Manchester City’s strategy in trying to clear their name after being found guilty of more than 100 Premier League breaches has been called into question by a statement submitted to the US government by their main sponsor Etihad Airways in 2015.
Sky Sports News It is understood that as part of City’s appeal, City are expected to claim that additional funding for sponsorship deals comes from the Abu Dhabi government and not from the club’s majority owners, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).
However, a statement Etihad submitted to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 contradicts this explanation.
“The allegation that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of Manchester City, the English Premier League football club, is equally false,” Etihad said in a statement.
In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City signed a 10-year sponsorship deal, which also included naming rights to Manchester City’s stadium.
“Etihad financed this sponsorship from its liquidity. It is not unusual for airlines to sponsor sports teams and their venues.”
The 60-page filing from 2015 is in response to allegations that Etihad received market-distorting government subsidies. Etihad, whose sole shareholder is the government of Abu Dhabi, added later in the presentation: “We are owned by the government and have been since our inception.
“We have and have always been very clear that we do not receive any subsidy from the Government of Abu Dhabi and are funded through a combination of equity, equity and commercial loans.
“Our shareholder equity and loans are not a subsidy by any applicable definition; they are a means by which the Government of Abu Dhabi invests wisely in a successful business model.”
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol answers your questions following Manchester City’s appeal after being found guilty of all serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules by an independent commission.
An independent disciplinary commission found this week that City breached financial rules by concealing £830m of owner funding in sponsorship income for nine seasons between 2009 and 2018.
The city’s lawyers are already believed to have put forward a defense in the 2024 trial that the additional funding was provided by the Abu Dhabi government and not by the owners, despite the relationship between the two.
That explanation was rejected by the commission in a decision published on Tuesday. The three-member panel “concluded that this was an explanation that the club fabricated well after the fact in an attempt to conceal the realities of a disguised financing scheme”.
City’s defense that the extra funding was funded by the Abu Dhabi government was something they claimed during a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing in Lausanne when they challenged a two-year ban for breaching UEFA’s financial fair play rules.
Former Etihad Airways chief executive James Horgan testified at that hearing that City’s sponsorship obligations were paid “out of Etihad’s own funds”.
The club confirmed the appeal on Friday and continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Analysis: How long will Man City’s appeal take?
Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol:
“The application came in at 7pm on Thursday evening and so under Premier League rules the application has to be made and dusted within 12 weeks from then, which takes us to the week before Christmas.
“The application can last for only five days and these five days can only be in one block.
“The appeals panel, which is made up of three different people from the original panel, will have 30 days to make their decision and deliver their decision. That will take you into the third week of January.
“It’s now an accelerated schedule that’s built into the Premier League rules this season.”
Could Man City’s appeal be extended to 2027?
Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol and Amar Mehta:
Manchester City The appeal could be extended until next year if they claim the process should not be conducted under the Premier League rules introduced for this season.
The city appealed, and the new rules on appeals state that this part of the disciplinary process must be completed within 12 weeks and that the appeals hearing cannot last more than five days.
City’s lawyers could have argued that they had been charged in 2023 and had a hearing in 2024 – when the Premier League’s Handbook does not have rules for an expedited appeals process.
This was reported by a legal expert Sky Sports News Manchester City would have a strong case to argue that the new rules should not apply in this case.
The new rules have been introduced to ensure that, where possible, clubs are punished in the same season as the relevant offences.