Manchester City have formally lodged an appeal against the decision of an independent commission that found the club guilty of every charge relating to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations. In a press release the club asserted its innocence, describing the commission's opinion as merely an "opinion" riddled with "clear material errors of law, principle and fact" and labeling the finding as "unsafe".
The commission’s investigation concluded that, over the period from the 2009/10 season through to 2017/18, Manchester City had engineered a series of sham contracts with a number of commercial partners. According to the report, these contracts formed part of a "disguised funding scheme" designed to artificially boost the club's revenue figures by roughly £830 million.
The club was given a deadline of Friday to submit an appeal and confirmed that it had done so just before midday on the day the deadline expired. In the official statement issued on Friday, Manchester City said: "Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7 p.m. on Thursday 1 October 2026 the club lodged its comprehensive appeal against the opinion of the Premier League Commission, in relation to the Premier League disciplinary matter. The club's firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.
The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete." The statement mistakenly refers to a "Premier League commission"; in reality the adjudicating body is an independent commission appointed under the league's disciplinary framework.
Manchester City remain a member of the Premier League and have signed up to its rules governing disciplinary procedures. The original three‑person tribunal took almost two years to draft its judgment, while the league's investigation began eight years ago and the club was formally charged three and a half years ago. Later on Friday the Premier League confirmed that the appeal had indeed been lodged.
The club added that the appeal was addressed to the Chair of the Judicial Panel and that the subsequent independent Appeal Board hearing would be conducted in private, with any outcome only published when permitted. Sky Sports News analyst Kaveh Solhekol explained the timetable: "The appeal was filed at 7 p.m. on Thursday, which under Premier League rules triggers a 12‑week window for the process to be completed – that takes us to the week before Christmas.
The appeal hearing itself can only last five days, and those five days must be taken in a single block. The new appeal panel – which must be a different three‑person panel from the original – has 30 days to reach a decision, meaning a judgment could be delivered by the third week of January.
This accelerated timeline was introduced into the Premier League handbook this season." Solhekol noted a possible defence for City: "Manchester City could argue that the accelerated timeline should not apply because this case has been ongoing for years and the new rule was only introduced this season. That is a point to watch." Further commentary from Sky Sports News' Lyall Thomas suggested that the club will likely argue that the extra funding recorded in its sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club's owners.
City’s legal team had previously claimed in a 2024 hearing that the funding came from the Emirate’s government, a claim the independent commission dismissed as a post‑hoc invention intended to conceal the true nature of the disguised funding scheme. Nevertheless, the club appears set to continue contesting that conclusion. Manchester City is majority‑owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, a vehicle of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and serves as the United Arab Emirates’ vice‑president and deputy prime minister. The separation between state‑backed investment and private capital from the Abu Dhabi royal family has long been a source of debate and criticism among observers.
The commission also expressed regret that its decision took so long to reach, noting that the hearing spanned from September to December 2024. After the guilty verdict was published, Manchester City released a statement on Tuesday saying it was "disappointed and surprised" by the commission’s opinion. The club reiterated its innocence and the existence of a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supporting its position, promising to be "relentless and, where necessary, proactive" in all appropriate regulatory and legal forums. City’s statement again mistakenly referred to a "Premier League commission" rather than the independent commission.
It emphasized that the club had respected due process for eight years, trusting the Premier League board and executive to act as an independent, impartial regulator free from partisan influence. The club acknowledged that it was limited in what it could say further until all future proceedings were concluded.
Looking ahead, the appeal could extend into the next year if City argues that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not govern a case that predates them. Under the new rules, the disciplinary appeal process must be wrapped up within 12 weeks, and the hearing itself cannot exceed five days. However, legal experts have suggested that City has a strong argument: the charges were brought in 2023 and the hearing took place in 2024, before the accelerated appeal timetable was added to the Premier League handbook.
If a court or the independent appeal board accepts this reasoning, the timeline could be stretched, potentially delaying a final decision until well into 2027. The new procedural rules were intended to ensure that clubs face sanctions within the same season that breaches occur, thereby enhancing the integrity and immediacy of the league’s regulatory framework.
Whether Manchester City’s appeal will succeed in securing an exemption from these rules remains to be seen, but the case is poised to become a landmark test of the Premier League’s disciplinary architecture and its capacity to handle complex financial investigations involving state‑linked ownership structures.