Man City players could void contracts if guilty verdict survives appeal, barrister warns

Manchester City players could legally walk away from their contracts if the club’s guilty verdict on 114 Premier League financial charges is upheld on appeal, according to barrister Paul Gilroy KC.

The Premier League announced last week that an independent commission had found City guilty of breaching 114 of the 115 financial charges brought against them, including arranging what were described as ‘sham’ contracts with commercial partners. City deny all charges and are expected to lodge a formal appeal before the deadline set for Friday.

Appearing on the Stick to Football podcast alongside Gary Neville, Ian Wright, Jamie Carragher, Roy Keane and Jill Scott, Gilroy was asked by Wright how the verdict might affect players currently at the club — including Erling Haaland, Enzo Fernandez and Elliot Anderson.

“Every contract of employment has got an implied term in it,” Gilroy explained. “The implied term we’re talking about here is the term of trust and confidence. If you call me a liar and a thief on Tuesday, I can’t work for you on a Wednesday.”

Gilroy outlined the legal argument a player could make: “A player could say, ‘You have breached the implied term of trust and confidence. You are my employer, you have acted in breach of that term, and that entitles me to say I’m ripping up my contract and I’m walking out.’ That is a possibility. I’ve seen commentators saying unlikely, but it depends on so many things — what’s the club going to say to the players, how do they sort it out financially. But arguably, it’s certainly a possibility.”

Carragher then asked, with tongue firmly in cheek, whether Liverpool could sign Haaland for free the following week. “Yeah, why not?” Gilroy replied. Wright added that the Norwegian striker might prefer Arsenal, given his connections there.

City’s appeal process is expected to be lengthy, and the club continues to maintain its innocence. The scale of the charges — spanning alleged financial rule breaches across a nine-year period — makes this one of the most significant disciplinary cases in English football history. Any player action of the kind Gilroy described would almost certainly hinge on the outcome of that appeal.