1. Executive Overview: Core Theses & Key Revelations
The landmark ruling issued by the Premier League's Independent Commission against Manchester City Football Club represents a watershed moment in the history of modern sport. After a multi-year forensic investigation into the financial operations of the reigning world and English champions, the tribunal rendered an uncompromising guilty verdict across well over 100 breaches of league financial regulations spanning nine seasons from 2009/10 to 2017/18. The findings demolish the mythos of organic commercial hyper-growth engineered by City Football Group executive leadership, replacing it with an evidentiary record of systematic corporate misrepresentation, off-book shadow funding, and organized institutional non-cooperation.
At the center of the judgment lies a staggering financial figure: the Independent Commission determined that Manchester City's ultimate controlling ownership covertly funneled £830 million of direct equity funding into the club under the guise of legitimate, arm's-length third-party commercial sponsorship agreements. During the specific three title-winning campaigns highlighted by the tribunal—2011/12, 2013/14, and 2017/18—Manchester City officially declared commercial sponsorship income totaling £360 million. However, forensic bank analysis and corporate registry tracing revealed that genuine commercial revenue from independent corporate entities amounted to just £43 million over that three-year span. The remaining £317 million was injected directly from shadow accounts linked to Abu Dhabi state entities, disguised through sham contracts to artificially inflate revenue streams, suppress operating loss ratios, and subvert Financial Fair Play (FFP) caps.
The findings extend far beyond revenue manipulation. The Commission found City guilty of fabricating financial accounts submitted to both the Premier League and UEFA, concealing the true state of club liabilities, arranging shadow contracts to pay staff and managerial personnel through external offshore vehicles, and systematically obstructing the Premier League's investigation through repeated refusals to produce requested documentation. While Manchester City Chief Executive Officer Ferran Soriano released a defiant video message dismissing the ruling as a flawed "opinion" built upon a "single false accusation," legal and financial experts across the industry view the verdict as an inescapable structural reckoning. With potential sanctions ranging from historic, multi-decade points deductions to outright expulsion from the football pyramid, English football has entered an unprecedented legal and existential crisis.
2. Context & Background: The Landscape Leading to This Conversation
To comprehend the magnitude of the Independent Commission's findings, one must analyze the structural evolution of European football finance over the past two decades. Following the September 2008 acquisition of Manchester City by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan via the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the club engaged in hyper-accelerated capital deployment, outspending established European royalty to restructure its playing squad and operational footprint. In response to skyrocketing wage-to-turnover ratios across the continent, UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play regulations in 2010, mandating that clubs operate within break-even thresholds and limit owner equity injections to prevent market distortion.
Manchester City's regulatory friction began almost immediately. In 2014, UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) sanctioned City for breaching FFP benchmarks, resulting in a €60 million fine (£49 million, with €40 million suspended), squad size restrictions for the UEFA Champions League, and strict wage caps. However, the true flashpoint occurred in November 2018, when the German publication Der Spiegel published the "Football Leaks" cache—internal emails, shadow ledgers, and wire transfer receipts leaked by Portuguese whistleblower Rui Pinto. The documents suggested that top City executives had deliberately routed Abu Dhabi state funds through state-linked sponsors like Etihad Airways and Etisalat to circumvent FFP limits.
In February 2020, UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber banned Manchester City from European competition for two years and imposed a €30 million fine. However, in July 2020, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne overturned the Champions League ban, ruling that many of UEFA's charges were "time-barred" under UEFA's strict five-year statute of limitations, while asserting that other allegations were unproven. Pivoted by league policy, the Premier League's governance framework contains no such statute of limitations. In December 2018, the Premier League launched its own independent investigation. After four years of legal maneuvering and judicial challenges over jurisdiction, the league formally referred more than 115 charges to an Independent Commission in February 2023.
The timing of the Commission's long-awaited verdict created maximum shockwaves across the global sports landscape. The judgment dropped precisely as European football's elite executives were convening in Copenhagen for a summit of top European club leaders. Sky Sports correspondent Rob Harris famously confronted Ferran Soriano outside the venue, capturing a visibly tense Chief Executive refusing to answer direct questions regarding whether City had operated as a "sham club" or "destroyed football." Hours later, Soriano distributed an internal address to City staff, setting the stage for an all-out legal war against the Premier League's regulatory authorities.
3. Deep-Dive Thematic Breakdown
The £830 Million Financial Disguise: Anatomy of a Sham Sponsorship Structure
The technical architecture of Manchester City's financial inflation, as detailed by the Independent Commission, represents a sophisticated system of financial engineering designed to bypass regulatory cost controls. Under Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and UEFA FFP, owner equity injections cannot be classified as football operating revenue. To circumvent this constraint, club executives orchestrated a structure commonly referred to in corporate finance as "round-tripping" or shadow owner subsidies.
