Against Manchester CityBased on the redacted core decision document, the following weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and grounds for appeal can be identified in the Commission’s ruling against Manchester City.
1. Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence and InferencesThe ruling explicitly acknowledges its case is partly built on inference:”the PL’s case depended in part on (a) What we made of circumstantial evidence, and (b) What inferences we were prepared to draw from primary sources of evidence” (¶20)Weakness: Circumstantial cases are inherently more vulnerable on appeal than cases built on direct documentary or witness evidence. The Commission’s findings rest heavily on what inferences it was “prepared to draw” — a subjective exercise that an appellate body may review differently.
2. Missing Witnesses and Missing DocumentsThe Commission admits the evidential picture was incomplete:”Certain individuals who (it was said) could have given relevant evidence in these proceedings had not in fact been called to give evidence… Certain relevant documents… had not in fact been provided” (¶24)”the evidential picture available to us was therefore not as complete as it might have been” (¶24)Weakness: Critical gaps in the evidence mean findings were made without the full picture. If key witnesses were not called (particularly from ADUG or the Abu Dhabi government), the Commission may have drawn adverse inferences against City that would not have been drawn had those witnesses testified.
3. Witness Credibility Findings Are ContestedThe Commission found City witnesses dishonest:”evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses called to give evidence on behalf of the Club was false in a number of key respects… certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew to be untrue and so had been dishonest” (¶29)Weakness: Credibility findings are findings of fact, but they are also subjective. City will argue:· The Commission misunderstood or mischaracterized witness testimony· The Commission failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting specific evidence· The “dishonesty” finding is disproportionate and unsupported by the objective documentary record
4. The Commission Rejected the Club’s Criticisms of the PL Investigation Without Adequate ScrutinyThe Commission rejected City’s procedural challenges:”For the reasons set out in that Appendix 3 we rejected the Club’s criticisms of the PL. In our view they were not justified and did not lead to the consequences urged on us by the Club.” (¶36)Weakness: The Commission’s rejection of City’s procedural complaints (delay, unfair investigation, etc.) may be vulnerable if:· The PL’s investigation took an unreasonably long time (commenced Feb 2023, hearing concluded Dec 2024, decision produced much later — ¶18)· City was denied a fair opportunity to respond to evidence· The PL failed to disclose exculpatory materialThe Commission itself acknowledges the delay:”It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated… That is regrettable.” (¶18)
5. The “Disguised Funding Scheme” Finding Rests on Inferences, Not Direct EvidenceThe Commission admits there was no direct evidence of knowledge at the top:”There was no direct evidence that [redacted] was aware of the Disguised Funding Scheme or authorised the operation of the Disguised Funding Scheme. We therefore concluded that the Disguised Funding Scheme was operated without [redacted] knowledge.” (¶70)Weakness: If the scheme operated without the knowledge of the ultimate owner (HHSM/ADUG), then:· The finding that ADUG funds were used requires inference· The finding that AD Sponsors were complicit requires inference· The finding that the Club “intended” to circumvent rules requires inference from circumstantial evidenceThe Commission’s own finding that the scheme operated “without knowledge” at the top level undermines the narrative of a coordinated, intentional fraud.
6. The Commission Rejected the “CPC Explanation” as “Concocted” — But This Is a Finding of Fact, Not Objective Truth”We rejected that explanation – defined in the proceedings as the CPC Explanation – as untrue. We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme.” (¶77)Weakness: This is one of the most contestable findings. City’s position is that:· The CPC (Abu Dhabi Executive Affairs Authority/CPC) did provide financial assistance to AD Sponsors· The Commission had no direct evidence from CPC officials (missing witnesses)· The Commission’s finding that documents were “generated by or on the instruction of [redacted]” (¶78) is inferential· The Commission did not hear from the AD Sponsors themselves (missing witnesses)An appellate body may take a different view, especially if City produces new evidence from CPC or AD Sponsor witnesses.
