Sympathy is scarce among other clubs after an independent disciplinary commission exposed the extent of Manchester City’s rule violations spanning nine seasons, publishing its findings last week. While City’s legal team gears up for an appeal and a forthcoming sanctions hearing—following a verdict that found the club guilty of more than one hundred breaches of Premier League regulations—rivals both in England and across Europe are insisting that any penalty must correspond to the seriousness of the offence. The prospect of City taking its fight all the way to the High Court has heightened concerns among competing clubs about the damage being inflicted on the Premier League’s reputation and integrity. They argue that the dispute is costly, not only in financial terms but also in the erosion of public trust, and they criticize City for what they see as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for its actions.
City, for its part, maintains that it has done nothing wrong. The club’s representatives claim they possess a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" that supports their innocence, and they have formally lodged an appeal against the commission’s decision.
Nevertheless, a brief review of the published report makes clear the magnitude of the challenge facing City’s lawyers when the appeal hearing, scheduled before Christmas, inevitably begins. The commission’s findings represent some of the most severe financial misconduct ever recorded in English football. Over a nine‑year period, the club allegedly engaged in systematic breaches that distorted competition, prompting many of its rivals to conclude that Enzo Maresca’s side will not be competing in the Premier League next season. A simple points deduction, they argue, would be insufficient if it merely relegated City for a single season while allowing the underlying behaviour to go largely unpunished.
From a pragmatic perspective, other clubs recognise that City’s removal from the top flight would also reduce the number of relegated teams this season, remove a perennial title contender, and free up an additional European qualification spot. While self‑interest naturally plays a role, the broader consensus among Premier League clubs is that the rules must be applied uniformly, regardless of a club’s size or stature. A punishment that lasts only one season would not reflect the multi‑year nature of the violations.
City’s rivals will not take part in the upcoming sanctions hearing, which may run concurrently with the appeal process. The same three‑person panel that heard evidence during the 42‑day hearing earlier this year will reconvene to determine the appropriate sanctions 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.
Historical precedent offers some guidance. In 2023, the Premier League argued that Everton should receive a twelve‑point deduction for a single breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules.
After an appeal, Everton’s penalty was reduced to six points. Both sides were allowed to appeal, and the process demonstrated how protracted and complex these disputes can become. With City also appealing, clubs anticipate that this marathon legal battle could extend well into the following year.
Many executives have expressed a desire to bring an end to the litigious climate that now characterises English football. Some propose adopting an "NFL model" in which the league speaks with a single, unified voice on disciplinary matters. However, such a shift will not materialise until the final chapter of the 115‑charge case is written. Sky Sports analyst Jamie Carrington (formerly Jamie Carragher) has urged that any sanctions against Manchester City be imposed this season, arguing that the punishment should be long‑lasting rather than a one‑off penalty.
He highlighted the commission’s conclusion that more than £830 million of owner funding was funneled through sham arrangements to inflate revenues and meet both Premier League and UEFA financial regulations. Carrington told Sky Sports News at the Legends of Football Awards, "Now that we know they’re guilty, yes, there’s an appeal, but the initial verdict is massive. No one wants to wait. It has to be done this season because Manchester City must be affected for next season.
The word right now is ‘sham’; it would make the title this season a sham if City were allowed to win after what we now know. The punishment cannot be a one‑off for one season; it needs to span years, reflecting the years of misconduct." In summary, the reaction from City’s rivals is a blend of pragmatic self‑interest and principled concern for the sport’s integrity. They are united in the belief that any sanction must be proportionate to the scale and duration of the violations, and that a fleeting penalty would fail to deter future transgressions. As the appeal and sanction processes unfold, the football world will watch closely to see whether the Premier League can enforce a punishment that both restores confidence in its governance and sends a clear message that no club is above the rules.