SportsNews

Etihad Airways considers legal action against Premier League over Manchester City ruling

Manchester City’s sponsor says the published findings carry damaging implications for the airline. It is seeking legal advice while the club’s sanction remains undecided.

Etihad Airways Airbus A340 aircraft at Munich Airport in 2015
File photograph: An Etihad Airways Airbus A340-541 at Munich Airport on 19 February 2015. Julian Herzog, ‘Etihad Airways Airbus A340-541 A6-EHA MUC 2015 01.jpg’ (resized and converted to WebP). CC BY 4.0.
LinkedInPostEmail
Save for later

Etihad Airways, Manchester City’s principal shirt sponsor, is considering legal action against the Premier League after an independent commission’s findings in the club’s financial rules case were published in England on 29 September. In a statement reported by the Guardian on 30 September, the airline rejected any implication that it was involved in improper commercial arrangements and said it would seek legal advice on how to protect its interests.

Etihad’s response follows the published ruling on Manchester City’s finances. The Premier League says the commission found serious breaches across nine seasons; the airline says the way those findings were communicated has harmed its interests, despite the redacted decision not naming it. Etihad has said it will seek legal counsel, but has not announced a lawsuit.

What Etihad Airways says about the City ruling

Etihad said it ‘categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication’ that it has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements. It said the Premier League’s public communication of the findings, following what the airline called selective leaks and reporting, created ‘damaging implications’ for it. Those are the airline’s objections to the published account; they do not alter the commission’s findings against City.

The airline also said the Premier League had not reached out to or engaged with it during the process. As a result, Etihad said, it had no opportunity to be represented, supply relevant information or address material that might be interpreted as reflecting adversely on it. The available reporting records Etihad’s account of that contact; it does not independently establish the full history of communication between the airline and the league.

Etihad said it remains proud of its relationship with City and stands with the club as it challenges the commission’s conclusions. Its stated next step is to seek legal counsel on its options and possible recourse. The airline has not specified a proposed claim, where it might bring one or when it might decide whether to proceed.

The relationship helps explain why the airline has responded publicly. According to the Guardian, Etihad has been City’s principal shirt sponsor since 2009. City announced a 10-year stadium naming rights agreement worth £400 million in 2011, the paper reported, and the deal was extended on improved terms in 2021. Etihad’s name appears on both the team’s shirts and its stadium.

What the commission found about Manchester City

The Premier League’s published statement says the independent commission found City guilty of all charges concerning serious breaches of its financial rules from the 2009/10 through 2017/18 seasons. It also says the commission upheld most allegations that the club failed to cooperate with the league’s investigation. The findings concern City’s conduct; Etihad disputes implications it says the public account creates for the airline.

According to the league, the commission found that City arranged or relied on ‘sham’ commercial agreements that misrepresented the true arrangements with several partners. The league says companies were required to pay only part of the recorded sponsorship fees, with the remainder funded by the club’s owner, Abu Dhabi United Group. It says related arrangements also reduced the costs shown in City’s accounts. Taken together, the commission found, the schemes inflated revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million during the affected period.

The league says the commission found that City filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances from auditors and football regulators. It says accurate reporting of the relevant agreements would have put the club substantially over both Premier League and UEFA spending limits. The league also says three of four alleged breaches of City’s duties to cooperate and act in utmost good faith were upheld. These are findings reported by the Premier League from the commission’s decision, which City has the right to appeal.

The scale and duration of the case provide context for the response. The Premier League says its investigation began in December 2018, and the independent commission’s 42-day hearing concluded in December 2024. Earlier NewsJaws coverage reported the commission’s findings against City; Etihad’s subsequent statement adds a separate challenge from a sponsor whose commercial relationship with the club is longstanding.

City’s appeal deadline and the separate sanction hearing

The Premier League says City has until Friday 2 October to appeal the commission’s findings. An Appeal Board can hear a challenge under the league’s rules. The league says it intends to complete the remaining process, including any appeals and publication of relevant decisions, as soon as possible. Etihad’s consideration of its own legal options is separate from City’s ability to appeal the ruling.

No sanction has yet been imposed in this process. The league says a further hearing before the independent commission will address that question and will remain private until the outcome can be published. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said the decision established the facts of the club’s breaches and that the league would move swiftly through the remaining stages. The eventual sanction, any appeal outcome and whether Etihad takes legal action remain open.

Sources and context

AI-assisted article checked against the listed sources. NewsJaws did not conduct interviews or attend the reported events.

About NewsJaws Desk

AI-assisted reporting and explainers reviewed against the linked source documents. No claim of on-scene reporting or original interviews.