Premier League 114 V Manchester City 1: Extra Time Looming

In a recent Insight (see here our previous insight on Dublin being confirmed as an option for CAS Arbitration under UEFA’s statutes) we highlighted the fact that sporting disputes are rapidly becoming big business, given the levels of cost and complexity involved. We in particular noted that Ireland is and continues to be a favourable legal jurisdiction and arbitral seat for sporting disputes.

All of this has again been brought into sharp focus by the recent news in relation to Manchester City, a team that came from the third tier of English football at the turn of the century to dominating English football over the last 15 years.

On 29 September 2026, a Disciplinary Commission (“Commission”) appointed to hear the case taken by the Premier League and Manchester City (“the Club”) released a redacted version of their decision¹ (the “Decision”). Out of the 115 charges brought against the Club, the Commission found that 114 were proven. The decision reveals a damning indictment of the conduct of the Club in the period between the 2009/2010 and 2017/2018 seasons, along with criticisms of the Club’s conduct during the investigation. The decision however does not deal with sanctions and this will be dealt with in a separate decision.

The Club has until Friday 2 October 2026 to appeal the decision – which they most likely will.

This insight provides a breakdown of how we got here, the decision reached, what may happen in the aftermath (looking at some Irish comparators in that regard), and some key takeaways.

Background

Investigations into the Club’s financial conduct first arose in late 2013, as a result of UEFA queries about certain of the Club’s sponsorship agreements and whether the Club had complied with UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’ (“CLFFPR”) break-even requirement. While no findings were made, UEFA did enter into a settlement agreement with the Club in May 2014.

It was in 2018 however that further UEFA investigations took place², along with the initiation of a Premier League investigation, arising from articles published by Der Spiegel about the alleged true source of recorded sponsorship fees.

Off the back of that investigation, the Premier League issued these proceedings under Section W of the Premier League Rules (the “Rules”).

What are Section W Proceedings?

Section W of the Premier League Rules deals with Disciplinary and Dispute Resolution matters. The Premier League Rules are voted on each year by the Premier League Clubs³. Under Section W, the Premier League has a power of inquiry into any suspected or alleged breach of the Rules. It can also elect to refer the matter to an independent Commission – that is what occurred here and it was that Commission that heard this case across 42 days between September and December 2024.

The sanction powers available to the Commission under Section W in this case would include:

Reprimand the Club;
Impose a fine (unlimited in amount and any part can be suspended);
Suspend the Club from playing matches;
Impose a points deduction;
Recommend a replay;
Recommend that the League expels the Club from membership;
Compensation to any person or club (unlimited in amount);
To pay costs (including costs of the Commission);
Impose such other penalty/order as it sees fit.

In that sense, the variety of sanctions available to the Commission is wide ranging and significant.

What was the Premier League’s case?

On a high level, the Premier League’s case against the Club was that the Club’s conduct constituted “extremely serious, significant, sustained and intentional or reckless breaches of rules critical to the proper and fair operation of the PL’s league competition”⁴.

115 charges were brought and were split into the following four categories and further subcategories:

Breaches of Premier League accounts submission requirements to submit annual accounts prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, providing a true and fair view of the club's financial position and disclosing sufficient information about related party transactions.
Breaches of UEFA CLFFPRs to obtain a licence and comply with a break-even requirement.
Breaches of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (“PSR”⁵) requirements that a club’s aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Taxes (“AEBTs”) must not show a loss of more than £105 million over a rolling three-year period.
Breaches of the Premier League Rules requirement for clubs to cooperate with an investigation.

What was the Club’s defence?

The Club denied all charges brought against it, defending the case in full. In other words, no concessions were made either in advance of the hearing or during. In addition, the Club was highly critical of the Premier League’s investigation, the decision to bring the charges, and certain aspects of the prosecution of the charges.

The Club argued that their sponsors were always liable for the full amount of all recorded sponsorship fees, however, they had received financial assistance from the Abu Dhabi government towards the payment of these fees, to the same amount as the Premier League contended was an equitable contribution by Abu Dhabi United Group. This “explanation” was rejected by the Commission who concluded that it was an effort to further conceal a “Disguised Funding Scheme” that was at play⁶.

The substantive content of the arguments raised by the Club were included in Appendices 1-3 of the Decision, which are yet to be published.