Under this mechanism, sponsorship contracts were executed with state-affiliated entities based in Abu Dhabi—including Etihad Airways, telecom giant Etisalat, and investment firm Aabar. On paper, these contracts reflected market-leading commercial valuations. In reality, the sponsoring corporate entities contributed only a small fraction of the contract value from their own operational cash flows. The vast majority of the funds—totaling £830 million over the nine-year charge period—were transferred directly from sovereign wealth vehicles or private funds controlled by the club's ownership into the sponsoring entities' accounts, which then remitted the capital to Manchester City as "commercial sponsorship revenue."
Renowned football finance analyst Kieran Maguire highlighted the staggering macroeconomic distortion created by this mechanism. During the initial year of the Abu Dhabi takeover (2008/09), Manchester City declared commercial revenue of £23 million. By 2017/18, that figure had ballooned to £232 million—an growth trajectory that vastly outpaced established commercial powerhouses like Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Bayern Munich. Maguire's forensic calculations demonstrate that over the nine-year period under scrutiny, Manchester City derived a £900 million financial advantage over its Premier League competitors.
To contextualize this advantage, Maguire noted that the average total revenue generated by "Big Six" Premier League clubs during that nine-year era was approximately £2.9 billion. Manchester City's disguised owner injections meant the club operated with an effective "one-in-three-pound" financial advantage over its direct rivals. This artificial liquidity enabled City to outbid competitors for elite playing talent, absorb massive write-downs on failed transfers, offer unprecedented wage packages to players and coaching staff, and construct a multi-club global network under the City Football Group umbrella—all while presenting balance sheets that falsely claimed compliance with financial break-even mandates.
Procedural Warfare & Legal Strategy: Appeal Dynamics and the High Court Threshold
The response from Manchester City's executive hierarchy, articulated through Ferran Soriano's internal address, demonstrates a strategy of aggressive institutional denial and legal confrontation. Soriano framed the entire Premier League case as being built upon a "single false accusation"—namely, that the owner's personal funds were covertly funneled into the club via Abu Dhabi sponsors. Soriano asserted that City had submitted "irrefutable evidence" to the tribunal, including audited bank statements, international wire transfer slips, and sworn witness testimony, proving that commercial payments originated from legitimate corporate entities.
Soriano labeled the Commission's verdict a mere "opinion" that improperly adopted the Premier League's "conspiracy theory" while ignoring the club's evidentiary submissions. However, legal analysts emphasize that Soriano's rhetorical dismissal faces immense procedural hurdles. Chief Correspondent Kaveh Solhekol clarified that the verdict was rendered not by league administrators, but by an independent panel chaired by senior King's Counsel (KC) legal experts who evaluated evidence over months of private hearings. The standard of proof required to establish systematic fraud before such a tribunal is exceptionally high, making the tribunal's unanimous findings extraordinarily difficult to dismantle.
Furthermore, City's legal options are constrained by the Premier League's constitutional framework. Unlike UEFA proceedings, Premier League rules explicitly prohibit appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Under Premier League Rule L, all member clubs agree that internal arbitration panels represent the final sporting authority. City's legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, must file their formal appeal within days, but the appeal panel will not conduct a de novo trial. Under league rules, an appeal can only succeed if City proves clear material errors of law, procedural impropriety, or irrationality in the Commission's decision.
Should the internal Premier League appeal fail—an outcome widely anticipated by legal experts—City's remaining recourse is the "nuclear option": applying for Judicial Review in the High Court of Justice in London. To prevail in the High Court, City would have to demonstrate that the Premier League tribunal suffered from systemic bias, improper constitution, or a breach of natural justice. A High Court challenge would trigger full legal discovery, forcing City to expose its complete internal communications, banking records, and executive correspondence to public judicial scrutiny—a high-risk strategy that could amplify the club's legal exposure.
Proportionality & Precedent: Calibrating Punishments from Points Deductions to Banishment
With the guilty verdict established, the football industry has shifted its focus to the pending sanction phase. To evaluate the prospective severity of City's punishment, analysts must examine recent enforcement precedents established by Premier League Independent Commissions:
| Club |
Season / Year |
Nature of Charges / Breaches |
Sanction Imposed |
Cooperation / Mitigation Status |
| Portsmouth |
2009/10 |
Insolvency / Entering Administration |
9-Point Deduction |
Standard Insolvency Rule Trigger |
| Everton |
2023/24 |
1 Breach of PSR Threshold (£19.5m Overspend) |
6-Point Deduction (Reduced from 10) |
Partial Cooperation / Non-Intentional |
| Nottingham Forest |
2023/24 |
1 Breach of PSR Threshold (£34.5m Overspend) |
4-Point Deduction |
Early Admission / Full Cooperation |
| Chelsea |
2023/24 |
Legacy Financial Irregularities (Abramovich Era) |
Fine & Suspended Transfer Restrictions |
Self-Reported by New Ownership |
| Manchester City |
2025/26 |
100+ Breaches: Disguised £830m, Sham Contracts, Non-Cooperation |
Pending Sanction Hearing |
Zero Mitigation / Found Guilty of Obstruction |
As Solhekol noted, a straightforward mathematical extrapolation illustrates the peril facing Manchester City. If Everton received a six-point deduction for a single PSR breach involving a £19.5 million overspend, and Nottingham Forest received four points for a single breach, a guilty verdict encompassing over 100 breaches—involving £830 million in disguised funding across nine years—demands a penalty orders of magnitude larger. A simple proportional calculation would yield a point deduction well into triple digits.
