Manchester City’s main sponsor Etihad Airways revealed in a statement it was not approached by the independent commission after the club was found to have broken Premier League financial regulations
Manchester City’s primary sponsor Etihad Airways stated it is seeking legal counsel after it revealed it was not consulted by the independent commission’s investigation during its guilty verdict finding the club had broken all serious Premier League financial regulations.
Etihad, the long-term front-of-shirt sponsor of Manchester City and the title sponsor of its stadium, Etihad Stadium, released a statement yesterday (30 September) which said it “categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements”.
The airline company was not named as one of the club’s sponsors that were found by the commission to have inflated Manchester City sponsors by up to £900m with upfront payments made by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
Despite not being named in the 40-page commission findings, Etihad has taken issue with how the guilty verdict was leaked through reports on 25 September, stating it has “created damaging implications for Etihad”.
During the 12-week investigation ending in December 2024, the independent commission did not approach Etihad to engage and provide information during the process, according to the airline.
Etihad backed Manchester City with its continued support and revealed it will now seek legal counsel to assess its options.
“At no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the Commission’s opinion,” said Etihad in a statement.
“Etihad was therefore never given the opportunity by the Premier League to be represented, to provide relevant information, or to ensure the accuracy and fairness of information relied upon in reaching conclusions that may now be interpreted as reflecting adversely on the airline.
“Etihad is deeply concerned by the way this matter has been communicated publicly. The lack of clarity and transparency, together with the selective disclosure of information, has created damaging implications for Etihad despite the airline not being named in the published decision. The Premier League must take responsibility for the consequences of the way in which these findings have been presented.
“We stand with the Club, its supporters and our wider Etihad community as Manchester City challenges the Commission’s conclusions through the processes available to it. Etihad will seek the relevant legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests.”
Could the Manchester City case go to the UK High Court?
Premier League disputes are investigated in-house due to Rule X. This means all Premier League members agree to binding arbitration to file their arguments against the league and/or other clubs.
Disciplinary matters and appeals are handled by an independent commission, made up of senior solicitors, accountants, auditors and sports governance individuals with 10-15 years’ experience.
Chair of the Judicial Panel, Murray Rosen KC, and its members select the three-person independent commission to handle the tribunal. They must undergo a conflict-of-interest vetting process before handling a private tribunal, in which neither the Premier League nor its clubs have an influence on discussions and findings.
Due to the Premier League being governed by England and Wales law, cases are unable to be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is governed by Swiss law. Manchester City won its case against UEFA at CAS in 2020 and had its two-year Champions League ban overturned.
Under the Arbitration Act 1996, Manchester City can file a case in the UK High Court on any or all of Sections 67, 68, and 69. The UK High Court does not act as an appeals court to retry the case.
Section 67: Manchester City can argue substantive jurisdiction – the independent commission or appeal board lacked legal jurisdiction or authority under Premier League rules to rule on specific charges.
Section 68: Manchester City can argue the independent commission’s case has “serious irregularity” or “substantial injustice” – a failure to remain impartial, the exceeding of powers, or failure to conduct proceedings within the agreed parameters.
Section 69: Manchester City can argue over legal interpretations – this is only under “extraordinary relief”, as the Premier League is contracted out of Section 69, as its legal and disciplinary proceedings are classed as private commercial arbitration.
