Manchester City financial rules decision: what the commission found

Manchester City was found to have breached Premier League financial rules covering seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18 in an independent commission decision published on 29 September 2026. The commission upheld every charge it considered except one cooperation charge, identified as Charge 4(B). Its findings establish serious breaches at this stage of the league’s process, but the penalty remains undecided and the club says it will appeal.

The distinction matters because a broad description of City as having been found guilty of ‘all charges’ misses an express exception in the commission’s decision. The case involved well over 100 alleged individual rule breaches grouped into four broad charges, according to the commission. That grouping is not an exact count of proven individual allegations. The commission found most of the alleged failures to cooperate with the league’s investigation, but not every one.

What the commission found in Manchester City’s accounts

The commission found that City’s financial statements for 2009-10 through 2017-18 did not give a true and fair view of the club’s financial position. It said more than £830 million recorded as income should instead have been treated as equity contributions from Abu Dhabi United Group, the club’s owner. That distinction goes to the heart of the case: the money was presented as commercial revenue when, in the commission’s assessment, its economic source was the owner.

According to the decision, reported sponsorship fees substantially exceeded what the sponsors themselves were liable to pay. The commission found that Abu Dhabi United Group paid the remaining sums to the club and that the sponsorship arrangements were shams or failed to reflect their economic substance. It also found that the accounts understated expenses. Among the items it examined was £24.5 million recorded as operating income under the Fordham arrangement, which it said should have been treated as an owner equity contribution.

What the commission decided about cooperation

The commission found that City made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the Premier League’s investigation. It found breaches of cooperation duties in most of the respects alleged under Charge 4(A), all those alleged under 4(C), and the respect alleged under 4(D). It expressly found no breach in the respects alleged under Charge 4(B). That exception is why the financial findings and the investigation-related findings need to be described separately.

The decision also says the commission made no finding on a further allegation that City had given inaccurate, dishonest or misleading responses to investigators. That allegation was not added to the charges it heard. On witness evidence, the commission said most factual witnesses tried to give honest accounts, while some important evidence from City witnesses was false in key respects and some witnesses knowingly gave untrue evidence. Those assessments are the commission’s findings in this proceeding.

The commission said regulators and even the club’s auditors had been unaware of the disguised funding scheme for many years. Its hearing ran for 42 days, from 16 September to 6 December 2024. The commission acknowledged that producing the decision took longer than it had wanted and called the delay regrettable. Those hearing dates describe the earlier proceedings; publication of the decision on 29 September is the new development.

Manchester City’s response and the next hearing

City disputes the decision. In a statement reproduced by NBC Sports, the club said it was ‘disappointed and surprised’ by the commission’s opinion, maintained that it was innocent of the Premier League’s accusations, and said it would pursue available appeal avenues. It called the opinion unsafe and said significant parts of the league process were still unfinished. NBC Sports reported that City had until Friday 2 October to appeal.

Sanctions will be considered at a separate hearing. El País reported that Premier League chief executive Richard Masters described the case and decision as the most significant in the league’s history and said the league would seek to move the remaining process quickly to give clubs and supporters certainty. Neither the form nor the timing of a sanction is established by the decision reported here, and an appeal could still affect the outcome.

The published Core Decision is redacted and says its findings and reasoning should be read alongside 37 appendices. The copy identified in the research did not include those appendices, limiting how far the underlying evidence can be described. The commission’s stated findings nevertheless set out what it decided on the charges; the remaining questions concern the penalty and the club’s challenge to that decision.