Manchester City appeal faces fresh scrutiny over evidence submitted to UEFA

Manchester City’s defence against 114 alleged Premier League financial breaches has come under renewed pressure after reports suggested evidence previously submitted by the club to UEFA could conflict with one of its central arguments.

City were found guilty last week of 114 of the 115 charges brought by the Premier League, relating to the period between 2009 and 2018. The case centres on allegations that the club used “fake” sponsorship agreements to inflate its revenue by about £900m.

The club continues to deny any wrongdoing and maintains it has “conclusive evidence” to prove its position. Its appeal will be heard by an independent three-person panel, with a decision expected before the end of the year.

One of City’s main arguments is that the sponsorship agreements under scrutiny were legitimate and funded by the United Arab Emirates government, rather than by the club’s owners through Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG).

Premier League regulations allow state-owned entities to sponsor clubs. City’s position is that this supports its case and demonstrates that ADUG was not behind improper sponsorship arrangements.

However, that argument has been challenged by earlier reports concerning Etihad Airways, the club’s principal sponsor. In 2015, the airline reportedly told the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State that claims the UAE government had paid for the sponsorship agreements were “false”. The statement was made during an investigation into state-owned airlines.

Payments disclosed to UEFA

According to The Times, evidence supplied by Manchester City to UEFA more than six years ago could further complicate its appeal against the allegations involving “fake” sponsorship deals.

The newspaper reported that City told UEFA two payments of £15m each, transferred in 2012 and 2013, had been made by Jaber Mohamed, the general manager of the UAE Crown Prince’s Court.

However, reports indicate that the club did not provide UEFA with evidence linking Jaber Mohamed to the Crown Prince’s Court. Instead, City reportedly said only that “the payment was made on the instructions of Abu Dhabi United Group”.

The two payments were allegedly expected to come from Etisalat, one of Manchester City’s sponsors. The United Arab Emirates holds a majority stake in the company.

The reported evidence has raised questions because City’s appeal relies on the claim that the UAE government financed the sponsorship arrangements at the centre of the case. It is unclear why that explanation was not included in the evidence submitted to UEFA several years ago.

Etihad statement adds further pressure

The reports involving Etihad Airways are not the first development to put pressure on Manchester City’s defence.

During the 2015 investigation into state-owned airlines, the UAE government-owned company rejected claims that the government had funded its sponsorship arrangements.

In a statement at the time, Etihad said its government ownership had existed since the airline was founded and that it had never received financial support from the Abu Dhabi government.

The airline said its financing came through a combination of shareholder capital, shareholder loans and commercial loans. It added that shareholder capital and loans did not constitute financial support under any applicable definition, but were instead the means by which the Abu Dhabi government invested in a successful commercial business.