Disputes over how sports leagues, federations and clubs write, apply and enforce their rules, and over how those bodies and their owners are held to account.
Published coverage on this page: 1 case · 15 statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
An independent commission found Manchester City arranged "sham" sponsorship contracts to disguise owner funding between 2009/10 and 2017/18. City denies it, says the decision is unsafe and will appeal. As of October 1, 2026, no sanction has been set.
Published
Read the caseLabels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
15 matching statements
Role at the time: Former Manchester United player and Sky Sports pundit, speaking on The Overlap's Stick to Football podcast
Response to this claim
The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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?”
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, Neville treats the finding as established ("they've been found guilty of") and describes it in his own words as "industrial-level financial doping." He argues about the consequence for City and for football, not about the procedure. That endorses the finding, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because much of the passage concerns what sanction would matter most, but he attaches no condition to the finding.
Role at the time: Etihad Airways, in a corporate statement
Response to this claim
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."
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
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.
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."
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in an interview with the BBC's political editor
Statement summary
In a BBC News interview on September 30, 2026, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said "I can't intervene more in the process" and that "It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail." BBC News reports that in the same interview he said he would be really concerned to lose City's owners, thanked them for their investment in Manchester, called the situation contested by City, and compared it with Everton's 2023 case, which he thinks was handled unfairly.
“I can't intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that. It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail.”
What this label refers to
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, Burnham says it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion before studying the detail and that he cannot intervene more in the process. That expressly declines to judge the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he also praises the owners and says he thinks Everton was treated unfairly in 2023, but those remarks do not state a position on whether City did what the commission found.
Role at the time: Head coach of the Germany men's national team and former Liverpool manager, at a German football federation press conference
Statement summary
Asked at a Germany press conference on September 30, 2026 about City's verdict and his earlier remark that he would come to a Liverpool title parade, Klopp said in German that he could not say anything about the other matter because he did not know exactly what it was about, and that it did not much interest him. He added that if punishments were handed down he had nothing to do with it and would wait. Earlier in his answer he spoke of his respect for Guardiola and for City's football. English-language reports translate his words differently, so we quote the German.
“Wir haben uns auf dem Platz bekämpft, über das andere kann ich nichts sagen, weil ich nicht weiß, um was es da genau geht ... Es interessiert mich ehrlich gesagt auch nicht sonderlich.”
What this label refers to
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, Klopp says he cannot and will not say anything about the case because he does not know what it concerns, and that it does not much interest him. That expressly chooses not to address the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is not a position event, because the remark answers a question about the verdict rather than adding a view, but he answered the question by declining. He also walks back his earlier parade remark, which concerns Liverpool's titles rather than the finding.
Role at the time: Sky Sports pundit and former Liverpool player, in a Sky Sports interview
Response to this claim
The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."
Quotation excerpt
“But I'm shocked, but also not surprised with what's going on right now. And the reason I'm not surprised that Manchester City have had a guilty, because I always felt they were guilty, just for two simple reasons, really. Just the fact that…”
“But I'm shocked, but also not surprised with what's going on right now. And the reason I'm not surprised that Manchester City have had a guilty, because I always felt they were guilty, just for two simple reasons, really. Just the fact that it would be impossible for Manchester City to ever have the commercial revenue of Liverpool, Manchester United or Real Madrid. They said that for years, they had that type of income coming in. It's impossible for that to ever happen, no matter how successful Manchester City are. And number two, the fact that they said, as they have said, I think yesterday, and they've continually said over this period of the last few years, that they've done nothing wrong, you know, they've got irrefutable evidence. I mean, any, you know, man and his dog in this country or football fan knows if you were charged by the police and you had irrefutable evidence, it would be over within a day or a week. This has dragged on for years, so this idea that there's nothing gone on and it's dragged on this long just tells you that there was always something there.”
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, Carragher says he always felt City were guilty and gives reasons drawn from the club's revenue and the length of the case. That endorses the finding, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he reasons from the club's conduct rather than from the decision's text, but he states his conclusion without conditions.