Expert Evidence

A point to note on this case, and one of the key reasons the hearing ran for as long as 42 days, is the extensive expert evidence invoked and relied on by both parties. Expert evidence was adduced in relation to:

Abu Dhabi politics and governance
Accountancy standards
Financial information analysis
Assessment of ‘Fair Market Value’
Football sponsorship
Swiss Law.⁷

It is clear then that, in addition to sizeable legal teams, both parties have incurred significant cost as a result of the proceedings.

The Decision

The Commission found overwhelmingly in favour of the Premier League’s case, finding that 114 of the 115 charges were proven against the Club. The Commission made clear that to make such a finding, strong and cogent evidence was required in respect of each charge.

In addition to finding against the Club on almost all counts, the Commission made comment on a number of witnesses as to fact who gave evidence on behalf of the Club, concluding:

“a) That 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 b) That certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew to be untrue and so had been dishonest”⁸.

It is likely that this had a significant impact on the decision reached.

Charge Category 1 (financial reporting / true and fair view)

The Commission found that various sponsorship and underlying agreements entered into by the Club were a sham – meaning the Club’s financial statements very substantially overstated revenue and did not give a true and fair view of the financial position of the club, including the true position on equity contributions and expenses. What was essentially happening was the agreements entered were stated to bring in significantly higher revenue than they actually did – the surplus was funded by the Club’s ownership, amounting to equity investment in the Club itself (rather than incoming commercial revenue). This was what was termed in the Decision as a “Disguised Funding Scheme”, the effect of which meant that across the relevant period the Club’s income was overstated by over £830m.

Further, the Club failed to sufficiently disclose the fact that the agreements were related party transactions. The nature of the transaction meant that the Club’s ownership was involved, and as such this should have been flagged. The Commission held that the Club knew, or was reckless as to whether its accounts were misleading.

As a result, the Commission decided that the Club had acted other than with utmost good faith, and “By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules⁹”.

Charge Category 2 (UEFA CLFFPRs break-even requirement)

In light of the Charge 1 findings, the Club's accounts fell to be restated to remove overstated revenue and add in understated liabilities/expenses; once restated, the Club did not meet the CLFFPR break-even requirement in any relevant season.

Charge Category 3 (Premier League PSRs)

Similarly, once the accounts were restated in light of the Charge 1 findings, the Club did not meet the PSR requirements in any relevant season.

Charge Category 4 (failure to cooperate with the investigation)

The Commission found that the Club made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the Premier League’s investigation, breaching its duties of cooperation in the majority of the respects alleged.

There was one charge in Category 4(b) that was not proven against the Club¹⁰.

What happens now?

The Club has until Friday 2 October 2026 (being 14 days from the date of the decision itself, rather than the date the decision was made available to the public) to decide whether they want to appeal. If they do decide to do so, the appeal will be to an Appeal Board (again within the Premier League Rules).

The Appeal Board has an overriding discretion as to how an appeal hearing is conducted. According to the Rules, the appeal will proceed by way of a review of the evidence that was before the Commission, with the parties entitled to make oral submissions. That is unless the Appeal Board gives leave to introduce fresh evidence.

The Appeal Board may allow or dismiss the appeal, vary any penalty or order made at first instance (other than a fixed penalty), vary or discharge any compensation order, order costs, remit the matter back to the Commission with directions, and/or make such other order as it thinks fit. Subject to a potential avenue to arbitration under Section X of the Rules, the decision of the Appeal Board is final.

The potential route to arbitration of this case is narrow, limited to a challenge on the basis that the decision was reached: (1) outside the jurisdiction of the deciding body; (2) as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith; (3) as a result of procedural errors so great that the applicant's rights were clearly and substantially prejudiced; or (4) as a result of a perverse interpretation of the law or one that could not reasonably have been reached by a body properly applying its mind to the facts. If arbitration was successfully invoked, Section X of the Rules is explicit that the arbitration will be seated in England and Wales, that the issues will be decided in accordance with English law, and that no other system or mode of arbitration will be invoked. In other words, any arbitral award will be in the jurisdiction of England & Wales and there will be no route to arbitrate before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

Having exhausted the Premier League’s internal processes, there is a possibility that the Club could try to take the matter to the English High Court. Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits the appeal of arbitral awards on points of law only to the English Commercial Court. The right to do so is not automatic or mandatory, and it would be necessary to obtain either the consent of the parties or with the permission of the Commercial Court. There would be a high bar for the Club to reach and they would likely need to show:

the decision on a point of law is obviously wrong; or
the question is one of general public importance and the decision is at least open to serious doubt¹¹.

