David Kogan
Role at the time: Chair of the Independent Football Regulator, in a statement on the regulator's website
Statement summary
In a statement on the regulator's website on September 30, 2026, Independent Football Regulator chair David Kogan said the independent commission's decision "raises serious issues." He said the regulator can assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and will use those powers "where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals," that this includes "taking account of findings made by the Leagues," but that because the proceedings are ongoing it will "await further developments." He ended: "For now, we have no further comment."
“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.”
The regulator's own statement on its website, dated September 30, 2026 and attributed to its chair, David Kogan.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used 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, Kogan calls the decision serious and says the regulator can take account of findings made by the leagues, but he conditions any action on clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals and says the regulator will wait while the proceedings continue. That combines an assessment with an express condition, so we used Mixed or conditional. The closest competing label is Explicitly stayed out, because he ends with "no further comment," but he first gives an assessment and describes how the regulator would act.