Etihad Airways says it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication" that it was involved in improper arrangements

Etihad AirwaysEtihad Airways, in a corporate statement

In a statement on September 30, 2026, Etihad Airways, City's principal shirt sponsor, said it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements." It said the league's public communication of the findings, "following a period of selective leaks and reporting," had created "damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named," and that "At no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad." It said "We stand with the club" as City challenges the commission's conclusions, and that Etihad "will seek the relevant legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests."

Responding to

Etihad Airways, City's principal shirt sponsor, said on September 30, 2026 that it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements," and that "At no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the commission's opinion."

“Etihad Airways has reviewed the Premier League commission's published opinion relating to the disciplinary proceedings involving Manchester City, together with the Premier League's public communication of its findings. Etihad categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements. The Premier League's public communication of the commission's findings, following a period of selective leaks and reporting, has further created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the redacted published findings. At no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the commission's opinion. Etihad was therefore never given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon in reaching conclusions that may now be interpreted as reflecting adversely on the airline. Etihad is deeply concerned by the way this matter has been communicated publicly. The lack of clarity and transparency, together with the selective disclosure of information, has created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the published decision. The Premier League must take responsibility for the consequences of the way in which these findings have been presented. Etihad is immensely proud of its longstanding relationship with Manchester City. The Etihad name has been proudly carried by the club and its stadium for many years, as part of a partnership that has connected us with millions of supporters around the world. Our commitment to Manchester City, its supporters and our shared partnership remains strong. We stand with the club, its supporters and our wider Etihad community as Manchester City challenges the commission's conclusions through the processes available to it. Etihad will seek the relevant legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests.”

Reporting

Open source (opens in a new tab)Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League · Sky Sports'Etihad Airways statement in full' section; also the paragraphs on other sponsors

Reporting

Open source (opens in a new tab)City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League · The GuardianParagraphs quoting Etihad's statement

Reporting

Open source (opens in a new tab)Etihad Airways statement in full as Premier League could face legal action over Man City ruling · The StandardStatement as printed in the article
Aerial view of the Etihad Stadium in Manchester, home of Manchester City, with the pitch, the surrounding car parks and the neighboring campus buildings.
Credit: Arne Müseler / www.arne-mueseler.com

Where this statement fits

Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies?

On September 29, 2026, the Premier League published the redacted core decision of an independent commission that heard its charges against Manchester City. The commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons City arranged sponsorship contracts that it described as "shams" with a number of Abu Dhabi sponsors, as part of what it called a disguised funding scheme in which the club's owner, Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), paid most of the recorded fees. It found that the club "clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules." It found all of the financial-rule charges proven and most of the co-operation charges proven. City says it is innocent, that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists" in support of its positions, and that the opinion is unsafe. It says it will appeal, and the deadline is October 2. The sanction has not been decided. As of October 1, 2026, this is a first-instance decision that an Appeal Board has not reviewed on the merits. The disputed question is whether City used sponsorship contracts that the commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules.

Read the full case

Source and context

Reporting

Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League (opens in a new tab) · Sky Sports'Etihad Airways statement in full' section; also the paragraphs on other sponsors

About this source

Sky Sports' report, updated on October 1, 2026, printing Etihad Airways' statement in full. It also says that Lucozade, Kellogg's and Revolut told Sky they are not commenting while the process is ongoing, and that Majestic Wines refused to say whether it will continue its partnership with City. Sky notes that Etihad's statement and City's statement both call the body a Premier League commission, when it was an independent commission.

Reporting

City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League (opens in a new tab) · The GuardianParagraphs quoting Etihad's statement

About this source

The Guardian's report on Etihad's statement, released on the evening of September 30, 2026. It says Etihad has been City's principal shirt sponsor since 2009 and repeats most of the statement.

Reporting

Etihad Airways statement in full as Premier League could face legal action over Man City ruling (opens in a new tab) · The StandardStatement as printed in the article

About this source

The Standard's copy of Etihad Airways' statement. It matches the Sky Sports and Guardian copies.

Before the quotation

Etihad has been City's principal shirt sponsor since 2009. The commission's published decision redacts the names of the sponsors it discusses, and Etihad says it is not named in the published findings. The statement was first reported on the evening of September 30, 2026.

After the quotation

The Premier League declined to comment when BBC Sport asked about the statement, and Sky Sports reported on October 1 that it had asked the league for a response. As of October 1, 2026, we found no further statement from Etihad.

How this statement is classified

Challenged the characterization

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why this label?

Relative to the proposition that City used sponsorship contracts the commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules, as the commission found, Etihad addresses the airline's own role and the league's handling of the findings. It rejects any finding or implication that the airline was involved in improper commercial arrangements, criticizes how the findings were communicated, and says it stands with the club as the club challenges the commission's conclusions. It says nothing about whether City's contracts were genuine. We used Challenges the characterization because the statement disputes how the findings describe or imply the airline's involvement rather than saying what City did. The closest competing label is Denied, which would suggest Etihad denied what the commission found against City. Mixed or conditional does not fit because the statement's positions point the same way.

Recorded on
Published here

More from this case

Read the full case

Gary Neville says "the biggest consequence would be the removal of the owners" after the commission's decision

Gary Neville

“The biggest consequence would be the removal of the owners. That is the only consequence, if I was Manchester City, that I would be worried about. And as a fan of Manchester City, if you wanted to keep the investment that you've currently got, that would be the one that I would be most concerned. However, if you're in football and you're thinking about a consequence, what can be more serious than industrial-level financial doping that we've seen and they've been found guilty of?”
Read statement

IFR chair David Kogan says the decision "raises serious issues" and the regulator will "await further developments"

David Kogan

“The independent commission’s decision raises serious issues. The IFR has powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate, in the interests of protecting the sustainability, honesty and integrity of English football where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals. This includes taking account of findings made by the Leagues. However, as the proceedings remain ongoing between Manchester City and the Premier League we will await further developments. We hope it can be resolved quickly for the sake of fans. For now, we have no further comment.”
Read statement

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Etihad Airways says it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication" that it was involved in improper arrangements
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/4011-in-a-statement-on-september-30-2026-etihad

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Etihad Airways says it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication" that it was involved in improper arrangements". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4011-in-a-statement-on-september-30-2026-etihad