Manchester City have officially appealed against the seismic guilty verdict delivered by an independent commission on their 115 charges.
The Premier League announced on Tuesday that City have been found guilty by an independent commission of all charges against them.
It comes over three-and-a-half years after City were first charged with 115 alleged breaches in February 2023.
In an explosive verdict, the Premier League stated that the club had disguised funding of more than £900million via a series of commercial deals between 2009 and 2018.
During this period, City won eight trophies, including three Premier League titles.
The ruling by an independent panel found them guilty of inflating their revenue by around £900m through ‘sham’ contracts with sponsors, which were funded by the club’s owners.
The club and sponsors have both slammed the Premier League’s guilty verdict, with City chief executive Ferran Soriano insisting it is based on a ‘conspiracy theory’ while principal sponsor, Etihad Airways, have denied involvement in the inflated sponsorship deals.
Nevertheless, City face unprecedented sanctions unless they can overturn the verdict.
City announce appeal
Now, City have officially confirmed their appeal is underway.
A defiant club statement read: “Manchester City Football Club can confirm that at 7pm on Thursday 1st 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.”
New Premier League rules state that an appeal hearing must be held within 12 weeks of an appeal being lodged.
With the hearing only allowed to last five days, a decision will then be due within 30 days of it’s conclusion.
FA Statement
“The Independent Commission’s decision has significant implications for the integrity of the game. We are carefully considering the decision and its implications and will take action where appropriate.
“As proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City Football Club remain ongoing, we do not intend to comment further at this stage. We will, however, continue to monitor developments closely.”
How will City argue their verdict?
City will argue that the so-called ‘tagged’ sponsorship payments (totalling £830m) came from the Abu Dhabi Government and not their owner ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group).
This applies to state-controlled entities such as Etihad and Etisalat, yet the former has previously refuted Abu Dhabi Government funding as “false”.
City can point to an internal report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi in 2010, which was not intended for external publication, that concluded the Abu Dhabi Government did indeed cover the sponsorship of the club.
In their UEFA case, City denied the Etihad (or any other) sponsorship funds came from any other source other than a direct payment. Owner Sheikh Mansour provided a letter which read: “I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of MCFC.”
In 2015, the ‘Partnership for Open and Fair Skies’ wrote to the United States departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, arguing Etihad gained a competitive advantage due to receiving huge sums from the Abu Dhabi Government. They allude to the internal report referenced above, which appears to confirm this.
Yet, Etihad’s response was: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi Government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.
“In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”
Etihad’s denial that the Abu Dhabi Government helped pay for their sponsorship goes against City’s core argument, according to the verdict, that “AD Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees.”
Due to redacted names, multiple sponsors, and the phrase ‘from time to time’, City could make a case for other sponsors, but Etihad’s on-record denial doesn’t help the club’s position, according to multiple legal sources spoken to.
It is also worth reiterating that the panel, having reviewed the evidence already provided, concluded any notion the Abu Dhabi Government, not ADUG, paid the tagged sums was “concocted well after the event.”
Challenging the ‘sham’ accusation
Also central to City’s appeal will be calling into question the ‘sham’ commercial agreements cited in the Premier League’s verdict, which are alleged to have inflated their revenues.
By definition, a sham agreement needs cooperation and knowledge of all parties, and talkSPORT’s Ben Jacobs revealed City will look to disprove this.
With City’s shirt and stadium sponsors Etihad Airways publicly denying any knowledge of the commercial deals, this would give the club grounds to challenge the Premier League’s accusation.
“City semantically can say it isn’t a sham agreement and if they succeed they can call into question the legal foundations of the verdict,” Jacobs explained.
“In an appeal you can show bias, gross misconduct and error in the interpretation of the law. So City could go back and re-show the structure and say the Premier League and ultimately the panel haven’t understood how the money funneled down.
“They can question whether the facts meet the definition of a sham deal.”
When will City learn their punishment?
Applying the Premier League’s rules, City’s hearing could in theory conclude at the latest, on Christmas Day, and begin on December 21.
As that would not happen for obvious reasons, the implication is the appeal being heard from December 14.
It remains unclear whether sanctions will be announced before the appeal is heard, and whether they would take effect immediately.
Should City be successful in their appeal against the Premier League’s guilty verdict, that could then have a knock-on effect heading into a sanctions hearing, potentially dragging any verdict on longer.
Despite this, the Premier League intends to deliver a punishment verdict by the end of the season, with its clubs feeling the same.
talkSPORT understands that Premier League clubs plan to write to chief executive Richard Masters, stressing the importance of the City case, inclusive of appeals, being resolved this season.
