# The Manchester City Case

> A source-led timeline of the Premier League's financial charges against Manchester City (the '115 charges'): the money, the contracts, the Commission's 29 September 2026 decision, possible sanctions, the appeal and reactions.

Key facts: an independent Commission published its decision on 29 September 2026, finding all serious financial charges proved and three of four co-operation allegations upheld. BBC Sport's analysis puts owner-funded sums recorded as sponsorship at £830.69m over nine seasons (2009/10 to 2017/18). Sanctions have not been decided and will be set at a separate hearing. Manchester City deny wrongdoing and said they will appeal (deadline 2 October 2026).

## Primary sources
- [Commission decision](https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- [Premier League statement](https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4727779/premier-league-statement-manchester-city-fc/)

## Pages
- [Full timeline](https://themanchestercitycase.com/): the money, players, trophies, timeline, decision, sanctions, precedents (Everton, Nottingham Forest, Leicester, Luton, Derby, Rangers, Juventus), other bodies and reactions.
- [Privacy policy](https://themanchestercitycase.com/privacy)
- [RSS feed](https://themanchestercitycase.com/feed.xml)

## Timeline
- **September 2008: A new owner, a new scale of spending.** Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) acquires City. By late 2009, the Commission says the club anticipated substantial losses and needed owner equity to fund its ambitions. Source: Decision ¶¶46–66 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **2009/10 season: The financial pressure becomes clear.** City feared its loss might exceed the then-record £140m single-season Premier League loss. The Commission says the club wanted to avoid that outcome while meeting future financial fair-play rules. Key figure: £140m (loss benchmark the club feared passing). Source: Decision ¶¶64–66 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **Early 2010: The disguised funding scheme begins.** The Commission found that certain sponsorship contracts stated a fee that the commercial partner was not actually liable to pay in full. The sponsor paid a smaller base sum; ADUG paid the balance, called the ‘tagged sum’. City recorded the whole amount as commercial income rather than identifying the owner funding as equity. Source: Decision ¶¶63, 67–68 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **Nine seasons · 2009/10–2017/18: The nine-season ledger.** The Commission found owner-funded sums were recorded as sponsorship income. BBC Sport has broken the published findings down season by season and placed them beside reported transfer spending and league results. The columns show what happened at the same time; they do not establish which purchases the funding paid for. Key figure: £830.69m (owner-funded sums counted as sponsorship · BBC analysis). Source: BBC Sport season-by-season analysis; Decision ¶101(a) (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9lyk46gekkeo)
- **Third quarter of 2012: Project Longbow.** City began a programme to increase revenue and reduce operating losses. The Commission accepted that many strands were legitimate; it singled out the Fordham image-rights arrangement as not legitimate. Source: Decision ¶¶83–84 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **Fordham arrangement: Image rights moved off the books.** The Commission found that a fee for players’ image rights was in substance owner funding, not operating income. It also found that image-rights payments made by ADUG should have appeared as City’s operating expenses. Key figure: £24.5m (income the Commission said was owner equity). Source: Decision ¶¶101(e), 136–139 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **Fordham arrangement · continued: The other side of the image-rights deal.** The same arrangement left £49.414m of operating expenses out of the club’s accounts, according to the Commission. This is a distinct accounting effect from the £24.5m income finding. Key figure: £49.414m (operating expenses omitted). Source: Decision ¶101(e) (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **Remuneration arrangements: Three further costs concealed.** The redacted decision identifies three ADUG-funded remuneration arrangements whose true liabilities were not reflected in City's accounts. Names and some contract details are redacted in the public version, so these amounts should not be assigned to named individuals from the decision alone. Source: Decision ¶¶93–101 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **2013/14 season: UEFA asks questions.** UEFA questioned certain Abu Dhabi-linked sponsorship agreements and City's break-even compliance. No finding was made in that investigation; the parties entered a settlement in May 2014. The Commission later found the submitted figures had included the disguised sponsorship income. Source: Decision ¶¶81, 102 (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **From 2015/16: Domestic spending limits apply.** Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules used a £105m loss threshold over a rolling three-year period. The Commission found City in significant breach of Premier League and UEFA spending limits. Key figure: £105m (three-year loss threshold under PSR). Source: Decision ¶43; PL statement (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **November–December 2018: Leaks, then investigation.** Der Spiegel published leaked material in November. The Premier League's investigation began in December, leading to a prolonged dispute over document production and co-operation. Der Spiegel also said its evidence appeared to show former manager Roberto Mancini had a secret second contract: £1.45m net from City, plus £1.75m paid to a company connected to him for a four-day annual consultancy at Abu Dhabi club Al Jazira. That was the magazine's claim, reported again by Sky Sports in October 2026. Source: Decision ¶¶103 onward (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **February–July 2020: A separate UEFA case is overturned.** UEFA initially imposed a two-season European ban and €30m fine. CAS later overturned the ban, finding most alleged breaches not established or time-barred, but upheld a failure-to-cooperate finding and reduced the fine to €10m. This was a separate case from the Premier League proceedings. Source: CAS media release, 13 July 2020 (https://www.tas-cas.org/generated/assets/lists/dceab111-07bc-435f-b5f9-de88eff9db72/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf)
