Man City's 115 charges: the story in 31 slides

1. 1998End of 1997/98

   Down to the third tier

   City were relegated to Division Two. It was the first time in more than 100 years that the club had dropped to the third tier of English football.

   Decision¶47

2. 2002End of 2001/02

   Back in the Premier League

   City returned to the top flight. In the seasons that followed they finished between 8th and 15th.

   Decision¶47

3. 2008

   By 2008 the Club was loss-making and not thriving following a sustained period of under-investment.

4. Sep 2008

   ADUG buys the club

   ADUG, a private Abu Dhabi investment company ultimately owned by Sheikh Mansour, bought 90% of City. It bought the remaining 10% the following year. Sheikh Mansour wrote an open letter to his "fellow Manchester City fans" saying he was buying the club in a private capacity. The Commission says he appears to have done so to answer media speculation that the club had really been bought by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi itself.

   Decision¶49

5. 2008/09and 2009/10

   £485m of owner money in two seasons

   In its first season ADUG put more than £190m of equity into the club. In 2009/10 it added another £295m. For years afterwards City kept asking ADUG for funding, and ADUG kept paying.

   Decision¶53

1. Late 2009

   The deals don't come

   By the second half of 2009 City had not brought in the commercial revenue it had budgeted for. Doing deals, including with Abu Dhabi sponsors, was harder than expected. The club was forecasting very large losses for 2009/10 and the years after.

   Decision¶64

2. 2009/10

   A record City would not break

   there was real concern that the Club's total losses in the 2009/10 season would exceed what was at that time the record single season financial loss by a PL member club (Chelsea FC in 2006) of £140million. That was a record that the Club was adamant it should not break

3. 2009

   Owner money would not count

   UEFA was drawing up Financial Fair Play rules with a break-even test. Money an owner pays in would not count as income. Sponsorship would. More cash from ADUG could not fix City's problem. Only much bigger commercial revenue could, and quickly.

   Same £100m, two different results

   From the owner

   Counts towards break-even: £0

   From a sponsor

   Counts towards break-even: £100m

   Illustration of the rule described in the decision, footnotes 5 and 6

   Decision¶65(b), ¶66

1. Early 2010

   The plan

   in early 2010 the Club devised a plan to disguise shareholder funding (i.e. equity contributions paid by ADUG) as 'commercial partner revenue'

2. How it worked

   Abu Dhabi sponsorsigns for a fee far above market value

   ADUGCity's owner

   £119.25mBase Sum

   £830.69mTagged Sum

   Manchester Cityreceives both

   Sponsorship income in City's accounts£949.94m

   The £830.69m from ADUG is never shown as money from the owner.

   1. City signs a sponsorship deal with an Abu Dhabi company. The fee in the contract, the Recorded Sponsorship Fee, is well above market value.

   2. The sponsor only ever owes, and pays, a fraction of it. The decision calls this the Base Sum.

   3. ADUG pays City the rest. The decision calls this the Tagged Sum.

   4. City books the whole fee as sponsorship income and hides that the Tagged Sum came from its owner.

   Decision¶63, ¶67, ¶72, ¶80. Totals are for 2009/10–2017/18.

3. From 2010

   Paperwork to match

   we concluded that the were documents generated by or on the instruction of for the purpose of a) Reassuring AD Sponsors that, irrespective of the actual terms of the AD Sponsorship Agreement entered into, their own liabilities and obligations would not exceed the Base Fee, and b) Concealing the existence of the Disguised Funding Scheme and the realities of the AD Sponsorship Agreements from third parties such as regulators and auditors should the need arise.

4. Every season

   Hidden even from the auditors

   City "tweaked" the scheme from time to time to keep it concealed and to head off difficult questions from regulators and its auditors. It worked for years. Regulators, and even City's own auditors, did not know the true source of the "sponsorship" money.

   Decision¶71, footnote 7

5. Terms

   Recorded Sponsorship Fee

   The fee written in the contract.

   Base Sum

   The part the sponsor actually owed and paid.

   Tagged Sum

   The rest, paid by ADUG.

   ADUG

   Abu Dhabi United Group, the company that owned City.

   AD

   Abu Dhabi.

   FMV

   Fair market value.

   PSR

   The Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules.

   CLFFPRs

   UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

1. 2017

   The hack

   City's servers were hacked.

   Decision¶103

2. Nov 2018

   Der Spiegel publishes

   The German magazine ran a series of articles questioning, among other things, the true source of City's sponsorship fees.

   Decision¶103

3. Dec 2018

   Two investigations open

   The articles prompted investigations by UEFA and by the Premier League. The League began its inquiry in December 2018.

