Manchester City to base appeal on claims sponsorship funds came from Abu Dhabi government, not owners

Manchester City's defence in their upcoming appeal will center on evidence that major sponsorship deals were funded directly by the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club's owner, The Times reports.

The Premier League leaders were found guilty by an independent commission of artificially inflating revenues by £900 million over an eight-year period. According to the findings, the club used capital from parent company Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) to drastically increase the value of its sponsorship packages.

The commission labelled these arrangements as sham agreements, citing leaked emails in which club executives discussed routing ADUG funds to Manchester City through sponsors, including airline Etihad Airways.

However, City insist they possess documentation proving that the funds received by Etihad came directly from the Abu Dhabi government treasury. The carrier is state-owned, and Premier League rules do not prohibit state-owned enterprises from sponsoring football clubs.

Following the ruling against Manchester City on the majority of the 115 charges, senior figures in the club's hierarchy have openly contested the conclusions of the published 40-page report.

Club chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak reiterated the existence of "irrefutable evidence" proving the champions' innocence, while chief executive Ferran Soriano offered further clarification in a video address to staff:

"The Premier League's entire case against us rests on a single false premise—that the owner's personal funds were secretly funnelled into the club via Abu Dhabi sponsors. That is simply not true. Bank statements, money transfers, and witness testimony were submitted to the commission, clearly demonstrating that the funds did not originate from the owner."

Sources familiar with the matter reveal that the defence includes official bank transactions between the emirate's government and sponsors, supported by statements from senior state officials. However, the commission dismissed these explanations as untrue and retroactively fabricated to conceal the funding scheme, even accusing some of the club's witnesses of deliberately misleading the panel.

Manchester City's appeal must be lodged ahead of Friday's deadline and will be heard by a new panel of retired High Court judges. The club's legal team, led by Paul Harris and Lord Pannick, will argue that any funding from a state entity is entirely legitimate under existing regulations and unrelated to ADUG.

The "sham deals" label will also be challenged by Etihad itself, with the airline stating it categorically rejects the commission's conclusions and is considering legal action over reputational damage.

The Premier League declined to provide an official comment. The investigation is largely based on material published by German outlet Der Spiegel in 2018. Among the leaks is a 2013 email in which the club's then-chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, discussed payment routing with Simon Pearce, asking whether funds should pass through the shareholder, ADUG, Etihad, and then to City, or directly from the shareholder to the airline.

Another document from April 2010 indicates that of a £14 million deal with Aabar, only £2 million would actually come from the company, with the remaining £12 million sourced from alternative channels via Sheikh Mansour. According to the commission, Mansour himself was unaware that £830 million of his personal wealth was being used to artificially inflate sponsorship contracts.

This point is also expected to be challenged during the appeal hearing as wholly implausible, casting serious doubt over the independent commission's overall findings.

Another major focal point is likely to be the extensive timeframe required to deliver a final ruling, and whether that delay legally compromises the verdict. Sources suggest the club's position is that the process should have concluded within 12 weeks at most, rather than dragging on for 19 months.