Manchester City: Etihad sues the Premier League


Etihad Airways, Manchester City’s main sponsor, is considering legal action against the Premier League following the publication of the findings of an independent commission into the club’s long-running financial rules case.

The Abu Dhabi-based airline said it was examining its legal options after the Premier League published details of the commission’s ruling, arguing that the way the findings were communicated created damaging implications for the airline despite Etihad not being named in the published and redacted decision. Project reports

Etihad also strongly rejected any suggestion of involvement in improper commercial deals with Manchester City.

The development comes shortly after an independent commission found Manchester City guilty of serious breaches of Premier League financial rules over a period of nine seasons. The league said the commission found the club had used “fictitious” commercial deals involving several sponsors as part of a scheme that artificially inflated revenues and reduced costs by more than £900 million.

Etihad challenges management of Premier League

According to a statement to the Times, Etihad expressed concern that the Premier League never contacted or involved the airline during the investigation and subsequent proceedings.

The airline then said it was not given the opportunity to provide relevant information or respond to issues that could potentially impact its reputation.

Etihad argued that the Premier League’s public reporting of the commission’s findings, after what it described as a period of leaks and selective reporting, had created damaging implications for the airline.

The airline said it was assessing available legal avenues to protect its interests, although it did not announce that formal proceedings had been brought against the Premier League.

Etihad has been Manchester City’s main sponsor since 2009 and remains one of the club’s main commercial partners.

Commission findings

The controversy follows the publication of the independent commission’s ruling on the 115 allegations made by the Premier League against Manchester City.

The Premier League said the commission found City had entered into commercial contracts with several sponsors in a way that did not reflect the actual financial arrangements between the parties.

According to the league, the commission found that some sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the sponsorship fees recorded in the relevant agreements, while the remainder would be financed by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owns the club.

The Premier League said the commission concluded that the deals had the effect of artificially increasing City’s reported revenue and reducing costs, allowing the club to appear compliant with applicable financial regulations.

The league said the commission also found City guilty of three of four charges relating to the alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.

Manchester City rejected the commission’s findings and said it intended to appeal, arguing that the decision contains material errors of law, principle and fact.

The airline maintains the sponsorship relationship

Despite the dispute, Etihad reaffirmed its long-standing relationship with Manchester City.

The airline’s latest position focuses on the potential reputational consequences of the Premier League publishing the commission’s findings and what it sees as the lack of an opportunity to respond during the proceedings.

Etihad maintains that it has not entered into any improper commercial arrangements and is seeking legal advice on the options available to it.

The airline’s position introduces another potential legal dimension to a case that has already involved years of investigations, hearings and disputes between Manchester City and the Premier League.

The Premier League has so far declined to comment specifically on Etihad’s consideration of legal action.

Separate from previous sponsorship controversy

The latest development should also be distinguished from an earlier legal dispute between Manchester City and the Premier League over Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules.

These rules govern commercial agreements between clubs and companies or individuals linked to their ownership.

Manchester City had previously contested aspects of the APT regulations, including rules affecting sponsorship deals. The dispute was ultimately resolved in September 2025, with the City accepting that the then-current APT rules were valid and binding.

That earlier case was separate from the much larger disciplinary proceedings involving the 115 financial regulations allegations.

Etihad’s current development instead follows the publication of the commission’s findings in that disciplinary case and the airline’s objection over how those findings have affected its reputation.

City’s appeal is yet to come

Manchester City now face a separate appeal process over the commission’s findings.

The Premier League has not yet imposed a fine on the club following the verdict, leaving any consequences subject to further proceedings.

The city has consistently denied any wrongdoing throughout the case and is expected to contest the findings through the available appeals process. Reuters reported that the club has until Friday to appeal.

The outcome of that trial could determine the next phase of one of the longest financial disputes in Premier League history.

For Etihad, however, the immediate concern is the airline’s reputation and its opposition to what it sees as implication of wrongdoing without being given the opportunity to participate in the process.

Its consideration of legal action therefore adds a new layer to the ongoing controversy, with the airline yet to publicly determine whether it will proceed with formal proceedings against the Premier League.

Check Also

The Anambra government has threatened to imprison anyone who refuses to inherit property for women and girls

The Anambra State Government has threatened to prosecute and imprison individuals or groups who deny …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *