Manchester City’s effort to clear its name after being found guilty of violating more than a hundred Premier League financial 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 plans to argue in its upcoming appeal that the additional money received through 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 document Etihad filed with the U.S.
Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to contradict that line of defence. The filing reads, “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 ten‑year partnership between Etihad and Manchester City, which granted naming rights to the club’s stadium, and emphasizes that Etihad financed the deal entirely from its own liquidity.
The airline notes that it is common for carriers to sponsor sports teams and venues, and that its sponsorship was not a conduit for state money. Etihad’s 60‑page response was produced to counter claims that the airline benefited from market‑distorting state subsidies. Although Etihad’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, the carrier stressed that it has been government‑owned since its inception and that it does not receive direct subsidies.
Instead, it is funded through a blend of equity, shareholder contributions and commercial loans. The airline argued that these forms of financing are not subsidies under any applicable definition, but rather represent the Abu Dhabi government’s prudent investment in a successful commercial enterprise.
An independent disciplinary commission this week concluded that Manchester City had breached 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 advanced the argument at the original 2024 hearing that the extra money came from the Abu Dhabi government, not from the owners themselves, despite the close relationship between the two entities. The commission rejected this explanation, describing it as a post‑hoc fabrication designed to conceal the realities of the so‑called Disguised Funding Scheme. The club’s defence that the funding originated from the Abu Dhabi government was also raised during its appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, where City challenged a two‑year ban imposed for breaching UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations.
Former Etihad chief executive James Horgan testified at that hearing that the sponsorship obligations to Manchester City had been settled “out of Etihad's own funds,” reinforcing the airline’s earlier statements. Manchester City confirmed on Friday that it has lodged an appeal and continues to deny any wrongdoing. Sky Sports News correspondent Kaveh Solhekol explained the procedural timetable: the appeal was lodged on a Thursday at 7 p.m., and under the Premier League’s current rules the appeal must be resolved within twelve weeks, taking the deadline to the week before Christmas. The hearing itself can last no more than five days, and must be conducted in a single block.
A different three‑person panel from the original disciplinary panel will have thirty days after the hearing to deliver its judgment, potentially extending the decision into the third week of January. Solhekol and fellow reporter Amar Mehta noted that the appeal could stretch into the following year if City argues that the newly introduced speed‑up rules should not apply retroactively. The club was charged in 2023 and faced a hearing in 2024, before the Premier League Handbook was amended to include the accelerated appeal timeline.
A legal expert consulted by Sky Sports suggested that Manchester City has a strong case for contending that the new procedural rules should not be applied to a case that began under the previous regulatory framework. The introduction of the accelerated appeal process was intended to ensure that clubs are punished in the same season that violations occur, reducing the period of uncertainty for both the clubs and the league. Critics, however, argue that applying the new timetable to older cases could disadvantage clubs that prepared their defence under the old rules. Manchester City’s legal team may therefore seek a procedural exemption, arguing that the club was not afforded the opportunity to rely on the speed‑up provisions when the alleged breaches took place.
Beyond the procedural debate, the core issue remains the source of the funds that were recorded as sponsorship income. If Etihad’s 2015 filing is accurate, the airline’s sponsorship money came from its own cash reserves, not directly from the Abu Dhabi state treasury. This would undermine City’s claim that the money was state‑funded and therefore distinct from owner contributions. The distinction matters because the Premier League’s financial regulations treat owner‑provided capital differently from external sponsorship revenue, particularly when assessing compliance with the league’s profitability and sustainability rules.
The case also raises broader questions about the transparency of football club financing in an era when many top clubs are backed by sovereign wealth funds or state‑linked entities. While clubs argue that such backing is legitimate commercial investment, regulators are increasingly vigilant about disguised funding schemes that could give clubs an unfair competitive advantage. The Manchester City saga may set a precedent for how future cases involving state‑linked sponsors and owners are examined.
As the appeal proceeds, both sides will likely marshal extensive documentary evidence, witness testimony and expert analysis to support their respective narratives. Etihad’s 2015 statements, the disciplinary commission’s findings, and the testimonies presented at the CAS hearing will all play pivotal roles in shaping the final outcome. The Premier League, UEFA and the broader football community will be watching closely, as the decision could have far‑reaching implications for the governance of club finances across Europe. In summary, Manchester City’s appeal hinges on whether it can convincingly separate the source of the disputed £830 million – portraying it as state‑funded rather than owner‑funded – in light of Etihad’s explicit denial of government subsidies in its 2015 filing.
The procedural timeline, the applicability of new appeal rules, and the broader context of state‑linked investment in football will all influence the final judgment, which is expected to be delivered sometime in early 2025.