Man City to argue £830.69m funding came from Abu Dhabi government, not owner Sheikh Mansour
Manchester City will argue in their Premier League appeal that extra funding for sponsorship deals between 2009 and 2018 came from the Abu Dhabi government, not the club's owners. An independent commission found City disguised £830.69m of owner funding as sponsorship income.
- Appeal deadline: Friday
- Disguised funding: £830.69m of owner funding disguised as sponsorship income (2009-2018)
- City's argument: Funding came from the Abu Dhabi government, not the club's owners
- Commission finding: Explanation was "concocted well after the event"
- Possibility: Appeal could drag into 2027
What was said
"concluded that it was an explanation that the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme"
This is the commission's damning verdict on City's defence. It did not merely disagree with the club — it accused City of fabricating the Abu Dhabi government explanation after the fact to hide what it calls the Disguised Funding Scheme. That language will be central to both sides as the appeal process begins.
City's legal team argued during the 2024 hearing that the funding had come from the Abu Dhabi government, but the commission rejected this. City continue to deny any wrongdoing and plan to appeal before Friday's deadline.
The numbers
- £830.69m – the amount of owner funding the commission found was disguised as sponsorship income
- 2009–2018 – the period covering the sponsorship deals in question
- 12 weeks – the maximum time for the appeal to be concluded under new Premier League rules
- 5 days – the maximum length of the appeal hearing under those same rules
- 2023 – the year City were charged
- 2024 – the year the initial hearing was held
Why City's appeal could drag into 2027
Manchester City's appeal could drag on into next year if they argue that the process should not be run according to Premier League rules which were introduced for this season. City have until Friday to file their appeal and the new rules about appeals state that this part of the disciplinary process has to be concluded within 12 weeks and the appeal hearing can last no longer than five days.
City's lawyers could argue that they were charged in 2023 and a hearing was held in 2024 – when the rules about a speeded-up appeals process were not in the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert has told Sky Sports News that City would have a strong case for arguing that the new rules should not apply in this case. The new rules were introduced to ensure that clubs, where possible, were punished in the same season as relevant rule breaches.
Analysis: Why the government argument is City's last line of defence
City's appeal hinges on a single, narrow point of attribution: who actually provided the money? The commission has already decided that the club's owners did, and that the sponsorship income was a disguise. If City can convince an appeal panel that the Abu Dhabi government was the true source, the entire finding of disguised owner funding collapses. That is why the argument is so important – and why the commission's language about a "concocted" explanation is so damaging.
The procedural battle is just as significant. City were charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before the current appeal rules existed. Those rules cap the process at 12 weeks and the hearing at five days. If City successfully argue the old handbook applies, they could stretch the timeline well beyond 2026 and into 2027. That would delay any final resolution and, crucially, any sanction.
For the Premier League, the stakes are existential. The new rules were designed to ensure clubs are punished in the same season as the breach. If City sidestep them on a procedural technicality, the league's ability to enforce its own financial rules will be undermined. Expect the appeal panel to face intense pressure to rule quickly and definitively.
Talking points
- Should City be allowed to argue that rules introduced after they were charged cannot apply to their appeal? The commission has already called their explanation "concocted".
- If the Abu Dhabi government funded the deals, does that make the disguise any less serious? The commission found owner funding was hidden either way.
- The 12-week cap was meant to protect the league's integrity. If City avoid it, what does that say about enforcement?
- City deny wrongdoing and say they have strong grounds. But the commission's wording suggests they will need to prove a lot more than a technicality.
What happens next
City have until Friday to file their appeal. Once filed, the appeal process will begin. Under the new rules, it must conclude within 12 weeks and the hearing cannot exceed five days. If City successfully challenge the application of those rules, the process could be extended into 2027. The outcome will determine whether the Premier League can impose any sanction this season, and whether City's denial of wrongdoing can survive an independent appeal.
Frequently asked questions
What will Man City argue in their appeal?
Manchester City will argue that extra funding for their sponsorship deals between 2009 and 2018 came from the Abu Dhabi government and not the club's owners.
Why did the commission reject Man City's explanation?
The commission concluded that it was an explanation the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme, and it rejected the argument during the 2024 hearing.
How long could Man City's appeal take?
Under new Premier League rules the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks and the hearing can last no longer than five days, but City could argue those rules should not apply because they were charged in 2023 and heard in 2024. If successful, the appeal could drag into 2027.
Related Articles
Filed under: Latest News | LA Premier League Home
