Premier League clubs are reportedly split on whether Manchester City should be expelled from the top flight after an independent commission found the club guilty on 114 of the 115 charges brought against them. Some clubs believe City's rule-breaking should result in expulsion and a restart in non-League football, while others fear that removing the club could revive the European Super League (ESL) project.
Clubs divided over expulsion vote
City were the first club to formally begin withdrawal procedures from the ESL in April 2021, following significant fan backlash, before other Premier League and European clubs followed. The Super League project did not fully 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.
According to The Telegraph, some clubs argue the Premier League is stronger with City in it and that its global reputation would suffer without them. However, the same report claims leading figures at some clubs want City expelled and not admitted to the EFL, with discussions also taking place about a potential 200-point deduction applied over several seasons.
Unnamed executives from two top clubs have reportedly admitted they would be ‘staggered’ if 15 clubs voted to expel City, describing the move as ‘commercial suicide’.
Possible punishments and appeal
Expulsion from the Premier League is one punishment the independent commission could consider, but it would require 15 clubs to vote in favour. Other options include transfer embargoes, points deductions, and fines.
City were found guilty of all financial-related charges and stand accused of artificially inflating revenue by more than £900million through ‘sham’ sponsorship deals. The club have appealed the decision, and their challenge will now be heard by a new independent panel of three, appointed by the Premier League’s judicial panel.
The former champions claim they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ proving the deals were legitimate and paid for by the Abu Dhabi government, not by the club's owners in the Abu Dhabi United Group. The Premier League allows state-owned bodies to sponsor clubs, which could help clear the club of any wrongdoing.
Past statements and club response
That claim has been undermined by past statements from title sponsors Etihad during a 2015 investigation. The state-owned airline of the United Arab Emirates told the United States Department of Commerce, Transportation, and State that reports of the government paying for sponsorships were “false” during an investigation into state-owned airlines.
A statement at the time read: “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 said in a statement: “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.”
