An independent Commission has found Manchester City guilty of all charges related to serious breaches of the Premier League's financial rules over a nine-season period, and the majority of charges in relation to its failure to cooperate with the League's investigation. The Premier League officially announced the verdict on Tuesday afternoon, four days after media reports broke the news.
Manchester City have until Friday, October 2 to appeal the decision, which the club are likely to do as they continue to protest their innocence.
Premier League statement details 'sham' contracts
In a statement, the Premier League said the independent Commission found that between Seasons 2009/10 and 2017/18, Manchester City arranged 'sham' contracts with a number of its commercial partners, as well as relying on 'sham' agreements with others, to artificially inflate the club's revenues and reduce its costs. The club filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances from its auditors and football regulators.
The Commission found that Manchester City was significantly in breach of both the Premier League's and UEFA's spending limits. During the Premier League's investigation, Manchester City committed multiple breaches of its duties of cooperation and utmost good faith towards the League, with three of the four alleged breaches upheld.
The purpose of these schemes was found to have been to artificially inflate the club's revenues, and reduce its costs, by more than £900 million during the affected period, to appear to comply with financial rules. The Commission concluded that 'by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules'.
City responds with 'disappointed and surprised' verdict
Manchester City released a statement in the wake of the Premier League's confirmation, saying: "Manchester City FC is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League Commission, that has been published today. 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."
The club stated it will pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe.
Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said: "The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade. It also vindicates the Premier League's decision to pursue this case against Manchester City."
Reactions and potential sanctions
Football finance expert Kieran Maguire warned that City's breaches have "gone far beyond the worst-case scenario that anybody initially envisaged", telling BBC Radio 5 Live: "If you Google what the word 'sham' means, I'm getting the words 'fake, false, fraud'. It's very, very significant."
Former City chairman David Bernstein described the league's findings as "damning beyond belief", insisting that "the sanctions cannot just be financial". Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, he said: "I would go as far [as to say it is a deep-seated form of fraud] and if it is, I'm not a lawyer but as a thought this is something so serious that it goes beyond the football authorities."
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Manchester City could be expelled from the Premier League, telling Channel 5 News: "I don't want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing. But what I would say is that the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed."
La Liga president Javier Tebas called for a significant punishment, saying: "I don't know the exact rules, but I believe it should be the strictest punishment in the Premier League regulations regarding this matter. It should be a punishment intended to set an example."
The independent Commission explained the reason behind the 20-month delay following the end of the 42-day hearing, stating: "It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated would be the case when the hearing concluded, to produce our Decision. That is regrettable."
