Manchester City exist in the strangest of realities, forced to exist and indeed thrive with the constant threat of sanctions hanging over them. The most recent of these relate to the 115 charges levelled against the club back in February 2023, with the subsequent hearing taking place in late 2024. Yet almost two years after the conclusion of the hearing, there is still no verdict.
It seems odd, with the past still hanging as a spectre over the club, that this summer saw City preparing for a new era. Pep Guardiola is gone, Enzo Maresca has arrived and the Premier League continues to roll on as it always does. The one question that always seems to remain, though, is what, if anything, Manchester City did wrong.
This used to be a simple question of what punishment to mete out, but has turned into a more fundamental one: who actually gets to decide Manchester City’s fate?
The intended regulatory framework, at least as it was set out at the time of the charges, was for the Premier League to charge the club, an independent commission to review and adjudicate on the case, and finally a punishment and appeals process. Crucially, the commission is meant to be independent throughout, and City deny the allegations outright. The key point is that nobody outside of the process is supposed to decide the outcome.
A crowded stadium with a field filled with people celebrating, surrounded by stands filled with fans. The atmosphere is vibrant and lively.
A crowded stadium with a field filled with people celebrating, surrounded by stands filled with fans. The atmosphere is vibrant and lively.
Manchester City’s first taste of Premier League success back in 2012 (Photo by Oldelpaso Wiki CC)
But City isn’t just another club. It’s one of the most powerful football clubs in the world, is owned by Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi investment vehicle and, through its commercial ties, is central to the Premier League’s overall success. There is also the far broader context of the geopolitical relationship between the UK and the UAE, which is potentially in play too.
This isn’t even a hypothetical political fear. There have already been reports that the UK government sought updates on the City case, while correspondence relating to the matter was withheld over concerns about UK-UAE relations. The Times also reported that rival clubs feared political pressure could influence the handling of the charges.
The existence of political interest in the case raises a far more uncomfortable question: where does football regulation end and government interest begin?
Clearly, the UK government doesn’t intend to sit on the sidelines anymore. The Football Governance Act 2025 established the Independent Football Regulator, with powers coming fully into effect from 2027/28. So it does beg the question: if the government believes the game’s existing regulatory structures to be insufficient, why should the most consequential case ever brought by them be treated as entirely separate from the wider political environment?
City do have history with Premier League charges, and a successful one in defending them. The club successfully challenged elements of the Premier League’s APT rules, with an independent tribunal finding parts of the framework unlawful – the dispute was eventually settled in 2025. City have already demonstrated that they are willing and able to challenge the Premier League’s regulatory authority through the courts, and that those rules must survive legal scrutiny.
The problem with the level and breadth of scrutiny, outside influence and input on the case is that it is, and continues to be, causing significant delays. Even if City are cleared, there will still be questions over the process, the future of financial regulation and the damage to City’s reputation.
The more complicated outcome would be if City are found guilty. What punishment is proportionate? Can a points deduction be applied retrospectively? What happens to the titles won during the period?
Either outcome puts enormous pressure on the institution that made the decision.
This becomes the complicated part, because the true adjudicator in this process is becoming less clear. The independent commission legally decides the outcome. The Premier League brought the case and will have to enforce the outcome. The government shapes the regulatory environment in which football operates in the UK, without directly deciding the charges. Nobody has complete control here.
The most important consequence of this case may not be the punishment Manchester City eventually does or doesn’t receive. It will be what the case tells us about the ability of English football to regulate its most powerful clubs.
An independent commission will formally decide the outcome. But the bigger question is whether English football can maintain the credibility of that independence when the case involves one of its most powerful clubs, one of its most important commercial relationships and a government that is increasingly unwilling to leave football governance alone.