Manchester City appeal rests on single 'core argument' that funding came from Abu Dhabi, not the club

Manchester City are pursuing their appeal against a landmark Premier League guilty verdict with a strategy that hinges on one central claim: that the money at the heart of their financial rules case came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club itself — a distinction that, if accepted, would not constitute a breach of the rules.

Last month, an independent Commission found City guilty of all charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations across nine seasons, as well as multiple counts of failing to cooperate with the league’s investigation. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said the club had “systematically broken Premier League Rules for nearly a decade” and that upholding those rules was essential to protecting the competition’s integrity.

However, Manchester Evening News chief City writer Simon Bajkowski, speaking on the Talking City podcast, outlined why the club retains significant hope despite the scale of the verdict. “It seems like City have a mountain to overcome — and it is a mountain, but it’s not a multitude of things: it’s basically a core argument,” Bajkowski said.

The argument centres on City’s alleged funding scheme. Bajkowski explained that City’s position is that “the money did not come from Man City to the sponsors to then go back into Man City’s books. It came from the Abu Dhabi government to the sponsors, which then paid Manchester City — so the money has come from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club, which is not against the rules.”

Crucially, Bajkowski noted that City “don’t need to overturn everything” — if they can demonstrate that the funding flowed from the Abu Dhabi government rather than being circular club money, they could escape some of the most serious punishments even if other charges stand.

The appeal will be heard by a newly assembled three-person commission tasked with reviewing the original decision rather than rehearsing the entire case from scratch. Bajkowski said the club was “stunned” by the original verdict and hopes that “a different set of eyes” will interpret the evidence differently.

He also pointed to concerns about the process itself. “City mentioned an unsafe verdict, and reading between the lines, it’s that it has taken so long for a verdict — how can you be so sure that witnesses were untrue if you are thinking back two years to when they were on the stand?” Bajkowski said, suggesting the club intends to challenge both the substance of the findings and the reliability of the process that produced them.