Kieran Maguire pointed out that City's position is further compromised by the total absence of mitigating factors. In Everton and Forest's cases, commissions granted partial mitigation for early disclosure, transparency, and market conditions. Manchester City, by contrast, was found guilty of deliberate falsification and persistent non-cooperation with investigators. Under legal principles governing sports arbitration, aggravating factors of this scale eliminate leniency.
Consequently, options before the Commission range from massive, multi-season points deductions (-30 to -80 points per season over multiple years) to structural expulsion from the Premier League. Senior journalists like Jamie Jackson argue that to maintain the moral authority of the competition, the Premier League must enforce expulsion, forcing City to re-apply for membership at the bottom of the English football pyramid in non-league divisions. However, sports law experts note the immense logistical complications of expulsion, including fixture disruptions for the remaining 19 Premier League clubs, broadcast contract indemnities, and devastating economic spillover affecting hundreds of non-playing operational staff employed by the club in Manchester.
The Existential Crisis of Fan Identity: Legitimacy, Memory, and Moral Bankruptcy
Beyond the legal combat and balance sheets, the podcast captured an emotional turning point in fan consciousness. David Mooney, host of the prominent Blue Moon Podcast, offered a poignant voice for supporters grappling with the destruction of their club's modern legacy. Mooney described feeling "utterly aghast" at the sheer scale of the findings, confessing that while he had prepared for minor administrative non-compliance, he never imagined systemic deceit of this magnitude.
Mooney articulated the heartbreak of realizing that iconic historical moments—Sergio Agüero's 93:20 title-winning goal in 2012, Manuel Pellegrini's 2014 triumph, and Pep Guardiola's 100-point "Centurions" season in 2017/18—are now permanently stained by the reality of financial cheating. As Mooney observed, if a club overspends by £2 million, one might argue that a single fringe player shouldn't have been on the pitch. But an £830 million artificial injection means that 10 to 12 world-class players on City's roster were ineligible under compliant financial rules. Without that disguised capital, City could never have assembled or retained the squad depth required to win those titles.
This realization has fractured the Manchester City fanbase. While a defensive faction continues to embrace Soriano's narrative of a high-establishment conspiracy, an expanding constituency of match-going supporters is expressing anger at executive leadership. Mooney openly raised the prospect that sporting legitimacy can only be restored if the current ownership structure is dismantled and replaced. The psychological contract between the supporters and the club hierarchy has been severed; fans who celebrated trophies in good faith now find their memories compromised by corporate malpractice.
Market Distortion & Strategic Summer Capital Expenditure
An explosive dimension revealed during the podcast discussion centered on reporting from ESPN's Mark Ogden and Rob Dawson regarding Manchester City's transfer market behavior prior to the public announcement of the verdict. According to ESPN, Manchester City's executive board was privately notified of the Independent Commission's guilty findings as early as July—months before the judgment was formally published.
Despite knowing that a devastating guilty verdict had been rendered, Manchester City proceeded to execute an aggressive summer transfer campaign, spending over £450 million on player acquisitions and contract extensions during the July-August transfer window. This aggressive capital deployment raised serious ethical questions across the Premier League, with rival club executives questioning why a club found guilty of massive financial fraud was permitted to distort the transfer market further before sanctions were applied.
From a legal perspective, however, the Premier League had no mechanism to freeze City's transfer activity prior to the completion of the formal process. Under sports law principles, a club retains full operational rights until all internal appeal avenues are exhausted. Had the Premier League attempted to impose a pre-appeal transfer embargo, City's legal team would have immediately filed for High Court injunctions, alleging restraint of trade and claiming billions in prospective commercial damages. City's executive board capitalized on this legal protection, strategically stockpiling world-class playing talent to insulate the squad against mandatory multi-year transfer bans once the final sanctions take effect.