   Decision¶104 · PL statement29 Sep 2026

4. Feb 2020

   UEFA bans City

   UEFA banned City from its club competitions for two seasons and fined it €30m.

   ContextUEFA and news reports, 14 Feb 2020

5. Jul 2020

   CAS overturns the ban

   The Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned UEFA's ban. It found most of the alleged breaches were either not established or time-barred, and cut the fine to €10m for City's failure to co-operate with UEFA's investigation. The Commission deals with that award in Appendix 12, which has not been published yet.

   ContextUEFA and news reports, 13 Jul 2020 · Decision¶104

1. 2018–2023Dec 2018 to Feb 2023

   Stopping the investigation

   The Club made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation.

   The League brought four co-operation charges. Three were proven: most of 4(A), all of 4(C) and 4(D). Charge 4(B) was not proven. The details are in Appendices 33 and 34, which are not yet published.

   Rules citedCo-operationB.16 B.19 W.1 W.2 W.12 W.13 and later numbers

   Decision¶157 · PL statement29 Sep 2026

2. 6 Feb 2023

   Charged

   The League referred City to an independent commission over more than 100 alleged breaches of its rules. City said it welcomed the review and pointed to "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" supporting its position.

   PL statement6 Feb 2023 · ContextCity statement, 6 Feb 2023

3. Jun 2023

   The treble

   Four months after being charged, City won the Premier League, the FA Cup and the Champions League.

   Contextnews reports, June 2023

4. 2023–2024

   The paperwork

   The League's charges and statement of facts ran to about 500 pages, plus 50 pages of further information. City's answer ran to more than 200 pages and denied every charge. Disclosure meant searching many millions of documents, most of the burden falling on City.

   Decision¶10–¶12, ¶15

1. 16 Sep – 6 Dec 2024

   42 days

   The hearing was held in private. Witnesses gave evidence on 34 of the 42 days. The Commission heard 27 factual witnesses, 6 called by the League and the rest by City, plus experts in six fields, from Abu Dhabi politics to Swiss law. The transcripts ran to about 7,000 pages.

   Decisioncover page, ¶15–¶16, ¶18, ¶27

2. City's case

   The CPC explanation

   City said every sponsor paid its full fee from its own funds. Where sponsors needed help, City said, the Abu Dhabi government gave it through a body called the CPC, in exactly the amounts the League called Tagged Sums. The Commission rejected this as untrue.

   it was an 'explanation' that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme

   Decision¶76–¶77, footnote 9

3. Witnesses

   Evidence the Commission called false

   evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses called to give evidence on behalf of the Club was false in a number of key respects, and that certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew to be untrue and so had been dishonest.

   Decision¶29. Names are in Appendix 6, not yet published.

4. Arguments

   City's attacks on the League fail

   City criticised how the League investigated and prosecuted the case, and challenged its power to bring the charges at all. The Commission rejected the criticisms and the challenges. None of City's defences succeeded.

   Decision¶36, ¶108

1. 662 days6 Dec 2024 to 29 Sep 2026

   The wait

   It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated would be the case when the hearing concluded, to produce our Decision. That is regrettable.

2. 25 Sep 2026

   The leak

   Four days before the decision was published, The Athletic reported that City had been found guilty on all but one of the charges. City's chairman answered with a letter to fans.

   Contextnews reports, 25 Sep 2026 · Manchester City chairman's letter

3. 29 Sep 2026

   Guilty

   The League published a redacted, 40-page Core Decision. Every financial charge was proven, along with three of the four co-operation charges. The appendices with the detailed reasoning will follow.

   By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.

   This disciplinary case, and this decision, are the most significant in Premier League history.

   PL statement29 Sep 2026 · Read the Core Decision (PDF) · League statement (text)

4. 29 Sep 2026

   City's response

   City said it was "both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League Commission", that it is "innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League", and that "the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe".

   ContextManchester City statement, 29 Sep 2026

5. After the verdict

   Reaction

   The Football Association said the decision has "significant implications for the integrity of the game". The chief of the Independent Football Regulator said it "raises serious issues".

   Contextnews reports

6. 1 Oct 2026

   City appeals

   At 7pm on 1 October, a day before the deadline, City lodged what it called a "comprehensive appeal". Its firm position, it said, is that "the opinion contains clear material errors". The League confirmed the appeal the next day. A three-member Appeal Board will hear it in private.

   PL statement2 Oct 2026 · ContextManchester City statement, 1 Oct 2026

PL statements29 Sep and 2 Oct 2026