Role at the time: UK Culture Secretary (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport), in an interview with Channel 5 News
Statement summary
Speaking to Channel 5 News on September 29, 2026, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said "I don't want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing." She added that "the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed."
“I don’t want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing. But what I would say is that the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed.”
What this label refers to
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, Nandy says she does not want to pre-empt the appeal process and that City is entitled to a fair hearing, and then turns to the seriousness of the possible sanction. That expressly declines to judge the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because she also says expulsion is possible if allegations are upheld, but that concerns the penalty rather than a position on the finding.
Role at the time: Manchester City chief executive, in an internal video message to staff
Response to this claim
Manchester City chief executive Ferran Soriano said in a video to staff on September 29, 2026 that the Premier League case against the club "is based on a single false accusation" that the owner's personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club through sponsors from Abu Dhabi, and that bank statements, money transfers and witnesses show "the money did not come from the owner."
Quotation excerpt
“This has gone on for so long that it's important to remind ourselves that the whole Premier League case against us is based on a single false accusation. That the owner's personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some…”
“This has gone on for so long that it's important to remind ourselves that the whole Premier League case against us is based on a single false accusation. That the owner's personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some sponsors from Abu Dhabi. This is just not true. Irrefutable evidence has been provided to the Premier League Commission that shows that it could not happen and that it did not happen. This includes bank statements, money transfers, witnesses and everything necessary to categorically demonstrate the money did not come from the owner. Every other false charge that has been thrown at us and aggressively marketed and promoted comes from that simple, central and completely false accusation. Surprisingly for us and for our lawyers, after nearly two years, the Premier League Commission has issued an opinion that supports the Premier League's conspiracy theory. To do so, the opinion had to actually ignore the extensive evidence provided by the club in order to reach a conclusion that is clearly wrong.”
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, Soriano calls the central accusation false ("This is just not true") and the commission's conclusion "clearly wrong." That is a flat rejection of the finding, so we used Denied. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he calls the league's case a "conspiracy theory" and the decision an "opinion," but he goes beyond disputing labels and says the owner's money did not enter the club.
Role at the time: Former Manchester City chairman (1998 to 2003) and former Football Association chairman, in a BBC interview reported by AFP
Response to this claim
The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."
“It is damning beyond belief. My immediate thoughts are, should the board continue? Should the people involved be suspended immediately?”
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, Bernstein calls the findings damning beyond belief and asks whether those involved should be suspended, which endorses the finding. We used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because AFP reports his view on expulsion as depending on the appeal failing, but his reaction to the finding itself carries no condition.
Role at the time: Manchester City FC, in a club statement issued the day the Premier League published the commission's decision
Response to this claim
Manchester City said on September 29, 2026 that the club "is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League," that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions," and that the commission's opinion "contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe."
Quotation excerpt
“Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League Commission, that has been published today. The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of…”
“Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League Commission, that has been published today. The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. The Club will therefore be relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums. The Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements uncompleted. Manchester City FC will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe. The Club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League Board and Executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator, free from partisan influence. The Club is obviously restricted in what it can say further until all future proceedings are complete.”
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, the club says it is innocent of the accusations and that irrefutable evidence supports its positions. That rejects the finding outright, so we used Denied. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because the statement also criticizes the commission's opinion and the league's process, but it goes further and states the club's innocence.
Role at the time: Chief executive of the Premier League, in the league's published statement
Response to this claim
The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."
Quotation excerpt
“The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade. It also vindicates the Premier League’s decision to…”
“The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade. It also vindicates the Premier League’s decision to pursue this case against Manchester City.”
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, Masters presents the decision as establishing the facts and says it vindicates the league's decision to bring the case. That asserts and endorses the finding, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the statement says elements of the case remain to be decided, but those elements are the sanction and the appeal, not the finding.
Role at the time: Former Manchester United and England captain and former club manager, speaking on the Stick to United podcast
Response to this claim
The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."