4. Speaker Perspectives & Analytical Contrast
The podcast episode brought together distinct expert voices, each approaching the verdict from a specialized analytical vantage point. The table below contrasts the core arguments, methodological lenses, and underlying conclusions of each key contributor:
| Speaker |
Role / Affiliation |
Primary Analytical Lens |
Core Thesis & Assessment |
Predicted Outcome / Recommended Action |
| Kaveh Solhekol |
Chief Reporter, Sky Sports News |
Institutional & Legal Realpolitik |
The verdict is damning and unanimous. City faces an impossible legal mountain with no CAS recourse available. |
Massive points deduction at minimum; High Court escalation inevitable if appeal fails. |
| Ferran Soriano |
Chief Executive Officer, Manchester City |
Corporate PR & Litigation Defense |
The judgment is an erroneous "opinion" supporting a false conspiracy theory. City has irrefutable proof of innocence. |
Relentless appeal; pursuit of High Court judicial review and damages against accusers. |
| Kieran Maguire |
Football Finance Academic / Author |
Forensic Accounting & Economics |
City operated with a £900m advantage over 9 years. Disguised funding distorted the entire economic balance of the league. |
Severe double-digit points deduction or automatic relegation; zero mitigation granted. |
| David Mooney |
Host, Blue Moon Podcast |
Supporter Authenticity & Ethics |
Overriding anger at being lied to by club leadership. Title memories are fundamentally tarnished by the scale of cheating. |
Legitimacy cannot return without ownership change; supporters deserve clean competition. |
| Jamie Jackson |
Senior Writer, The Guardian |
Investigative Journalism & Integrity |
The scale of wrongdoing requires a deterrent so severe that no entity will ever attempt systemic fraud again. |
Expulsion from the Premier League and mandatory restart in non-league football. |
The contrast between Ferran Soriano's combative posture and the consensus among independent analysts highlights the isolation of Manchester City's executive board. While Soriano insists that the club is fighting a noble battle against a prejudiced establishment, analysts like Solhekol and Maguire emphasize that the evidence was evaluated by top legal minds applying rigorous standard-of-proof criteria. Meanwhile, the tension between Jamie Jackson's call for non-league banishment and Kieran Maguire's warnings regarding the economic collateral damage on non-playing club staff underlines the complex challenge facing the Premier League when sanctioning a mega-club.
5. Strategic & Industry Implications
The fallout from Manchester City's guilty verdict extends far beyond the immediate standings of the Premier League, threatening to reshape the global sports economy. First and foremost, the verdict exposes the structural fragility of self-regulation in modern football. When sovereign wealth funds and state-backed entities enter club ownership, traditional financial rules designed for privately owned corporate entities prove vulnerable to shadow equity disguises. The case underscores why the UK Government introduced the Football Governance Bill to establish an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) with statutory powers to audit club capital sources.
Second, the verdict opens the door to massive civil litigation from rival Premier League clubs. Under Premier League Rule X, clubs that suffered financial loss due to another member's rule breaches possess the right to seek binding arbitration for compensation. Rivals such as Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Tottenham Hotspur—who missed out on Premier League titles, UEFA Champions League qualification revenue, and performance bonuses between 2009 and 2018 due to City's non-compliant squad assembly—could file multi-billion-pound damages claims against Manchester City.
Finally, the commercial brand of the Premier League faces severe reputational strain. As the world's most lucrative domestic sports league, the Premier League's broadcast value rests on the perception of competitive integrity. A decade of competition compromised by systematic financial fraud threatens to undermine international broadcast rights negotiations, corporate sponsorships, and consumer trust. If the league fails to enforce a punishment that reflects the scale of the wrongdoing, its global brand risk will escalate dramatically.
6. Looking Ahead: Unresolved Questions & Next Milestones
As the legal machinery moves forward, the football world must watch several critical milestones over the coming months. The immediate priority is the formal submission of Manchester City's appeal, due by Friday. The Premier League will then appoint a separate three-member Appeal Tribunal to review the judgment for material errors of law or procedure.
Key operational and strategic metrics to monitor include:
- The Appeal Tribunal Decision: Whether the appellate panel upholds the Independent Commission's findings or identifies procedural flaws requiring reconsideration.
- The High Court Injunction Motion: Should City lose its internal appeal, will Lord Pannick KC file an emergency High Court injunction to suspend all sporting sanctions pending Judicial Review?
- The Sanctions Hearing: The formal convening of the panel to weigh aggravating factors against potential mitigating arguments and issue a final penalty order.
- Player and Managerial Flight: Whether key figures—including manager Pep Guardiola and star players like Erling Haaland—trigger exit clauses or demand transfers to avoid playing in lower divisions or under massive points penalties.
- Sponsor Restructuring: How commercial partners react to reputational fallout, and whether corporate sponsors attempt to terminate contracts under morality clauses.
Manchester City's financial charges verdict represents the ultimate test of sports governance in the 21st century. The resolution of this trial will determine whether multi-billion-pound football institutions remain accountable to collective regulations, or whether sovereign-backed capital can reshape the rules of competition without consequence. The fight for the soul of global football has moved from the pitch to the courtroom, and its verdict will reverberate for generations.