- **6 February 2023: The Premier League refers the charges.** After a four-year investigation, the League referred alleged breaches across four categories to an independent Commission. The case became known as the ‘115 charges’. Source: Premier League charge announcement (https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/3045970)
- **16 September–6 December 2024: The private hearing.** The Commission heard the case over 42 sitting days. Its published core decision refers to 37 appendices that have not been published, limiting the contract-by-contract detail available for independent scrutiny. Key figure: 42 (days of hearings). Source: Decision ¶¶6–7; appendices list (https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/09/29/9bb3f063-6312-4d15-a1f1-77280d356a49/Premier-League-Manchester-City-independent-Commission-Redacted-Core-Decision.pdf)
- **29 September 2026: The core decision is published.** The Commission found all serious financial charges proved and three of four co-operation allegations upheld. Its decision describes intentional circumvention of the rules. City denies wrongdoing and can appeal. Key figure: 3 / 4 (co-operation allegations upheld). Source: Premier League statement & decision (https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4727779/premier-league-statement-manchester-city-fc/)
- **29 September 2026, evening: City say they will appeal.** In a statement the same night, City said they were innocent, that the decision contained "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact", and that they would pursue the appeal routes open to them. Source: Club statement, reported by UPI (https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/Soccer/2026/09/30/england-Manchester-City-innocence-appeal-charges/4511790771845/)
- **29 September 2026: City: "disappointed and surprised".** City's formal statement said the club was "both disappointed and surprised" by the decision, that it is "innocent of the accusations" and that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists" for its positions. It promised to be "relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums." The statement called it a Premier League commission; it was an independent one. Source: Manchester City statement, via Sky Sports (https://www.skysports.com/football/news/13593377/man-city-premier-league-charges-appeal-process-punishment-hearing-and-what-happens-now-after-guilty-verdict)
- **30 September 2026: Players asked, players silent.** On international duty with Portugal, City defender Rúben Dias said: "I understand the question perfectly. But I also ask you to understand that I will not comment on anything that is not related to the Portugal national team." Source: Sky Sports News (https://www.skysports.com/man-city)
- **1 October 2026: The fallout spreads.** Reuters reports that Etihad Airways is taking legal advice and that rival clubs are considering compensation claims. No sporting sanction has been imposed, and City remain top of the Premier League. Source: Reuters, via The Straits Times (https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/football/man-city-appeal-looms-as-game-grapples-with-fallout-from-guilty-verdict)
- **1 October 2026: The appeal’s central argument emerges.** City are expected to tell an appeal board that the money topped up to sponsors came from the Abu Dhabi government, not the club’s owners, backed by what the club calls ‘irrefutable evidence’ including bank statements and witness accounts. The Commission rejected that explanation as ‘untrue’ in its findings, concluding it was concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme. Source: BBC Sport, 1 October 2026 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjkg7g93y5yno)
- **1 October 2026: An appeal that could run into 2027.** Under new appeal rules introduced this season, the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks and the hearing can last no longer than five days. City were charged in 2023 and heard in 2024, before those rules existed, and a legal expert told Sky Sports News the club would have a strong case for arguing they should not apply. Sky reports the club plans to file before the 2 October deadline. Source: Sky Sports, 1 October 2026 (https://www.skysports.com/football/news/13593377/man-city-premier-league-charges-appeal-process-punishment-hearing-and-what-happens-now-after-guilty-verdict)
- **1 October 2026: The problem with the appeal argument.** Sky Sports News' Kaveh Solhekol sees two problems with arguing the roughly £830m came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the owners. City already made that argument at the autumn 2024 hearing and the Commission dismissed it. And the line between the two is thin: City are majority owned by Sheikh Mansour's Newton Investment and Development LLC, and Sheikh Mansour is a member of Abu Dhabi's ruling family and vice president and deputy prime minister of the UAE. He called it "a long shot", but one part of City's strategy. Source: Kaveh Solhekol, Sky Sports News (https://www.skysports.com/man-city)
- **1 October 2026: Parliament asks about tax.** The Treasury Committee chair, Dame Meg Hillier MP, wrote to HMRC's permanent secretary JP Marks asking whether HMRC has an unredacted copy of the decision, seeking "reassurance from HMRC that you are seized of the importance of these issues and the public interest in the case", and an overview of its work on football clubs, including the taxation of remuneration. HMRC could examine whether City paid the right tax and national insurance across the nine seasons. A reply is due by 15 October 2026. No tax investigation has been announced. Source: Sky Sports News (https://www.skysports.com/man-city)
- **Still to be decided: Sanctions and appeal.** No punishment was set in the core decision. A further confidential hearing will decide sanctions. City are expected to file an appeal before the 2 October 2026 deadline; if the new appeal rules apply, the appeal must be concluded within 12 weeks, though the club may argue the rules do not cover a case charged in 2023. A new three-person commission would hear the appeal, and that would end this part of the process. City cannot go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport this time; their only further route would be the High Court, arguing the process was not fair and impartial. The outcome should not be treated as final while appeal rights remain. Source: Sky Sports appeal analysis; Premier League statement (https://www.skysports.com/football/news/13593377/man-city-premier-league-charges-appeal-process-punishment-hearing-and-what-happens-now-after-guilty-verdict)