Manchester City breached Premier League rules over £8.866m Roberto Mancini contract, commission finds

Manchester City breached Premier League rules by failing to include £8.866m of payments in Roberto Mancini’s contract, an independent commission has ruled.

The Premier League published the commission’s decision in its case against the club, with one section examining arrangements made after the initial leaks concerning the former Manchester City manager’s deal.

The ruling refers to three separate mechanisms allegedly used to keep the club’s liabilities away from its official accounts. The details concerning Mancini’s contract were considered under charge 1(b), and relate to a manager rather than a player.

The commission found that City breached Premier League rules P.7 and P.8, which govern what must be included in a head coach’s employment contract.

It said: “A significant part of the remuneration payable by the club was not recorded in the manager’s employment contract, but in a consultancy agreement between third parties.

“The monies paid under that arrangement, totalling £8.866m, came from the Abu Dhabi-related group that owns City.”

The commission concluded that the underlying agreements were “sham” arrangements. It said the club’s expenditure had been understated by the same amount and that Manchester City’s management “clearly intended to circumvent the Premier League rules”.

Mancini managed Manchester City from December 2009 until May 2013. However, the ruling contains no findings against the Italian himself.

The decision specifically distinguishes between the club and the individual, noting: “There are two important points: the commission’s findings are against the club, not the individual, and Mancini was not a party, and nothing in the published document contains any finding against him personally.”

It added: “Names are redacted throughout the document.”

Mancini said last Sunday: “I don’t believe in Manchester City’s guilt, quite the opposite.”

The commission’s overall conclusion stated: “We find that the charges set out above are proved to the required standard.”