To intervene or not to intervene?: what Man City's court decision means for the government

By Theresa Lee

Over three years since charges were first brought, Manchester City Football Club (Man City FC) were declared guilty of 114 charges out of 115. Man City were initially charged with breaching the Premier League's financial conduct rules. It consisted of accusations of arranging fake contracts with advertisements and breaching spending limits between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons. The case has been delayed with continuous appeals, non-cooperation, and prolonged investigations. Due to their non-cooperation, City were also found guilty on the majority of charges of failing to cooperate with the investigations. According to the Premier League, Man City was able to increase their funding to £949.94 million, when only £119.25 million of it was actually paid by the sponsors, and the rest was filled out by the club owners, Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG). Though Man City have submitted an appeal with what they claim to be “a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” proving their innocence, it is expected that they will still lose the case.  

This brings into question whether the City’s achievements over the past few decades were legitimate. Man City has built up their reputation as one of England’s most successful teams ever since Sheikh Mansour and the ADUG bought the City in 2008. From 2009 to 2018, Man City won three Premier League Cups and one FA Cup, winning the Premier League in 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Most recently, City has also won the Champions League in 2023. With the series of victories falling neatly in the timeline when Man City had begun scamming the Premier League, it is questionable whether those successes were legitimate. While the physical skills of the player may be real, it has also been found that one of the reasons behind the overspending was to fund the improvement it took for Man City to win said awards. If the club inflate how much is being earned, they can also increase the amount of spending needed for transfers or wages, allowing Man City to bring in premium players. 

With the series of victories falling neatly in the timeline when Man City had begun scamming the Premier League, it is questionable whether those successes were legitimate

City’s achievements are not the only things being brought into question, as the guilty verdict also threatens the relations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). After it was revealed that Man City may be guilty of 114 out of 115 charges, UAE officials came out with a statement warning the UK Government that, depending on the verdict, the UAE may pull out of any grandiose investments. This warning came at a crucial time as an investment summit was planned for later October, meaning the UK cannot risk souring their relations with the UAE or they would lose one of their biggest investors.

Andy Burnham stands in a remarkably passive position in all this. In an attempt to appease the investors and owners of Man City, the prime minister had made several statements thanking the ADUG for their investments and was accused of going out of his way in “frankly extraordinary” manners to support the owners. He has also publicly stated that he will not intervene in any decisions on Man City’s verdict, supported by Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. She also claimed that the UK Government has no position in the case. 

Even if the government does decide to weigh in, their opinion would bring in several problems. First, the legal process of reprimanding Man City is based on Premier League rules, which are overseen by an independent Disciplinary Commission, requiring impartiality. Any direct government intervention would compromise said impartiality and risk weighing the decision to one side. The government has come to privately suggest that any Premier League investigations or regulations are outside their control and that officials do not have any influence over them. Given that Burnham seems to amend relationships with the UAE, if the government were to take a side, it would be that of Man City. This is especially supported by the fact that Burnham has allegedly made comments downplaying the verdicts of Man City. Though the Prime Minister has denied making such comments, his clear intentions of maintaining a good relationship with the UAE can elicit concerns that the government would intervene in favour of Man City. Second, much like the first issue, if the government were to publicly intervene in independent court cases, especially one that involves public figures, it would bring up discussions of populism and ‘favouritism’ that would impact future cases. 

If the government does not decide to intervene, it is very likely that Man City would be charged, regardless of the continuous appeals. According to the Premier League’s Handbook, Section W, Rule 54, the punishment could range from a simple reprimand to even expulsion, with fines, mass point deductions and transfer bans in the middle. If there were to be point deductions or even expulsions, that would mean the ADUG have wasted their investments in building up the most successful power outlet only to lose it. Likely, the UAE would be miffed enough to reconsider future investments in UK businesses. 

Whether or not the UK government decides to intervene, its financial relationship with the UAE is on rocky ground. 

Image: Steffen Prößdorf