📜 View Full Episode Verbatim Transcript
28,474 characters
Manchester City found guilty of all charges related to breaches of financial rules. The findings of the Independent Commission have finally been released and it's found they arrange sham contracts to disguise secret funding of more than £830 million. City also found guilty of all charges except one relating to non-corporation with the investigation but there's still no word on sanctions that will come after a potential appeal. And City say they will appeal and continue to deny all the charges which span a decade long period. Their CEO faced questioning earlier tonight from Sky Sports News Correspondent Rob Harris. Do you apologise to football fans? I love it, sir, thank you. Have you, are you sure you can win on appeal? Is all the successors that, as the Premier League says, sham contracts? This is sham club. Are you destroying football? Thank you. You don't have a message for football. Thank you. Welcome along to a truly seismic evening in the history of the Premier League. Manchester City and the sport of football, Chief Correspondent Carvee Solicore rejoins us, has been across this throughout much of the past decades. Carvee boil it down to what the Premier League says City are guilty of. Look, this is as bad as it gets for Manchester City. The summary of the judgment we've had is absolutely damning about the way City were run over nine seasons. Some of the language is absolutely extraordinary. But basically, Manchester City's owners have been found guilty of secretly putting £830 million of funding into the club during a period in which they won three league titles. And in those three seasons in which they won the title, 2012, 2014 and 2018, they reported sponsorship income of £360 million. When in reality, according to the findings of the commission, the sponsorship income was not £360 million, it was actually £43 million. The commission found that City arranged sham contracts to artificially inflate the club's revenue and reduce its costs. The club filed mistated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances. City was significantly in breach of both the Premier League and UEFA's financial rules and City committed multiple breaches of its duties of cooperation with the Premier League during its investigation. And City have been found guilty of breaking well over 100 of the Premier League's financial rules. That seems pretty emphatic, but City not having it, what have they had to say? Well, City's position all along since day one is that we are innocent, that we have done nothing wrong. They say that this funding came from legitimate sources. They say they have evidence to prove that this commercial funding was actually from real companies and legitimate sources and the funding was not from their owners, but obviously they presented that evidence and the evidence hasn't been accepted by this Premier League independent commission. It's worth pointing out here as well, that this is not the first time that City have been found guilty of breaking financial fair play rules. The first time I reported on them breaking FFP rules was back in 2014 when they came to an agreement with UEFA to pay a fine of 49 million pounds, some of which I think was suspended. Then again, they were found guilty of breaking UEFA's rules and they took that to the court of arbitration for sport in 2020 and they had their two-year suspension from the Champions League overturned because Cass judges decided that a lot of the charges were time-barred because UEFA has a statute of limitations. Now, the message coming from City is loud and clear. We are going to fight this all the way. The people at the top of the club are saying to the players and to the fans, we've got this. We've been here before, we will do whatever it takes to clear our name. We will have our day in the sun. We had it before when we overturned the UEFA judgment in 2020 and we will do it again. Having said all that, if you read this judgment, it is absolutely damning. If you speak to lawyers, as we've been speaking to quite a few lawyers on air this evening live, their judgment is that they don't see a way back for City from this. In the words of one of them, City have an absolute mountain to climb. We haven't even reached the stage where we have a sanction hearing. That is a hearing at which the Premier League will argue its case over what they believe is an appropriate punishment for City and City will argue their case and present any mitigating factors which they believe they may have. Then we will find out what the punishment is. At the same time, we know for a fact that by Friday, Manchester City will be appealing this judgment as well. But when they appeal, they can't just appeal because they don't like the judgment. They have to have real legal grounds to appeal. They can't relitigate the whole case from scratch. Something we should stress is that there is no recourse to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport within Premier League rules. Is that correct? Absolutely not. When you become a member of the Premier League, you sign up to their rules and in the rulebook it is quite clear you can't go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But that doesn't mean that City won't explore other legal avenues and their chief executive for Ansonriano in a video message that he's released this evening makes it clear that City will explore all legal avenues. So potentially if they stick to their word, if the appeal goes against them, which most lawyers believe will go against them, then you would expect them to go to the High Court. And at the High Court, they would have to argue that the whole process has been unfair. It hasn't been impartial, that there have been problems with the tribunal and the way it was set up and the people who were selected to be on it. I think from City's perspective, this could run and run because they're not ready to throw in the towel yet. We referenced that from Ferran Soriano and we have got that comment as well. No public comment from Soriano but Sky Sports News has obtained a video address he sent to staff at Manchester City. As Carve says in that insisting they will continue to fight to clear their name, he says the case is based on, quote, a single false accusation and he's accused of having a conspiracy theory against him. Let's see that address now. I want to share some information related to the ongoing disciplinary process between Manchester City and the Premier League. A document has been made public with an opinion of the Premier League Commission that is negative to our interest. I want to explain exactly what this is, the next steps and how are we going to continue to defend the club and finally be vindicated in this process. This has gone for so long that it's important to remind ourselves that the whole Premier League case against us is based on a single false accusation. That the owner's personal money was somehow and secretly put into the club