Manchester City’s defence against more than 100 Premier League financial rule breaches faces scrutiny following a 2015 filing submitted by Etihad Airways to the US government, Sky Sports News reported. The club reportedly planned to argue during their appeal that additional funding for sponsorship deals originated from the Abu Dhabi government rather than their majority owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
Etihad Airways 2015 US Government Filing Contradicts Defence Strategy
In May 2015, Etihad submitted a 60-page filing to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State responding to claims of receiving market-distorting state subsidies. The airline stated in the document that the assertion the Abu Dhabi government paid for its sponsorship of Manchester City was false. Etihad asserted that in 2011, the airline and the football club entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement including stadium naming rights, funded entirely from its own liquidity.
Etihad’s sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government. The airline maintained in its submission that it receives no subsidies from the state and finances its operations through equity, shareholder loans, and commercial loans.
Independent Commission Rejects Disguised Funding Explanation
An independent disciplinary commission concluded this week that Manchester City broke financial rules by disguising £830m of owner funding as sponsorship income across nine seasons between 2009 and 2018. City lawyers put forward the defence during the 2024 hearing that the extra funding came from the Abu Dhabi government instead of the owners. The three-person panel rejected this explanation in Tuesday’s published judgement, concluding the club concocted it well after the event to conceal a disguised funding scheme.
This defence differs from City's stance during their Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing in Lausanne when appealing a two-year ban for breaking UEFA financial fair play rules. Witness evidence at that hearing from former Etihad chief executive James Horgan stated that sponsorship obligations to City were paid out of Etihad’s own funds. Manchester City confirmed their appeal on Friday and continue to deny any wrongdoing.
Premier League Rules Limit Appeal Timeline Length
Sky Sports News reporter Kaveh Solhekol outlined the schedule following City’s appeal submission on Thursday at 7 pm. Under Premier League rules introduced this season, the appeal must be resolved within 12 weeks, placing the deadline in the week before Christmas. The appeal hearing can last a maximum of five days in a single block. A newly appointed three-person appeal panel would then have 30 days to deliver a judgement, which would fall into the third week of January.
City lawyers could argue that the expedited appeal process should not apply because the club was charged in 2023 and the original hearing took place in 2024 before these rules entered the Premier League Handbook. A legal expert told Sky Sports News that Manchester City would have a strong case for arguing against the application of the new rules, potentially dragging the appeal into next year.
Frequently Asked Questions About Manchester City Appeal Timeline
When did Manchester City submit their appeal against the Premier League charges?
Manchester City submitted their formal appeal on Thursday at 7 pm, according to Sky Sports News.
How much money was allegedly disguised as sponsorship income?
An independent disciplinary commission found that City broke financial rules by disguising £830m of owner funding as sponsorship income over nine seasons between 2009 and 2018.
What did Etihad Airways state in its 2015 US government filing?
Etihad stated in a May 2015 filing to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State that claims the Abu Dhabi government paid for its sponsorship of Manchester City were false, maintaining that the airline funded the agreement from its own liquidity.
Who stated that Etihad paid sponsorship obligations out of its own funds?
Former Etihad Airways chief executive James Horgan provided witness evidence at the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing stating that sponsorship obligations to City were paid out of Etihad’s own funds.
More on Manchester City
Keep reading