Sympathy is scarce among other clubs after an independent disciplinary commission unveiled the extent of Manchester City’s rule violations spanning nine seasons, a finding that was released last week. While City’s legal team gears up for an appeal and a sanctions hearing following a verdict that identified more than one hundred breaches of Premier League regulations, their competitors both in England and across Europe are insisting that any punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences.
With the possibility that City will take their case all the way to the High Court, rival clubs are increasingly alarmed about the potential damage to the Premier League’s reputation and the integrity of the competition. They also worry about the financial burden of a protracted dispute and what they perceive as City’s refusal to accept responsibility for its actions.
City, for its part, maintains that it has done nothing wrong, claiming that an "extensive body of irrefutable evidence" backs its position and that it has formally lodged an appeal against the commission’s decision. A brief glance at the commission’s report makes clear the enormity of the challenge facing City’s lawyers when an appeal hearing is scheduled before the Christmas break. The findings describe financial misconduct of the highest order, noting that the infractions were carried out over nine seasons and fundamentally distorted the competitive balance of the league.
Because of this, many of City’s rivals are convinced that Enzo Maresca’s side will not be competing in the Premier League next season. There is a growing belief that a simple points deduction would be insufficient if it merely resulted in City spending a single season outside the top flight. A harsher, longer‑term sanction is seen as necessary to reflect the systemic nature of the wrongdoing. While clubs naturally consider their own interests—recognising that City’s relegation would mean one fewer team dropping down and would remove a dominant contender from the title race, thereby opening up an extra European qualification spot—the overarching concern is about fairness and the rule of law.
The consensus among the Premier League’s other members is that all clubs, regardless of size or stature, must be held to the same standards, and that a punishment limited to one season would not adequately address violations that occurred over nearly a decade. City’s rivals will not sit on the sanctions hearing panel, which is likely to take place while the appeal process continues. The same three‑person panel that heard evidence during the 42‑day hearing in 2024 and delivered the core decision last Tuesday will reconvene to determine the final penalties after the Premier League’s prosecutors present their recommendations and City’s lawyers make their case. Ultimately, the Premier League board will decide which sanction recommendation to forward to the panel.
To put the situation in perspective, the league previously argued that Everton deserved a 12‑point deduction for a single breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules. Everton, which was already in a precarious financial position, managed to reduce that penalty to six points after successfully appealing the original sanction. This precedent illustrates how the appeal process can modify initial punishments, but it also underscores the length and complexity of these legal battles. With both sides now entitled to appeal the sanctions, and City preparing its own appeal, Premier League clubs anticipate that this dispute could stretch well into the next calendar year.
The broader football community has been eager to put an end to the litigious atmosphere that has come to dominate English football. Executives have spoken of adopting an "NFL model" in which the league speaks with a single, unified voice, thereby reducing the need for individual clubs to engage in separate legal actions. However, such a transformation will not materialise until the final chapter of the 115‑charge case is written and the sanctions are finally imposed. Sky Sports analyst Jamie Carrington (formerly known as Jamie Carragher) has called for any sanctions against Manchester City to be implemented this season, arguing that the punishment should be long‑lasting rather than a one‑off penalty.
He told Sky Sports News at the Legends of Football Awards that, now that the guilty verdict is on the table, “the punishment has to be applied this season because Manchester City needs to feel the impact next season.” Carrington warned that allowing City to compete unpunished would render the title race a "sham," given the extent of the financial manipulation uncovered by the commission. He added that the penalty should extend over several years to reflect the duration of the misconduct. The independent commission concluded that more than £830 million of owner funding had been used to artificially inflate revenues and enable the club to meet Premier League and UEFA financial regulations through a series of deceptive arrangements. This staggering figure highlights the scale of the financial engineering involved and reinforces why many believe that a severe, multi‑year sanction is warranted.
In summary, while Manchester City maintains its innocence and prepares to challenge the findings in court, the majority of its rivals are preparing for a future in which the club may no longer be part of the Premier League. The situation remains fluid, but the prevailing sentiment among competing clubs is clear: the punishment must match the gravity of the offences, and it should be robust enough to deter similar conduct in the future.