Liverpool supporters are not wrong to feel uneasy about everything that has happened around Manchester City.
The independent commission found City guilty of serious financial rule breaches over a nine-season period, including using sham commercial arrangements, misstating accounts and breaching spending limits. City have the right to appeal, and the question of sanctions has not yet been decided.
But there is another issue that deserves attention: the refereeing.
I am not accusing Michael Oliver or Howard Webb of corruption. Nor am I claiming that every controversial decision involving Manchester City was deliberately made in the club’s favour.
Those would be serious allegations, and they would require serious evidence.
However, there have been enough contentious decisions involving City for supporters to ask whether the refereeing system should be independently examined. That should include PGMOL, senior referees, appointments and the relationships surrounding professional officiating.
Liverpool have had several decisions against Manchester City that remain difficult to understand.
Take the 1-1 draw at Anfield in March 2024. Jeremy Doku caught Alexis Mac Allister with a high boot inside the penalty area. Michael Oliver waved away Liverpool’s appeal, and VAR Stuart Attwell did not intervene.
Howard Webb later defended the decision, saying it was subjective and that VAR was right not to overturn it.
People will continue to debate that incident, but it was hardly the first time Liverpool supporters had been left frustrated by a major decision involving City.
There was also the more recent match in which Virgil van Dijk appeared to equalise with a header, only for the goal to be ruled out because Andy Robertson was judged to have interfered with Gianluigi Donnarumma from an offside position.
Michael Oliver was on VAR and supported the decision made on the pitch. Liverpool later contacted the refereeing body because the club believed the goal should have stood.
Webb again defended the decision, describing it as a matter of judgment.
That does not prove anything sinister. But when the same club keeps appearing at the centre of major refereeing controversies, supporters are entitled to ask questions.
Then there is the issue of overseas appointments.
Michael Oliver travelled to Saudi Arabia in 2023 to referee Al-Nassr against Al-Hilal. Reports at the time said he was paid around £3,000 for the match, more than double his usual Premier League fee, with business-class flights included.
Other English officials have also taken assignments in the region.
The concern is not simply that referees accepted those appointments. It is the wider context. Manchester City are owned by Abu Dhabi’s City Football Group, while Newcastle United are owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
That does not mean a referee who works in Saudi Arabia will favour Manchester City. But football should understand that perception matters, particularly when officials are taking paid assignments connected to countries and ownership groups with close links to clubs in the Premier League.
PGMOL eventually changed its policy. Reports said Howard Webb decided that approval for senior Premier League officials to take one-off matches in Saudi Arabia and the UAE would no longer be granted unless the assignment involved a development opportunity.
That suggests the optics were recognised as a problem.
This is why I believe there should be a proper independent review.
Not a witch hunt. Not an investigation designed to prove that every decision against Liverpool was wrong. A genuine review of the major decisions involving Manchester City over the years.
It should examine who was referee, who was on VAR, what the KMI panel concluded, how the decisions were explained afterwards, how appointments were made and whether any potential conflicts of interest were properly managed.
Then the findings should be published.
The Premier League has already taken a small step in that direction by introducing the weekly publication of its Key Match Incidents panel results for 2026/27. The panel independently assesses major refereeing decisions, which is welcome, although the process could still be made more transparent.
Recent events show why that matters.
Earlier this month, Pro Ref admitted that VAR made an error during Manchester City’s derby win over Manchester United. The VAR failed to properly consider Enzo Fernández’s influence from an offside position before Erling Haaland’s goal was allowed to stand. The officials involved were subsequently stood down.
That is how serious mistakes should be handled. Explain them, admit them and take action where necessary.
What supporters should not be expected to do is accept that everything is fine simply because Howard Webb has explained why a decision was made. An explanation does not automatically make a decision correct, and sometimes it only raises further questions.
After the findings against Manchester City, football should be willing to examine everything connected to the integrity of the competition.
That does not mean accusing referees of cheating. It means asking whether the structures around professional officiating are strong enough.
Were appointments made appropriately?
Were major decisions reviewed properly?
Were potential conflicts managed?
Were overseas assignments suitable?
Were mistakes dealt with consistently?
Most importantly, would an independent observer have confidence in the system?
That is the question that needs answering.
Liverpool supporters are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same thing every football supporter should want: a level playing field.
If an independent review concludes that the controversies were the result of mistakes, inconsistent interpretations and the problems that come with VAR, then so be it. At least the issue will have been examined properly.
But if football is serious about protecting the integrity of the Premier League, it should not be afraid to investigate itself.
Michael Oliver should not be above scrutiny.
Howard Webb should not be above scrutiny.
PGMOL should not be above scrutiny.
Nobody should be.
Not after everything that has emerged about Manchester City, and not when supporters have been raising questions about refereeing decisions and outside relationships for years.
I would rather see those questions investigated and answered than spend another decade arguing about them.
Jamie (The Kopite View)
### _Related_