Manchester City’s effort to clear its reputation after being found guilty of breaching more than a hundred Premier League financial regulations has hit a fresh snag. A 2015 statement submitted by the club’s principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, to several U.S. government departments now appears to contradict the explanation the club intends to rely on in its upcoming appeal.
According to Sky Sports News, City’s legal team plans to argue that the extra money recorded as sponsorship income actually originated from the Abu Dhabi government, not from the club’s majority shareholders, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). The strategy is designed to separate the club’s owners from the source of the funds, suggesting that the money was a state contribution rather than private investment, which could potentially mitigate the severity of the sanction. However, a May 2015 filing by Etihad to the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State tells a different story.
In that document, Etihad explicitly denied that the Abu Dhabi government financed its sponsorship of Manchester City. The airline wrote: “The assertion that the Abu Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.” The filing goes on to describe the original 2011 agreement between Etihad and the club, a ten‑year partnership that granted naming rights to the stadium and other branding opportunities. Etihad claimed the sponsorship was funded entirely from its own liquidity, stating, “It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.” The 60‑page document was prepared as a response to allegations that Etihad benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies.
While Etihad acknowledges that the airline is wholly owned by the Abu Dhabi government, it insists that it receives no direct subsidies. Instead, the carrier says it is financed through a mix of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. In its own words, “Our shareholder’s equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model.” These statements directly challenge City’s claim that the sponsorship money was effectively state‑funded. An independent disciplinary commission recently concluded that Manchester City disguised £830 million of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons, spanning 2009 to 2018.
The panel described the club’s later explanation as a post‑hoc invention intended to hide the reality of the “Disguised Funding Scheme.” City’s lawyers have already presented the government‑funding defence at the original 2024 hearing, despite the obvious links between the Abu Dhabi government and the airline that sponsors the club. The commission rejected the argument, noting that it appeared to be crafted after the fact. The club’s defence was also rejected during a previous appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where the club contested a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. During the CAS hearing, former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds.” That testimony aligns with the 2015 filing and further undermines City’s claim that the money was a direct government grant.
Nevertheless, Manchester City has officially lodged its appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing. The appeal process, as outlined in the Premier League’s updated handbook, is subject to a strict timeline introduced this season. According to Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol, the appeal was filed on a Thursday at 7 p.m., triggering a 12‑week window for the club to complete the process.
The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and the panel—required to be a different three‑person panel from the original disciplinary committee—has 30 days after the hearing to render its decision. This schedule could push the final judgment into the third week of January, just before the Christmas break. The new rules were designed to accelerate disciplinary outcomes so that clubs are punished within the same season as the breach.
However, City’s legal team may argue that the rules should not apply retroactively because the alleged violations occurred before the handbook was amended. A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports News suggested that Manchester City could have a strong case for exempting itself from the accelerated timeline, noting that the club was charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the speed‑up provisions were introduced.
If the appeal does extend beyond the current season, it could create further uncertainty for the Premier League’s enforcement regime and for other clubs watching the case closely. The outcome will likely hinge on how convincingly City can separate the sponsorship money from the club’s owners and demonstrate that the funds were genuinely state‑provided, a claim now at odds with Etihad’s own 2015 statements. In summary, Manchester City’s appeal faces a significant evidentiary hurdle.
The airline’s filing, which emphasizes that Etihad’s sponsorship was financed from its own resources and not from a direct Abu Dhabi government grant, directly contradicts the narrative the club hopes to present. As the appeal proceeds under the Premier League’s newly accelerated timetable, the club must not only navigate procedural constraints but also reconcile its defence with the documented statements of its sponsor. The final ruling, expected in early 2027, will determine whether the club’s attempt to rewrite its financial history succeeds or whether the disciplinary commission’s original findings stand firm.