City lodged a "comprehensive Appeal" at 7pm on 1 October, saying the Commission's opinion contains "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact." Under the Premier League's own rules the appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks (by 24 December), with a decision to follow. No sanctions have been imposed, and none can bite while the appeal is live.
The Case For The Defence · English Football's Defining Case
This site argues one side of the case, and says so. We think the process was unfair, the Commission's opinion is unsafe, and City's appeal deserves to succeed. We are not asking for sympathy. We are asking for scrutiny of a body that wrote the rules, brought the case and published the verdict.
This is argument, not neutral reporting. We won't print anything we can't source, because the argument is strong enough without it.
Our Case
The headline is simple and it's everywhere: City found guilty. What the headline leaves out is how this case was built, how long it took, and how much of the Commission's own reasoning rests on inference, fallback arguments and evidence it admits was incomplete.
Here is why we believe the process and the outcome deserve serious scrutiny.
The League wrote the rules, ran a four-year investigation, brought the charges and argued the case against one of its own members. That structure is what the rulebook provides, but a competitor-owned body prosecuting its most successful member will always invite questions about fairness. We think those questions are fair to ask.
In the Commission's own words, "the evidential picture available to us was... not as complete as it might have been." Witnesses weren't called and documents weren't produced. Where evidence is missing, a tribunal can only infer. We don't think inference should carry findings this serious.
On the sponsorship charges that sit at the heart of the case, the Commission repeatedly reasons "if we are wrong to reach that conclusion, then..." and "either way." A decision that needs a fallback route on its most important point is, in our view, not as certain as the headline suggests.
One charge not proven. Everything else found against City, in a case the Commission itself described as "extremely hard fought" by both sides. We think a result that one-sided deserves the closest possible look from an appeal panel.
City argued the League could not bring some of these charges at all. The Commission rejected that, but the detailed reasoning sits in appendices not included in the published "core" decision. Everyone is being asked to accept the dismissal of City's most fundamental argument without being shown why.
An investigation that began in 2018, charges in February 2023, a hearing that ended in December 2024 and a decision in September 2026. Almost two years of silence after the hearing, then a leak before an official release. We don't think that's the picture of a smooth, well-run process.
"The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator."
— Manchester City FC statement, September 2026That sentence from City's own statement is the crux of it. The club is saying it trusted the process, and the opinion it received is one it believes contains material errors. We think the same standard should apply to the League that the League holds to City.
The Record
Not insinuations. Questions, each tied to something on the public record. If the League has good answers, it should give them. So far it has said that this is "a confidential process" and that it is "not commenting at all."
Two independent bodies have already told a regulator that it got something wrong in a City case: CAS in 2020 and the APT arbitration panel in 2024. The Commission's opinion deserves the same scrutiny.
— Our reading of the record, with the full caveats in the timeline aboveThe Findings
We would rather you read the other side's best case from us than discover it somewhere else. This is what the Commission found, set out plainly. After it, we explain what we dispute.
The Premier League's public statement describes revenue inflated by "over £900 million"; the Commission's text we read puts the sponsorship overstatement at "over £830 million". These may be measuring different things, and we'll update this page as the full decision is analysed.
Charges 2 and 3 stand or fall with Charge 1. They depend on the sponsorship deals being treated as disguised owner funding. If an appeal panel takes a different view of how those deals should be valued and classified, much of the structure beneath them is exposed. That is why the valuation question matters so much, and why we think it is the weakest point in the opinion.
City's position on the facts, as the club has put it: the sponsorship deals were genuine commercial arrangements; the club says it has substantial evidence supporting that; and it says the Commission's opinion is wrong in law, in principle and in fact.
Timeline
Der Spiegel publishes leaked internal Manchester City emails, the origin of both UEFA's and the Premier League's investigations. City say the material was stolen and selectively presented.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport overturns UEFA's two-year European ban: a majority finds the allegation that sponsorship income was inflated "was not proven," and some payments were time-barred. In fairness, CAS also fined City €10m for failing to cooperate with UEFA's investigation. We'd rather you hear that from us.
The Premier League conducts its own investigation. City say they cooperated; the Commission would later find otherwise on most of the cooperation charges.