via some sponsors from Abu Dhabi. This is just not true. Irrefootable evidence has been provided to the Premier League Commission that shows that it could not happen and that it did not happen. This includes bank statements, money transfers, witnesses and everything necessary to categorically demonstrate the money did not come from the owner. Every other false charge that has been thrown at us and aggressively marketed and promoted comes from that simple, central and completely false accusation. Surprisingly for us and for our lawyers, after nearly two years, the Premier League Commission has issued an opinion that supports the Premier League's conspiracy theory. To do so, the opinion had to actually ignore the extensive evidence provided by the club in order to reach a conclusion that is clearly wrong. Our lawyers will now file an appeal that sets out that the opinion contains clear material errors of low, principle and fact, and it is unsafe. Remember, we have been here before. In 2020, we were also wrongly ruled against for many of the same issues. We appeal to an independent body in CAS and we work. We will now be relentless in our work. We will focus on the independent appeal process and also all other legal avenues available to us in order to win the case. And we will take all necessary action to protect the club and seek compensation from any party that tries to damage it. Now and in the future. Very soon we will look back at this and recognize as another time in our history when we dealt with adversity and overcame it together. Thank you. So Farhan, sorry, Ana, I'm defiant, confident, Karla, would you make of that? I mean, I get the sense that Mr. Soriano has got his back to the wall. He wants to come out fighting and he's looking around to see who is going to be fighting alongside him. Interesting to see what the reaction of city fans will be when they read this judgment. How many city fans are now going to be saying, Mr. Soriano is our leader. We believe him. We agree with him that this is all a big conspiracy. This is not even a judgment. It is just an opinion and we will get this overturned. I'm not sure how many city fans are going to go along with him or are city fans going to read the judgment and go, you know what, we did break the rules. Let's take the punishment, whatever it is, we support city through thick and thin, whatever division we're in, we're still going to go and support the team. We need to draw a line under this. Fighting talk from Mr. Soriano, but I don't know if his fighting talk will survive contact with reality. Well, they appeal to be lodged by Friday with seal and happens with the result there and then possible sanctioned hearing to come. With that sanction, people might be tuning in now and saying, this is unprecedented. They haven't heard this as football fans. We're acting around for context, for president, Portsmouth, nine points, March 2010. That was entering administration, failing to play, players, Everton, 20, 23, six points reduced from 10, forest, four points in March 2024, but you pointed out to me that Chelsea as well significantly didn't get any points deduction. What can we draw from any of those cases? Well, the Chelsea case was a bit different from the others because the Chelsea case was the rules that had been broken under the previous ownership when Roman Abramovich owned the club. And when the new owners bought the club, they went through the books. There were some discrepancies. They self-reported the discrepancies to the FA, the Premier League and also to UEFA. And when it came to their Premier League case, they were fined by the Premier League. They didn't get a points deduction. I think they got a suspended transfer ban as well, but no points deduction and one of the reasons is because they cooperated fully with the Premier League investigation and also they self-reported the discrepancies. Obviously, that has not happened in this case. Now, this, I think, is a case where City will get a very, very serious punishment. And the reason I say that is because they've been found guilty of breaking well over 100 of the Premier League's rules. And as a rule of thumb, for instance, if you're an Everton fan or a non-Gun Forest fan, you'll remember that a couple of seasons ago, when you were found guilty of one charge of breaking the financial rules, you ended up getting a four-point deduction in Forest case, I think, a six-point deduction in Everton's case. So as a rule of thumb, if you get a four-point deduction for breaking one rule, you don't need the calculator to work out that if you break over 100 rules, you are going to get a massive points deduction at the very least. Although you could also get a big fine, there are other sporting sanctions, and you could even be expelled from the Premier League. What about the club now? How do they approach it? Because we've got what two and a half weeks till they go to Anfield to face Liverpool, what will Enzo Moresca and the players be feeling? What are the players playing for England as they look? They will be shell-shocks. I'm sure when we hear from them and when we speak to them in the build-up to their next Premier League game, they will put a brave face on it. I'm pretty sure Enzo Moresca will say, this isn't the hands of the lawyers, I'm here to coach the team, we're going to focus on football. I'm sure the chairman and the chief executive at the club will also speak to the players and say to them, you deal with issues on the pitch, we will deal with everything else, trust us, we are 100% convinced that we are going to be cleared. You have to leave it to us, but you have to think, what kind of effect is this going to have on the players? Because the players are human, they've got families, they've got agents, representatives, they'll be talking to, they'll be thinking about their futures, they will be worried about what the punishment will be, which division will they be playing in next season? Will they still be Manchester City players going forward? We've seen in the past, for instance, when Juventus were relegated in that big, big Calciapoli scandal in Italy, some of the players left, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen at Manchester City, but potentially you could see a totally different City team in the future if they do get a massive points deduction and if they are thrown out of the Premier League, I'm slightly getting ahead of myself, but when you read what was released this evening by the Premier League, you will see that unless City somehow win an appeal or somehow or win a case at the high court and emerge from all this victorious, unless that happens, you have to worry that Manchester City are not going to be a Premier League club next season. Biggest story you've covered? I think it is the biggest story of this kind, but one thing I would say is that, remember, this is not City's first rodeo when it comes to breaking financial fair play rules. The first time they broke financial fair play rules was back in 2014 and they were fined by UEFA, and I think the UEFA general secretary at the time was Johnny Infantino, who of course is now the FIFA president. It feels a little bit strange being able to talk about all these issues because in the past, other journalists more than me because they've covered this story probably in more depth than I have. Everyone has had to be very, very careful what they say about Manchester City and what they say about the 1-1-5 charges and what they say about the UEFA cases because obviously Manchester City have been very, very aggressive in defending their interests and fighting their corner. Personally, I've had quite a lot of, you know, heat and abuse from city fans because they think I've got some kind of agenda against Manchester City or I hate Manchester City. