At the heart of City’s challenge to the Premier League’s financial ruling is a disagreement over the source of money recorded as sponsorship revenue during the club’s rise to prominence.
An extensive investigation by Chris Weatherspoon, published in The Athletic on Thursday, examines the independent commission’s findings alongside years of City accounts and other financial documents. It offers a detailed explanation of the arrangements that have become central to the club’s appeal.
City have rejected the commission’s conclusions and insist they possess evidence supporting their position. Their appeal, lodged earlier this month, means the findings remain contested.
Why the source of sponsorship funding matters
The commission concluded that £830.7m recorded as commercial revenue between 2009 and 2018 had actually been provided by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the investment vehicle behind City’s ownership.
According to the ruling, payments were made through sponsorship arrangements in which the sums recorded by City exceeded the amounts funded by the sponsors themselves. The commission determined that the difference was supplied by ADUG and should not have been treated as commercial income.
The accounting treatment is significant because football’s financial rules distinguish between sponsorship revenue and investment from a club’s owners. Commercial income can help offset expenditure when assessing compliance with financial regulations, while owner funding is subject to different treatment.
City dispute the commission’s account of where the money originated. As The Athletic explains, the club’s position is that the relevant funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than ADUG, which City argue makes them third-party payments.
That disagreement is one of the issues the club will seek to address through its appeal.
A wider case still under appeal
The commission’s decision also examined an arrangement involving player image rights, concluding that it had improperly increased reported income and reduced costs. Those findings form part of the wider financial case, rather than the sponsorship dispute alone.
Etihad Airways, City’s long-standing commercial partner, has separately rejected any suggestion that it was involved in improper arrangements. The airline has indicated that it is considering legal action against the Premier League.
Chief executive Ferran Soriano has continued to defend the club’s position, maintaining that City have evidence capable of challenging the allegations.
No sporting sanctions have yet been announced, and the appeal process remains unresolved. The outcome will depend on the arguments and evidence considered by the appeals panel, rather than the figures cited in the original decision.
For City, the immediate task is to challenge findings that have fundamentally altered the public understanding of the club’s financial history. How successfully they can do so will shape what follows.
