When Money Buys More Than Just Players

An independent commission has upheld all 114 charges of financial rule breaches brought by the Premier League against Manchester City, with the sole exception of failing to cooperate with the investigation. The club, controlled by a member of Abu Dhabi's ruling family, was found responsible for financial infringements committed between 2009 and 2018. Titles won during that period could now come under scrutiny, though no decision has been made on whether they will be stripped.

According to the commission, City disguised roughly £900 million in owner funding as sponsorship revenue and concealed parts of staff salaries, thereby inflating declared income and artificially lowering reported costs. This was all intended to channel more money into players, managers, and infrastructure in pursuit of trophies. City now face substantial fines, points deductions, and other sporting sanctions, alongside potential compensation claims from rival clubs. The ruling is not definitive: City have already appealed and continue to deny any wrongdoing.

These Financial Fair Play rules are designed to protect clubs' financial sustainability and curb competitive advantages gained through outside capital. The goal of leveling the playing field by tying spending power directly to football-generated revenue is clear. However, the Premier League expanded, flourished, and became the world's most successful league largely thanks to owner wealth: Roman Abramovich turned Chelsea into a powerhouse, and Gulf money did the same for City. Lucrative broadcasting rights, premier organization, and global reach followed in the wake of that initial investment.

Of course, investors have different motivations: some are purely focused on profit, while others prioritize winning silverware and building influence. Yet restricting investment strictly to existing turnover can protect established elite clubs and stifle the ambitions of everyone else. We can debate the merits of these regulations, but as long as they remain in place, they must be followed by all: legitimately investing in a club and disguising that money as commercial revenue are two entirely different things.

Does it change things when an owner is a nation-state rather than an individual or a private company? Absolutely—foreign states should not own football clubs in other countries. Ownership by a royal family member may not strictly constitute state ownership on paper, but it is a massive indicator. It is vital to distinguish between legal title, funding, and de facto control. Comparisons with strategic sectors such as defense and technology, where foreign investment is heavily regulated, are well worth making. Football clubs carry immense social and cultural significance, arguably making them too influential to be controlled by foreign governments. City's ties to Abu Dhabi and PSG's ownership by Qatar raise issues that go far beyond sport and commerce. Even in Portugal, a Qatari fund holds a minority stake in Sporting de Braga.

Football needs investment, but it also demands transparency and firm limits on state influence over institutions woven into their local communities. The saga also carries an overt political edge: the British Prime Minister, a former Mayor of Manchester, has previously defended Abu Dhabi's investment. Is the club simply deemed too big to fail?

This week's "Direito ao Golo" accolades go to the Portuguese National Beach Soccer Team for their Mundialito triumph; to Madalena Costa and João Cruz for winning gold at the Artistic Skating World Championships; to Bernardo Pereira, U23 Ocean Racing World Champion in canoeing; and to Francisco Cabral for lifting the ATP doubles title in Hangzhou.