship sponsor, Etihad Airways, has announced that it is weighing the possibility of initiating legal proceedings against the Premier League following the recent verdict delivered by an independent commission. The commission concluded that the club had committed serious violations of the league’s financial regulations, a finding that Etihad vehemently disputes.
According to the independent panel’s report, between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City allegedly entered into a series of fabricated agreements with various commercial partners. These contracts, described as "sham" deals, were purportedly part of a broader "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club’s reported revenue by roughly £830 million.
The panel’s determination was based on an exhaustive review of financial records, sponsor contracts, and internal communications spanning nearly a decade. City’s management has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a video address to players and staff, chief executive Ferran Soriano dismissed the findings as a "Premier League conspiracy theory," insisting that the club had acted within the rules at all times. Soriano’s remarks underscored the club’s belief that the investigative process was flawed and biased.
Etihad Airways, which has been linked to Manchester City since 2009 through a naming‑rights partnership that also extends to the club’s stadium, issued a strongly worded statement. The airline categorically rejected any implication that it had been involved in improper commercial arrangements. It highlighted that the Premier League never consulted Etihad during the commission’s inquiry, denying the airline the opportunity to present relevant information or defend its reputation.
Consequently, Etihad is now seeking legal counsel to explore options for protecting its interests and mitigating the reputational damage caused by the commission’s published opinion. Although Etihad’s name does not appear in the redacted judgment, the airline argues that the mere association with the case has generated "damaging implications" for its brand. The statement emphasized that the Premier League’s public communication of the findings, coupled with selective leaks to the media, amplified the negative impact on Etihad despite its exclusion from the formal decision.
The airline also reiterated its long‑standing commitment to Manchester City. Etihad noted that the partnership has connected the carrier with millions of football fans worldwide and that the Etihad name has become synonymous with the club’s identity. The airline affirmed that it remains proud of the relationship and will continue to support the club and its supporters while the legal avenues are pursued.
The situation has prompted a broader reaction from other sponsors linked to Manchester City. Companies such as Lucozade, Kellogg’s, and Revolut have opted not to comment on the commission’s findings while the investigation remains ongoing.
Majestic Wines declined to state whether it will maintain its commercial ties with the club. Sky Sports News reported that it is still awaiting responses from a host of other partners, including Sure, Durex, EA Sports, CP Company, Britvic, SilentNight, OKX, Gaucho, and Champneys. Sky Sports’ chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol provided additional context, noting that Etihad originally signed a ten‑year sponsorship deal in 2011 valued at £400 million, a contract that has since been extended.
Solhekol explained that Etihad’s decision to seek legal advice stems from the commission’s conclusion that Manchester City’s owners had inflated sponsorship income through fictitious deals. Although Etihad was not named in the published decision, the airline claims the findings have created “damaging implications” for its business. The independent commission also expressed regret that the adjudication process took an extended period, with hearings conducted between September and December 2024. The delay, according to the panel, contributed to uncertainty for all parties involved.
Manchester City released its own response, describing the commission’s opinion as both “disappointing” and “surprising.” The club asserted its innocence and claimed to possess a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence supporting its position. City’s statement emphasized that it would pursue every regulatory and legal avenue available, arguing that the commission’s opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle, and fact, rendering it unsafe. The club’s legal team highlighted that the Premier League process remains incomplete, with significant elements still unresolved.
Manchester City pledged to continue respecting due process, trusting that the league’s board and executives would act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. However, the club acknowledged that it is restricted in public commentary until all future proceedings conclude.
Analysts note that Etihad’s potential legal challenge could set a precedent for how sponsors react to investigations that indirectly affect them. If the airline proceeds, it may seek damages for reputational harm, demand a retraction of the commission’s statements, or request a formal apology from the Premier League.
Such a case would likely involve complex questions about the extent to which a sponsor can be held accountable for a club’s alleged financial misconduct, especially when the sponsor was not directly implicated in the findings. The broader football community is watching closely. The case underscores the intricate relationship between clubs, their commercial partners, and governing bodies. It also raises questions about transparency in investigative processes and the rights of third‑party entities to be heard when allegations arise.
In summary, Etihad Airways is preparing to explore legal options after an independent commission concluded that Manchester City engaged in a scheme to overstate its revenue through sham sponsorship contracts. While Etihad was not named in the judgment, the airline argues that the public release of the findings has caused significant reputational damage.
The airline’s statement underscores its pride in the long‑standing partnership with the club and its determination to protect its interests through legal counsel. Meanwhile, Manchester City and several of its other sponsors remain largely silent, awaiting the outcome of appeals and further regulatory scrutiny. The unfolding dispute highlights the high stakes involved when financial regulations intersect with commercial sponsorships in elite sport.