Manchester City Chair Says 'Nothing Has Changed' After Verdict

Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said this week that the club's confidence in proving its innocence remains as strong as when the case began, after an independent panel found Manchester City guilty of the majority of 115 financial rule breach charges brought by the Premier League, covering conduct between 2009 and 2018.¹²⁴

The verdict

According to BBC and ESPN, most of the 115 Premier League charges against Manchester City were upheld, whereas Al Jazeera and Global Banking & Finance Review reported that 114 of the 115 alleged breaches were confirmed. The Guardian and The Shillong Times characterized the ruling as finding the club culpable on every charge except one out of the 115, although The Guardian noted this characterization was itself contested. The alleged breaches span conduct between 2009 and 2018.¹⁴⁵⁹

According to BBC, the Premier League brought seven separate profit-and-sustainability charges and five related to UEFA rules. The independent hearing began in September 2024 and concluded after twelve weeks in December 2024, ESPN reported. BBC said the verdict was reached two years and ten days after the hearing opened, and 1,329 days after City was charged. The investigation traces back to documents leaked by Der Spiegel in November 2018, according to The Esk and The Shillong Times.¹⁴³⁶

Chairman's response

Al Mubarak issued an open letter to supporters restating the club's innocence. "While some people have been quick to reach their own conclusions, and there is so much noise swirling around us, nothing has changed," he wrote, adding that "our confidence and intent in proving the club's innocence is just as strong as when this began." He also said "the Premier League process still has a long way to run."⁶⁵

According to Al Jazeera and Global Banking & Finance Review, confidentiality rules constrained how much Al Mubarak could publicly disclose. The Premier League declined to comment, with a spokesperson saying: "It's a confidential process, we're not commenting at all." Manchester City said in February 2023, when charges were announced, that it held comprehensive and irrefutable evidence of its innocence, and said the club had respected due process for eight years, according to The Guardian.⁵²

What happens next

Manchester City is expected to appeal the verdict, according to The Guardian, ESPN, Al Jazeera and Global Banking & Finance Review. BBC reported that a points deduction now appears inevitable, though a sanction hearing could still be months away and its outcome may not be published until any appeal is completed. ESPN and The Shillong Times reported that consequences could span anything from a monetary penalty to losing points or being removed from the league altogether. The Guardian reported that the broader Premier League proceedings have not concluded, with major steps still outstanding.¹²⁴⁶

Precedents and reaction

BBC noted earlier Premier League profit-and-sustainability sanctions as points of comparison: Everton were docked six points, reduced from ten on appeal, Nottingham Forest were deducted four points, and Chelsea self-reported and admitted guilt. Everton were separately ordered to pay Burnley £35m after a commission found the club had breached the rules over a three-year period. David Bernstein, Manchester City chair between 1998 and 2003 according to The Guardian, said any potential punishment should not be financial alone. The Guardian also reported that musician Noel Gallagher said he was surprised by the verdict.¹²

UEFA had ruled in 2020 that Manchester City committed serious breaches of Financial Fair Play rules, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned UEFA's two-year ban that year, according to The Shillong Times and The Esk. The Esk reported that the Independent Football Regulator has been operational since November 2025, with club licensing due to begin in 2027. Writing on leadership and prevention, commentator Paul Quinn argued that "accountability is not negotiable," that the case reflected "an institutional failure" because alleged breaches were exposed by a newspaper rather than supervision, and that "a system that cannot be seen to be independent cannot command acceptance of its outcomes, whichever way they fall."⁶³