Manchester City’s effort to clear its reputation after being found guilty of breaching 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 is likely to argue during its upcoming appeal that the extra cash 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 filing Etihad presented to the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to undermine that line of reasoning. The document plainly states, "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false." It goes on to describe the 2011 agreement between Etihad and Manchester City, a ten‑year partnership that granted naming rights to the club’s stadium.
Etihad claimed that it financed the deal entirely from its own liquidity, noting that airlines commonly sponsor sports teams and venues without state assistance. The 60‑page filing was a response to allegations that Etihad benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies.
Although Etihad’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, the airline emphasized that it has been government‑owned since its inception and that it does not receive subsidies. Instead, it is funded through a mixture of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. The airline argued that these sources of capital are not subsidies under any applicable definition, but rather a prudent investment by the Abu Dhabi government in a profitable business model.
An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that City had violated 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 a defence at the original 2024 hearing, contending that the additional funding came from the Abu Dhabi government and not directly from the owners, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected that explanation, describing it as a post‑event fabrication designed to conceal the true nature of the “Disguised Funding Scheme.” The club’s argument that the extra money was supplied by the Abu Dhabi government was also raised during its Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing in Lausanne, where City appealed a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s financial fair play rules. Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to City were paid "out of Etihad's own funds," reinforcing the airline’s earlier claim of independence from state subsidies.
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 a Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the process must be completed within 12 weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself may last a maximum of five days, and it must be conducted in a single block.
A new three‑person panel, distinct from the original disciplinary panel, will have 30 days after the hearing to deliver its judgment, potentially pushing the final decision into the third week of January. These timelines reflect a speed‑up mechanism introduced into the Premier League handbook for the current season.
Both Solhekol and colleague Amar Mehta noted that City could attempt to argue that the accelerated appeal timeline should not apply to them, since the alleged violations occurred before the new rules were adopted. The club was charged in 2023 and faced a hearing in 2024, periods when the fast‑track appeal provisions were not yet part of the Premier League handbook.
A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports News suggested that Manchester City may have a solid case for seeking an exemption from the newer procedural requirements. The newly introduced rules aim to ensure that clubs are punished within the same season as the infractions, reducing the likelihood of prolonged uncertainty.
If City’s appeal proceeds under the old framework, the process could extend into the following year, potentially affecting the club’s planning and financial outlook for the upcoming season. Regardless of the procedural debate, the 2015 Etihad statement remains a pivotal piece of evidence that challenges the club’s narrative that the sponsorship money was effectively state‑funded, reinforcing the disciplinary panel’s view that the club’s explanation was crafted after the fact to mask the reality of the disguised funding arrangement.