The Premier League refers City to an independent Commission with 115 alleged breaches. City say they are "surprised" given the evidence they had provided.
A 12-week private hearing at the International Dispute Resolution Centre: 27 factual witnesses, expert evidence, around 7,000 pages of transcript. Then nearly two years of silence.
In City's separate challenge to the League's associated-party-transaction (APT) rules, an arbitration panel finds the rules breached UK competition law because they excluded shareholder loans, and that 2024 amendments were also unlawful. The League committed to change them. Both sides claimed victory: the League says it won on most counts and the APT system was upheld. We note it still had to rewrite its own rulebook.
The Athletic reports the verdict on Friday 25 September, days before anything official. ESPN, citing one source, says City sought an injunction that day to block the reporting. On 29 September the Premier League publishes the Commission's core decision and its own statement. City say they are "disappointed and surprised."
At 7pm on 1 October City file their appeal, citing "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact." The club says it is limited in what it can say until proceedings finish, and will continue to respect due process.
Under the Premier League Handbook the appeal hearing is due to conclude within 12 weeks of lodging, with a decision due within 30 days after. Extra time may be allowed given the complexity of the case.
A separate hearing on any punishment has no date. We'd argue it makes little sense to set penalties while the findings they rest on are under appeal.
The Appeal
City's appeal is in. The Premier League's own timetable has the hearing finishing by the end of December and a decision around January 2027, though the League's rules allow for more time in a case this complex. Sanctions, if any, would then be decided separately, and any sanctions could themselves be appealed.
That means the version of this story that says City have been "found guilty" and that's that is, at best, incomplete. A finding under appeal is not a final finding.
Here are the grounds we believe an appeal panel will find hardest to wave away:
City's own words: the Commission's opinion contains "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact" and is, in the club's view, unsafe.
— Manchester City FC, 1 October 2026We believe City have a genuinely strong case. We argue one side, which is precisely why we're careful not to promise you the outcome. Appeals are won and lost on specific points of law, and we won't pretend to know how this panel will rule. The 2020 CAS ruling shows an independent body can and will overturn a case that looked settled in the headlines. That is a reason for hope. It is not a guarantee.
Be wary of anyone, in either direction, who treats this as finished. The opinion is under appeal, sanctions haven't been set, and the real contest is only now getting started. We'll update this page at each stage.
FAQ
Has City been found guilty?
An independent Commission has issued an opinion finding against City on all charges but one, and the Premier League has published it. City have appealed that opinion, saying it contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact. Until the appeal is decided, it isn't the final word.
Is the Premier League biased?
We think the structure invites fair questions: the League wrote the rules, investigated, prosecuted and was a party to the case against one of its own members. We're not claiming to have proof of improper motive, and we'd urge everyone, on all sides, to stick to what can be shown. The way to test the process is through the appeal.
How strong is City's appeal?
We think it's strong, for the reasons set out above, and we'd rather explain those than just assert it. Nobody outside the room can say how it will go. Appeals are decided on specific points of law and procedure. Treat anyone offering certainty, either way, with caution.
Will City be punished while the appeal is running?
No sanctions have been set, and a separate sanctions hearing has no date. City say they will continue to respect due process. We'd argue it would make little sense to impose penalties on findings that are themselves being challenged.
How long will the appeal take?
The Premier League's rules target a hearing within 12 weeks of lodging, so by around 24 December, and a decision within 30 days of the hearing ending. In practice, this case has overrun every timetable so far, and sanctions could be appealed too.
What could City be punished with?
Nothing has been decided. Commentators have floated everything from transfer restrictions and fines to points deductions, with expulsion mentioned as a theoretical extreme. Any specific number you see before the sanctions hearing happens is speculation.
Is this a criminal case?
No. It is a disciplinary proceeding under the Premier League's own rules, run along the lines of commercial arbitration. No criminal charges have been brought against the club or any individual.
Why should I trust this site?
You shouldn't take our word for it, and we don't ask you to. We argue one side and say so. We link our claims to the published decision and official statements, and we separate fact from opinion. If we get something wrong, tell us and we'll correct it.