Given that the Club will have presented their strongest evidence thus far in their defence of the charges, it will be interesting to see (subject to them exhausting the internal processes) if they are able to reach such a high bar to bring the matter to the Courts.

Irish Footballing Disputes

While the Manchester City decision is unprecedented in terms of scale, there have been several notable footballing disputes in the Irish jurisdiction featuring severe penalties against football clubs, leading to knock on effects on other clubs within the same leagues/competitions. These echo the kind of issues that arise now in relation to punishing Manchester City (albeit on a far grander scale).

League of Ireland 2008 Points Deductions

In 2008, Cork City FC famously went into examinership in an effort to save the club from financial difficulties. In August 2008, approximately midway through the season and when examinership took effect, the FAI imposed a 10-point points deduction on the club for being in examinership. The club survived examinership and finished 5^th in the league, despite the points deduction.

In the same League of Ireland season, Drogheda United also entered examinership, this time at the end of the season in November 2008. Similarly, a 10-point points deduction was imposed on them. As with Cork City, they came out the other side of examinership, and also narrowly avoided relegation by 4 points.

Ringmahon Rangers’ recent cup ban

Ringmahon Rangers AFC were due to play Bohemians in the second round of the FAI cup on 19 July 2026. Ringmahon Rangers sought to move the fixture and proposed a number of accommodations – before ultimately deciding to hand Bohemians a walkover. The FAI imposed severe sanctions, banning the club from the FAI cup for 5 years, also banning them from the FAI Intermediate Cup for 3 years, along with a €5,000 fine. Despite an appeal by the club, the sanctions were upheld.

Key Takeaways

Taking the Manchester City decision on face value, and absent any successful appeal:-

There was a near total vindication of the Premier League’s investigation.
That being said, there are questions over the length of time it took the Premier League to identify and enforce potential breaches of their financial rules.
The “Disguised Funding Scheme” was at the heart of the reasoning for finding against the Club, which produced the overstatement of the Club’s revenue by over £830m.
Credibility of some of the Club’s own witnesses appears to have been a decisive factor.
The finding against the Club for a concerted effort to frustrate the investigation was also a decisive factor, which may well be significant in any sanctions imposed on foot of the decision.
The possibility to award compensation arising from this decision raises the prospect of other Premier League clubs seeking relief from Manchester City.
The Club may ultimately try to bring the matter to the English High Court – this would make the matter much more public (in contrast to the Premier League’s internal processes) and the Club would need to take that into consideration before proceeding to do so.
This decision and any appeal will be dealt with in the jurisdiction of England & Wales, due to the way in which the Premier League has crafted their rules. UEFA recently amended their Statutes to include Dublin, Ireland as a seat for CAS Arbitration. The scale of this particular case is a reminder of the benefit both financially and reputationally for Ireland to continue to be recognised as a suitable arbitral seat and legal jurisdiction for sporting disputes.

The conduct of the Club in relation to the investigation and the proceedings suggests that an appeal is highly likely, and that this long running saga still has some way to go.

Footnotes

1. The Decision includes reference to 37 Appendices, many of which set out more detailed reasoning on the decision made. These are to be published in due course. The Redactions are not explicitly explained in the Decision but they appear to be to protect identities of individuals and organisations.

2. This UEFA investigation led to Court of Arbitration for Sport proceedings and a CAS Award.

3. Every season, the Premier League is made up of 20 Clubs. As the Premier League is a private company limited by shares, the Clubs are the shareholders, along with the Football Association which holds a special share.

4. Decision, para 10(b).

5. Operational since the 2015/16 Premier League season.

6. Decision, para 77.

7. Decision, para 15(c).

8. Decision, para 29.

9. Decision, para 114.

10. The detail on this charge are in the appendices which are yet to be published.

11. Arbitration Act 1996, Section 69(3)(c)(i-ii).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]