Will Manchester City's charges stop them winning the Premier League this season? (2024)

As Brighton wrapped up a remarkable win at Arsenal on Sunday evening, the route to Manchester City winning a fifth Premier League title in six years became incredibly clear.

Beat Chelsea on Sunday — or if Arsenal lose against Nottingham Forest on Saturday — and they will be champions again. But this remarkable run that has seen them win 11 straight league games has come against a backdrop of over 100 financial fair play-related charges from the Premier League, which City were hit with in February this year.

Those charges actually came the day after their last Premier League defeat — against Tottenham Hotspur on February 5.

Yet as they close in on the title, there’s been one major question asked by fans of other clubs, especially those of an Arsenal persuasion. Will the charges levelled at City impact them winning the Premier League?

What were Manchester City accused of?

City were “referred to an independent commission” over the alleged rule-breaking. They relate to a series of alleged breaches of financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons.

The champions-elect have been accused by the Premier League of not providing accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”.

The club were also accused of not fully disclosing managerial remuneration for a four-year period. These related to the 2009-10 to 2012-13 seasons, when Roberto Mancini was manager.

They were also accused of breaching Premier League rules on profit and sustainability in 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The Premier League additionally alleged City did not comply with UEFA’s regulations around club licensing and financial fair play in 2013-14 and between 2014-15 and 2017-18.

City were banned from European competitions for two years by UEFA for alleged breaches of the European governing body’s own FFP regulations in February 2020. The sanction was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in July of the same year, however.

What punishments could City face if they were found guilty?

The potential punishments are outlined in rule W.51 of the Premier League’s handbook, with a range of potential options for the panel to consider if City are found to have broken the rules.

Sanctions range from a reprimand and fines to points deductions — and even expulsion from the Premier League.

Any points deduction could be applied when the decision is made or retrospectively, raising the prospect of City being stripped of titles.

But could the punishments impact this season?

It is exceptionally unlikely that they will.

The accusations all relate to the period between 2009 and 2018. It would seem, on paper, that any points deductions would apply to the seasons within that timeframe. And there is a significant precedent for retrospective rulings in sport.

However, James Hill, a legal director specialising in sports regulatory matters at Onside Law, told The Athletic in February: “I would expect that if there is a points deduction, it would be applied going forward.

“Generally, panels don’t like deciding titles in a court process. Doing it that way does not give a real tangible punishment to the club.”

If the punishments were applied going forward, it would mean City would have to be found guilty of the charges before the end of the current season.

However, the likely timeline of events ahead — with suggestions it could take years rather than months to conclude — means that even if City were found guilty and a points deduction was applied, it is unlikely to drop before Pep Guardiola’s team wrap up the title.

If the punishments are applied retrospectively, it wouldn’t likely impact them winning the title this season.

According to rule W.51.7, the panel could choose to combine any number of the punishments outlined in the rulebook or impose other sanctions they deem appropriate.

However, any punishment would need to be proportionate to the breaches in question or it could be overturned by appeal.

What did Manchester City say?

In February, they released a club statement which read: “Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with.

“The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

“As such, we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.”

City are determined to defend themselves against the allegations and are confident of doing so.

City successfully appealed against UEFA’s two-year Champions League ban at CAS in 2020, when the court ruled “most of the alleged breaches were either not established or time-barred”.

What is the likely timeline?

Murray Rosen KC, a barrister at 4 New Square Chambers, chairs the Premier League’s independent judicial panel and was appointed to the role in 2020.

Rosen’s profile on 4 New Square Chambers’ website describes him as someone who has a “formidable reputation as a tenacious advocate” and as a “neutral who resolves disputes rather than still fighting them”. It also highlights that he is a member of Arsenal FC.

In this case, it is likely Rosen will select a three-person panel. Because the charges relate to alleged financial breaches, one of the panel members will have to be a financial expert.

Rosen is also an arbitrator for CAS. City will not be able to appeal to that court, though, which is something they did successfully in their case against UEFA.

The reason they can’t appeal is because that CAS, the Switzerland-based court, does not have jurisdiction over this English process.

Given the Premier League’s investigation into City took more than four years, it is unlikely the independent panel will come to a conclusion in the near future. Back in February, it was clear that this process has the potential to take months — or longer.

Should either City or the Premier League decide to appeal against the panel’s verdict, then there is a process where a separate panel would convene to review any possible appeal.

Who are the relevant figures at Manchester City?

Previous allegations about Mancini’s contract, published by German news outlet Der Spiegel, alleged a company linked to the Italian issued invoices to the Abu Dhabi United Group, City’s holding company, presided over by owner Sheikh Mansour. Mansour is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, the brother of the president, and a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.

Simon Pearce, a City director and an adviser to the Abu Dhabi ruling family, allegedly witnessed the agreement. Pearce also featured in a number of the leaked emails, which ultimately did not lead to any punishments.

Jorge Chumillas was another to feature in the Der Spiegel allegations and has been chief financial officer at the City Football Group since January 2013. According to Der Spiegel, Chumillas sent invoices to Etihad that stated a segment of sponsorship money should come from the owner Sheikh Mansour’s own company vehicle, Abu Dhabi United Group.

