Manchester City face 'substantial hurdles' in appeal against Premier League financial rule breaches
Manchester City face "substantial hurdles" if they are to win their appeal after being found guilty of breaking the Premier League's financial rules, a leading lawyer has told BBC Sport. The club were found guilty of all charges relating to breaches between 2009-10 and 2017-18 and creating "sham contracts" to inflate sponsorship deals by £830m.
- Charge: Guilty of all charges related to Premier League financial rules breaches between 2009-10 and 2017-18.
- Key finding: Creation of "sham contracts" to inflate sponsorship deals by £830m.
- City's stance: "Innocent of the accusations" with "irrefutable evidence" ruling is "unsafe".
- Appeal grounds: Material errors of law, principle and fact, plus inconsistencies in the Commission's judgement.
- Timeframe: Appeal must be heard within 12 weeks under Premier League regulations.
What was said
"City will need to identify a material error of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness, which materially affected the Commission's decision."
"The Appeal Board nevertheless has broad powers to allow or dismiss the appeal, vary the decision or make any other order it considers appropriate."
"The bank statements, government records and contemporaneous payment documents could be powerful evidence if they establish a clear audit trail showing the disputed funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the owners."
"However, if that evidence was already before the Commission, which nevertheless concluded that the arrangements were a sham, City will face an uphill struggle to demonstrate the finding was materially wrong."
"Etihad was not the respondent and is unlikely to have had an independent right to participate in the proceedings. It is likely to have been open to either party to obtain and present such evidence to the Commission."
"If the Appeal Board is prepared to consider new evidence from Etihad, it is likely to carry greater weight if supported by contemporaneous documents."
"The Commission must have concluded that the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses put up by Manchester City were poor."
"However, from a legal point of view, this is an area they could attack if Manchester City's team can prove that the commission itself was a flawed construct in the sense that the members were Premier League picks rather than Manchester City's, and therefore the deck was stacked against the club to begin with. But that seems remote."
"Given the lawyers that have been recruited by Manchester City, they may go down what's been described to me as a mess and noise approach. That means trying to discredit everything to do with the process of the Commission rather than necessarily the evidence that was presented."
"I've seen the documents that Abu Dhabi presented to the New York case. I'm not a lawyer, but from an accounting point of view, they can be seen in more than one way."
Severn's assessment underscores the legal difficulty City face: they must show not merely that the Commission erred, but that any error was material to the outcome. The Appeal Board's broad discretionary powers mean it could dismiss the appeal outright, vary the decision or impose an entirely different order. City's best hope lies in demonstrating the Commission misinterpreted emails or ignored crucial context, but the Commission heard extensive witness and documentary evidence before concluding the arrangements were a sham.
Maguire suggests City may adopt a "mess and noise" strategy — attacking the process and the Commission's composition rather than the underlying evidence. That approach faces long odds, not least because the Commission comprised retired senior judges and leading barristers, as Severn notes, who have "spent their careers interpreting complicated facts, dealing with witnesses and applying relevant weight to evidence."
Why Manchester City's appeal hinges on material errors and the Etihad evidence
Manchester City's appeal will argue the payments were made by the United Arab Emirates government as a shareholder of the sponsors, meaning the sponsorship amounts were legitimate and not topped up by the owners. The club also point to inconsistencies in the Commission's judgement. According to James Severn, City must prove available evidence was misinterpreted — specifically that the Commission fundamentally misunderstood the Football Leaks emails, failed to consider their proper context, or reached conclusions inconsistent with other contemporaneous documents. That could amount to a material factual error, but City's difficulty is that the Commission heard extensive witness and documentary evidence and still made serious findings of sham arrangements and disguised owner funding.
Etihad Airways, one of City's principal sponsors at the centre of the case, had previously stated in court documents as part of a US investigation in New York in 2015 that the Abu Dhabi government had not paid for its sponsorship of Manchester City. City will argue this does not have the full context and is not proof they have been inconsistent with evidence. Shortly before City's appeal was confirmed, Etihad issued a statement saying it had never been "given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon." Severn counters that this complaint "does not, of itself, establish procedural unfairness" because Etihad was not the respondent and is unlikely to have had an independent right to participate. If the Appeal Board does consider new evidence from Etihad, it will carry greater weight if supported by contemporaneous documents.
Maguire believes that while it will be difficult for City to be successful, "there is a route" — but it involves discrediting the process rather than the evidence. He notes the Commission found "the documents were retrofitted to fit the crime" and must have concluded the evidence and witness credibility put up by Manchester City were poor. City could attack the Commission as a flawed construct if its members were Premier League picks rather than City's, but Maguire calls that "remote." The Appeal Board must decide whether City can clear the substantial hurdles Severn identifies. Even though Premier League regulations state an appeal must be heard within 12 weeks, or by Christmas Eve, Severn adds that given the scale and complexity, a final outcome may not be known for some time.
Talking points
- City's "irrefutable evidence" claim feels bold given much of it was already before the Commission — can new Etihad testimony really swing the Appeal Board?
- The "mess and noise" strategy risks alienating the panel, but with nothing to lose on the facts, discrediting the process may be City's only play.
- Etihad's complaint about not being represented sounds compelling, but Severn's view that it doesn't establish procedural unfairness is a major obstacle.
- If the appeal drags beyond Christmas Eve, the uncertainty hangs over City's season and the Premier League's credibility — a swift resolution suits nobody perfectly.
What happens next
The Appeal Board must hear the case within 12 weeks under Premier League regulations, but Severn warns a final outcome may take longer given the scale and complexity. City's legal team will now prepare to demonstrate material errors of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness. The stakes could hardly be higher: City's reputation and the Premier League's enforcement regime are on trial, with Etihad's evidence and the Commission's handling of it at the heart of the fight.
Frequently asked questions
What were Manchester City found guilty of?
City were found guilty of all charges related to breaches of the Premier League's financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons, and creating "sham contracts" to inflate sponsorship deals by £830m.
What grounds do Manchester City have for their appeal?
City will argue the payments were made by the UAE government as a shareholder of the sponsors, meaning sponsorship amounts were legitimate, and point to inconsistencies in the Commission's judgement. They must identify a material error of law, principle or fact, or serious procedural unfairness.
When will Manchester City's appeal be heard?
Premier League regulations state an appeal must be heard within 12 weeks, or by Christmas Eve, but lawyer James Severn says a final outcome may not be known for some time given the scale and complexity of the proceedings.
Related Articles
Filed under: Latest News | LA Premier League Home