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I've done is, as a sports news reporter, report sports news to the best of my ability. Plenty more reaction to the huge breaking news this evening as the Premier League comes out hard on one of its champions. If you've not got the Sky Sports app yet, what are you waiting for? It's even better than ever. You can catch free Premier League in F1 highlights, keep up with all the live scores and follow your favourite teams to get the latest news in one tap. You'll even get a new personalised video feed so you can see more of the moments that matter to you. Best of all, it's completely free and you don't even need to be a Sky Sports customer. Just search Sky Sports in the app store or on Google Play to download it today. Welcome back to Sky Sports News that on the day Manchester City have been found guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of Premier League financial rules by an independent commission. Manchester City continue to deny any wrongdoing and have confirmed they will appeal against a ruling that ruling has to be submitted by Friday. Jamie Jackson is the Manchester Football correspondent for the Guardian and has given his thoughts. Very, very damn it. I have to say. I know what interested me was two points, but probably everyone's picks out. First of all, the £900 million by which they have been proved, proofs have inflated dealings that say commercial operations, and also their use of the word opinion in their statement Manchester City going back on the back of the Premier League statement of the findings. Their statement talks about opinion. Well, as I understand it, this was a case brought by QC's, KC's on either side to do with fact, yes, not opinion fact, because otherwise, you know, such a high bar to prove these things. And because it's such a high bar to prove these things, it then means it's a very, very high bar to disprove them all. Now, Manchester City, I think I've got two avenues here, the lever question, the veracity, the credibility, if you like, of the free person independent commission, and or, I suppose the new clear option, if they lose the appeal has gone to the high court, well, what high court means is full discovery again. You know, listen, Manchester City, I've got a right to appeal. And if they, if they do win the appeal, then we have a different conversation. But as we, as we sort of sit here now or stand here now, this is a very, very serious situation. And I know what's interesting as well is in the sort of space of what we know, three or four days since Friday when the news broke up until today until this, this statement, a lot of Manchester City fans I'm speaking to hearing from were sort of sticking up for their club phone up. But now it's starting to turn a little bit. Now they're starting to look at the hierarchy, yeah, the people in charge who've carried out these things, you know, the chair and the chief executive, you know, all the sort of high ranking executives start to say, well, come on now, what's going on here? So you sense that the fans are turning, do you? It's not exact size. There's certainly more of a constituency I am hearing from now. 100% yes. Well, there will be an appeal. It looks like that's going to happen. If they lose that appeal, what sanctions do you fear, or rather, what sanctions do you think would be appropriate? Well, I mean, if you look at the scale of the wrongdoing here, I listen, everyone's got an opinion, and I'm not a legal expert, but you have to really hit Manchester City, or actually, you know, the people who carried these out because it's not the actual football club, the fans, let me get that clear. You have to hit the club so hard that no one ever dares try and do this again. So I would suggest some sort of relegation or some sort of mechanism by which they have to start again in non-legue maybe and work the way back up because it's a very serious matter this. I mean, as I said, this 900 million pound figure is mind-blowing, and, you know, we're still now three or four days later, still trying to get to grips with the ramifications of, you know, clubs that might have won this or players that have had the livelihood maybe taken away because of this reason, et cetera, et cetera. So this is pretty serious, and I think it takes, you know, to answer your question in another way, I think it needs a really forensic examination before any sanctions are brought. Now, before the Premier League statement, ESPN reported earlier in the day that Manchester City were told the outcome of the hearing in July, Mark Ogton believes it is then fair that they spent £450 million in the summer as they may not get a chance to spend again in a long time. It's an almighty show of strength by the Premier League, and I think it surprised us all, and I don't think any of us really expected to go this way. I think a lot of over the years, myself included have accused the Premier League of, I've not been strong enough to deal with this sort of situation and taken so much time, but they dealt with it. So they sent an incredible message to any clubbing future that may try to do what City have been found guilty of doing, don't do it, but they're not holding back with the wording which tells me that this has got a, it's got a long way to go yet in terms of what my city they want to appeal, but in terms of when we get to the sanctions, that the ferocity of the language in that statement suggests that all options are on the table and will be considered. Footballers want money, and they want trophies. The City in recent years have been able to offer both in abundance. The moment that stops is the moment the big plays won't want to be there. It's not them that you have to really think about. The people that you have to think about are the cleaning stuff, the catering stuff, the people who depend on the city for their livelihood, and that will be affected by what happened with the Premier League here and if it goes against them because it won't be the footballers that lose their jobs. It'll be the people that need the job for the day-to-day lives. Rob Dawson, my colleague in Manchester wrote earlier today that City