Khaldoon Al Mubarak has been City’s chairman since 2008, one of countless significant roles he holds in sport and beyond. He serves in several senior different capacities within the Abu Dhabi government, is chairman of City’s sister clubs Melbourne City and Mumbai City, chief executive and managing director of the Mubadala Investment Company, and chairman of the board of a nuclear energy company, an aluminium conglomerate and Abu Dhabi commercial bank. Der Spiegel accused him of giving his blessing to payments.

In 2020, City denounced the use of the emails as “out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen”, and alleged there was an “organised and clear attempt to damage the club’s reputation”.

The charges go back as far as 2009. Why did it take so long for City to be charged?

Just for context, Mark Hughes was Manchester City’s manager in 2009, 16-year-old Loris Karius joined the academy, Gareth Barry and Roque Santa Cruz were the first big summer signings and Dedryck Boyata ended the season as the club’s young player of the year. It was a long time ago.

But it has taken this long to reach this point because the allegations did not come to light until November 2018, when Der Spiegel published that series of sensational stories over the period of a week.

It claimed Manchester City’s owners had been funnelling money into the club via inflated sponsorship deals with UAE-based companies in order to circumvent UEFA’s FFP rules. It also said the club had been hiding some of its costs, too, by keeping some key salaries and image-rights payments off the books.

These allegations were based on emails stolen by Rui Pinto, the Portuguese whistleblower behind the Football Leaks dossier of hacked documents.

Once the dust settled and everyone’s ears stopped ringing, the club entered into a 20-month tug-of-war with European football’s governing body UEFA, which went one way and then the other, until City claimed victory at CAS in July 2020.

The Premier League, however, was just warming up. It started investigating the hacked emails and what they might mean for its rulebook at the same time as UEFA, in December 2018. What has ensued since then can be likened to trench warfare, with City contesting every inch of ground.

Until the charges were announced, the only glimpse the rest of us had got of this fight came in July 2021, when Lord Justice Males decided to publish a ruling that revealed the glacial nature of the investigation, which at that point was already two and a half years old.

City, it emerged, had spent months refusing to release documents to the league, then spent several more months objecting to the arbitration panel the league had set up to rule on the matter. City lost these arguments but then appealed against them, only to lose that, too, before we then had another row about whether this wrangling should be made public or not.

If that took two and a half years, it is easy to see how a thorough examination of the documents and deliberations over possible charges took another year and a half. And now the real arguments can begin.

Could other clubs sue City if they are found guilty?

Put it this way, if Manchester City are found to have breached all the rules the Premier League has accused them of breaking, then you would expect other clubs to be circling — especially ones who, let’s say, finished second to them, missed out on a Champions League spot or were defeated by City in a cup final.

One sports lawyer’s opinion was that he did not see how City’s domestic rivals could mount a legal claim over football regulations.

This view, however, was disputed by another sports lawyer (both lawyers requested to speak anonymously to protect their positions). One club executive also felt there could be scope to make legal claims if City are found guilty. This serves to highlight how contentious it is going to be once the findings of the commission are announced.

The most obvious precedent of one club suing another is the Sheffield United and West Ham saga relating to Carlos Tevez.

After Sheffield United were relegated in 2007, they argued that Tevez’s goals kept West Ham up, despite the London club having earlier been fined by the Premier League for breaking rules on third-party player ownership.

Sheffield United were awarded £20million, with their legal claim taking broadcast revenues, sponsorship, merchandising and ticket sales into account.

More recently, clubs have threatened to sue each other without following through. Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers both sought compensation from Derby County after the latter was punished for breaching the English Football League’s financial rules. Middlesbrough and Derby reached an “accord”, while Wycombe Wanderers owner Rob Couhig later confirmed they had reached a settlement.

Remind us what happened with City and UEFA…

UEFA’s investigation started immediately after those Der Spiegel revelations, as its FFP rules were — and still are — much tighter than the Premier League’s in terms of permitted annual losses. If City were artificially inflating their revenues and disguising costs, they were doing so primarily to circumvent UEFA’s rulebook, not the Premier League’s.

So, UEFA had to act quicker than the English league and announced a formal investigation into possible FFP breaches in March 2019.

Eleven months later, the adjudication chamber of its FFP watchdog, the Club Financial Control Body, ruled City had misstated their annual accounts between 2012 and 2016 to the tune of £200million. It also said the club had not cooperated with its investigation. The punishment for these offences was a two-year ban from European competition and a €30million (£26.8m; $32.2m) fine.

But five months later, in July 2020, a three-man CAS panel cleared City of the most serious charge — overstating revenues — by a majority verdict.

Some of UEFA’s charges were time-barred, in that they were outside the organisation’s five-year statute of limitations, but most of them were simply “not established”, as far as the panel was concerned.

Understandably, City celebrated what they considered to be a thorough vindication of their claims of innocence, while UEFA was left looking weak and incompetent.

City were, however, fined €10million for not cooperating with the investigation.

(Photos: Getty Images)