Quotation excerpt
“And again going back to they've cheated, take them off them. That's fine, I've no problem with that. But to turn around and say, right, there's a medal, I just wouldn't feel comfortable taking it. I'd be comfortable with them getting it…”
“And again going back to they've cheated, take them off them. That's fine, I've no problem with that. But to turn around and say, right, there's a medal, I just wouldn't feel comfortable taking it. I'd be comfortable with them getting it took off them, but I wouldn't be comfortable accepting a medal for finishing second.”
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, Rooney accepts the reported outcome as the premise ("they've cheated") and says he has no problem with the titles being taken off City. That endorses the finding, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because his main point is about whether he would accept a retrospective medal, but he states no condition on the finding.
Role at the time: Former Manchester City and England goalkeeper, speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live's Monday Night Club
Response to this claim
Manchester City said on September 29, 2026 that the club "is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League," that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions," and that the commission's opinion "contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe."
Quotation excerpt
“If Man City are found guilty, which I don't think they are because of what Khaldoon said, then there's conversations to be had. But right now I'm very confident and very, very calm. I'm very proud of what I've achieved and what I did with…”
“If Man City are found guilty, which I don't think they are because of what Khaldoon said, then there's conversations to be had. But right now I'm very confident and very, very calm. I'm very proud of what I've achieved and what I did with Manchester City and what we achieved as a team. And that doesn't change. That doesn't change until you tell me.”
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, Hart says he does not think City are guilty, relying on the chairman's letter, and says he remains very confident. That rejects the finding, so we used Denied. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he adds that if City are found guilty there are conversations to be had, but his stated view is that they are not guilty. He spoke before the commission's decision was published.
Role at the time: Chairman of Manchester City, in an open letter to supporters
Response to this claim
Manchester City said on September 29, 2026 that the club "is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League," that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions," and that the commission's opinion "contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe."
Quotation excerpt
“Here’s what I said to my family: The Premier League process still has a long way to run, and our confidence and intent in proving the Club’s innocence is just as strong as when this began. There are so many things that I would like to be…”
“Here’s what I said to my family: The Premier League process still has a long way to run, and our confidence and intent in proving the Club’s innocence is just as strong as when this began. There are so many things that I would like to be able to share with you to help you understand why we feel so confident in our position. But the strict confidentiality of the legal process and our determination to respect it means I cannot do that at the moment. Even this letter underwent several legal checks to make sure it complies.”
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, the chairman says the club's confidence in proving its innocence is as strong as when the case began and that the club feels confident in its position. That asserts innocence and rejects the reported finding, so we used Denied. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the letter looks ahead to proving innocence and was written before the commission's reasons were published.
Role at the time: Spain captain and former Manchester City midfielder, at a Spain press conference before the match against England
Response to this claim
Manchester City said on September 29, 2026 that the club "is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League," that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions," and that the commission's opinion "contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe."
Quotation excerpt
“I think it's normal to go through these kind of situations and it's part of football today and everyone has to follow the rules and for me that's great. But they always press the confidence that they never did something wrong and we believe…”
“I think it's normal to go through these kind of situations and it's part of football today and everyone has to follow the rules and for me that's great. But they always press the confidence that they never did something wrong and we believe in that. That's the thing. Since the moment they proved wrong, we will believe the club.”
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, Rodri says he and his former team-mates believe the club's statement that it never did anything wrong, which endorses the club's denial. He also says that everyone has to follow the rules and, in the next sentence, which the audio renders as "Since the moment they proved wrong, we will believe the club," makes his belief depend on the club not being proved wrong. We used Mixed or conditional because the statement combines support for the club's denial with that condition. The closest competing label is Denied. He spoke before the commission's decision was published.
Rodri, whose full name is Rodrigo Hernandez Cascante, is a Spanish professional footballer who plays as a defensive midfielder for FC Barcelona and is captain of the Spain national team. He played for Villarreal and Atletico Madrid before joining Manchester City in 2019, and Barcelona announced on August 18, 2026 that he had signed from City on a contract running to June 30, 2030. He won the Ballon d'Or in 2024.
1 case and 1 statement