actually found out that they were told of the the outcoming July, so prior to the closure of the central window with two months of the window to go. So a part of the early Anderson deal was in place before City found out, but obviously subsequent signings have happened and they spent £450 million in the summer now. To be honest, I think this process hasn't been exhausted yet. There isn't a pill so I don't think it will be fair to say that City can't spend money until they're proving guilty at the end of the process. Then they should be allowed to go about their business because you let's consider the scenario whereby if the Premier say you've been found guilty, you're not going to be at a bounty place for this year or next year, and they ultimately win their appeal, then City will be within their rights to take legal action against the Premier League for not allowing them to buy players. So they have to be allowed to be viewed as innocent until the process exhaust itself. So yeah, that's why I think they were allowed to spend so much money this summer and you can understand it because they may not have the chance to spend money again for a long time if the guilty verdict is upheld about buying a pill. Football finance expert Kira Maguire believes the extent to the charges that City have been found guilty of means that are heavy punishments likely. It's certainly unprecedented as far as Premier League history is concerned. We have had clubs get into financial difficulties but they tend to be self-inflicted. This is, as Richard Masters has said, it's a systematic attempt to deceive the Premier League, to deceive the auditors, ultimately, to deceive the employees of the club and the fans as to how the club has been acting on a day-to-day basis through its finances. And I'm looking at numbers here, 900 million pound advantage over a nine-year period. The average revenue for a big six club during that period of time was 2.9 million pounds. So a few point nine billion. So Manchester City had all one pound in three advantage. Now that's huge when it comes to wait is when it comes to transfer fees, when it comes to negotiating new contracts as well. And that caused into question the decency and the integrity of everything that they've achieved during that period of time. In the first year of acquisition by Shakeman, sort of Manchester City's commercial revenue was 23 million pounds. By 2018 it had increased to 232. That was spectacular. There was a lot of queries at the time but there was no evidence of this concerted effort to disguise the numbers. And now as a result of the hack and as a result of the evidence which has been presented, Manchester City were clearly falsifying the figures. If you take a look, I think at the evident case, they were given six points for a 20 million pound overstatement as far as their PSR calculations are concerned. We don't know by how much Manchester City have breached PSR. But first of all, they have to have a penalty for those breaches. And then secondly, the commission would look into what we refer to as mitigating and aggravating factors. And here on the basis of the evidence that we've seen to date, Manchester City will get nothing in mitigation due to the lack of accuracy and the falsehoods that have been made towards the commission itself. And they would be deemed to be mitigating factors. So you have to be looking at a very very high double digit points deduction if not automatic relegation. But I think automatic relegation would actually be a problem for the Premier League in the sense that you've still got 19 teams in the Premier League. So that would cause fixture problems. And secondly, you have to take into account Manchester City is still a company which employs many hundreds of people in the city of Manchester itself. You can't just say to the club, you can't play anymore this season because I think the social consequences of that would be too damning. David Mooney from the Blue Moon podcast said he is angry with the club and the memories over the past decades have been tarnished. I am utterly aghast at the sheer scale of the findings here. I think it's probably fair to say that along the duration of the investigation and the period that has been the charges, I've been certainly considering the fact that they may be guilty and that they may have done this. I never dreamed for any second that they were guilty to this extent and this scale. My overriding feeling right now is just anger. I mean, again, pending an appeal and they say they have a irrefutable body of evidence for this appeal. I'm a bit kind of like the stage, if it's been refuted once by this panel, if it's so irrefutable, why is it, why is the scale that it is? But at this stage, they have lied to the fans, they've lied to the rest of football, they have acted with sheer, I mean, contempt towards the football club that I support and that, I mean, at this stage, I'm just so incredibly angry that first off that they felt that they could just get away with this. And second off, if they've been caught bang to rights in the first instance that they've just kicked this can down the road for as long as they have done, it will be impossible to look back on those titles and those achievements without also thinking of the scale of the cheating that's come with it. So yeah, the memory still exists, but not in any way, near the same way as they were previously. But if it was trying to quantify a sporting advantage with a couple of million pounds, you might say, well, maybe one, maybe two players shouldn't have been there. We're at the stage where maybe 10 or 12 players shouldn't have been there. So you can't, I don't think you can look back on it in the same way as you would do previously. And there may be fans out there who can. And I'm honestly at this stage, I'm quite jealous of them because I wish I could, but I don't think I can. I want to be able to enjoy the football without the litigation that comes with it. And you know, I've floated this idea already. Maybe that has to come with a change of ownership as well. Maybe the legitimacy only comes back now if they can't overturn this on appeal with evidence. Maybe the ownership needs to change. Scott News Sports correspondent Rob Harris is out in Copenhagen for a meeting of all the top executives from Europe's top football clubs. One of those guests just happened to be City, CEO, Ferran, Sorryano, just as tonight's huge news bro. Do you apologise to football fans? Have you, are you sure you can win on appeal? Is all this success as the Premier League says, sham contracts? Is this a sham club? Are you destroying football? Thank you. Do you not have a message for football? Thank you. Hello, I'm Simon Lazenby. Join me and a host of top guests on the F1 show after every round of the 2026 Formula One World Championship. Visit to our podcast on Apple Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts or watches on the Sky Sports F1 YouTube channel. That's the F1 show from Sky Sports.
