Premier League clubs are reportedly divided over whether to expel Manchester City from the top flight following their guilty verdict on 114 of the 115 charges brought against them. While some believe City's rule-breaking warrants expulsion and a restart in non-league football, others are said to be concerned that removing them could trigger the revival of a European Super League.
Expulsion and Super League Concerns
City were the first club to formally begin withdrawal procedures from the ESL in 2021, amid fierce backlash from supporters, before other teams across the Premier League and Europe followed their lead. The project, however, did not completely collapse until UEFA announced it had reached "an agreement of principles for the well-being of European club football" with Real Madrid and the European Football Clubs group in February.
City's potential removal has raised additional concerns amongst some Premier League clubs. Earlier this week, it emerged that unnamed executives from two leading clubs admitted they would be 'staggered' if 15 clubs voted to expel City, describing such action as 'commercial suicide'.
Divisions and Sanctions
The Telegraph reports that certain clubs argue the Premier League is stronger with City remaining part of it, while its global reputation would suffer in their absence. However, the same report also suggests there is appetite amongst senior figures at certain clubs to see City expelled entirely and refused entry even to the EFL, alongside discussions regarding a potential 200-point deduction spread across multiple seasons.
Removal from the Premier League represents one sanction the independent commission could impose, though it would require 15 clubs to support such action. Transfer bans, points penalties and financial sanctions are also under consideration.
Appeal and Evidence
City were found guilty of all financial-related charges and face accusations of artificially inflating revenue by over £900million through 'sham' sponsorship arrangements. They have since lodged an appeal and will now have their case examined by a fresh independent panel of three members, selected by the Premier League's judicial panel, to establish definitively whether any misconduct occurred.
The former champions insist they possess 'irrefutable evidence' demonstrating the 'sham' deals were genuine and funded by the Abu Dhabi government, rather than by the club's owners in the Abu Dhabi United Group. The Premier League permits state-owned entities to sponsor clubs, which could assist in exonerating the club and proving that ADUG did not fabricate illegitimate arrangements.
Nevertheless, that assertion has already been called into question by previous statements made by title sponsors Etihad during a 2015 inquiry. The United Arab Emirates' state-owned airline informed the United States Department of Commerce, Transportation, and State that claims of the government funding sponsorships were "false" during an investigation into state-owned airlines.
A statement released at the time declared: "We are government-owned and have been since our founding. We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans. Our shareholder's equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model."
On Friday, City confirmed their appeal and released a statement reading: "The club's firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. The club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case. We will continue to respect due process and are necessarily restricted in what we can say further until all proceedings are complete."