7. The “Sham” Finding Is Legally VulnerableThe Commission found each AD Sponsorship Agreement was a “sham”:”Each of the AD Sponsorship Agreements was a sham” (¶110)Weakness: “Sham” is a strong legal conclusion. To establish sham, one must show:· The parties had a common intention to create a false impression· The documents do not reflect the true agreementCity will argue:· The agreements were genuine commercial arrangements· Any funding from ADUG or CPC was separate from the sponsorship agreements· The Commission conflated “economic substance” with “legal form” — a distinction that matters in law· The Commission’s alternative finding (that the economic substance differed from legal form) is not the same as shamThe Commission itself hedges:”If we are wrong to reach that conclusion, then the economic substance of each AD Sponsorship Agreement differed from the legal form…” (¶111)This alternative finding is legally distinct and may not support the same penalties.
8. The Commission Did Not Need to Decide the Abu Dhabi Governance Issue — But Its Findings Implicitly Rely On ItThe Commission stated:”Ultimately we concluded that we did not need to make any finding on this element of the PL’s case. That was because it did not matter how or why the Club was able to persuade AD Sponsors to participate in the Disguised Funding Scheme; what mattered is whether the PL was able to satisfy us that the Club had in fact persuaded AD Sponsors to participate.” (¶75)Weakness: The Commission’s finding that AD Sponsors were “persuaded” to participate in a disguised funding scheme implicitly requires:· AD Sponsors agreeing to accept money from ADUG/CPC to pay sponsorship fees· AD Sponsors agreeing to record inflated sponsorship fees· AD Sponsors agreeing to conceal the true arrangementThis is a serious finding of dishonest conduct by third parties (AD Sponsors) who were not given the opportunity to respond. It also implies a level of government coordination that the Commission said it did not need to find. This tension is a weakness.
9. The Fordham Arrangement Finding Relies on Inferences About IntentThe Commission found:”The realities of the Fordham Arrangement were known to [redacted]… Those individuals included [redacted]” (¶87)Weakness: The redactions make it impossible to assess, but the finding that individuals “knew” the realities of the arrangement is inferential. If those individuals deny knowledge, and there is no direct documentary evidence, the finding is vulnerable.
10. The Commission’s “Alternative Case” Findings Are Not Independent Grounds for LiabilityThe Commission repeatedly states:”If we are wrong on that, then the economic substance…” (¶111, ¶117, ¶124, etc.)Weakness: The Commission’s primary findings (sham) and alternative findings (economic substance) are not independent. If the sham finding fails on appeal, the alternative finding must also be assessed. The alternative findings are:· Less serious (economic substance ≠ sham)· May not support the same charges· May not support the same penalties
11. Charge 4(B) Was Not Proven — This Undermines the Narrative of Comprehensive ObstructionThe Commission found:”We find that the Club did not breach duties of co-operation that it owed to the PL in the respects alleged in Charge 4(B)” (¶157)Weakness: The fact that one of the four obstruction charges failed undermines the PL’s narrative that City engaged in a comprehensive, coordinated cover-up. It also shows the Commission was willing to reject PL allegations when evidence was insufficient — which raises the question of whether other charges were also insufficiently evidenced.
12. The Commission Reserved the PL’s Right to Bring “Additional and Perhaps More Serious” Charges — But Did Not Address Them”At the very end of the section in its Statement of Charges setting out Charge 4 the PL reserved the right to assert that… the Club had committed ‘additional and perhaps more serious’ [breaches]… However such assertions did not form any part of Charge 4 as it was presented by the PL at the hearing; the Statement of Charges was not amended to bring such a charge. We therefore say nothing further about that.” (¶158-159)Weakness: This is a significant procedural weakness. The PL attempted to reserve the right to bring additional charges without amending its pleadings. The Commission correctly declined to address them, but this:· Shows the PL’s case was a moving target· Supports City’s argument that the investigation and prosecution were unfair· May support an abuse of process argument on appeal.
13. The Decision Took Far Too Long — Prejudice to City”It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated… That is regrettable.” (¶18)Weakness: The delay in producing the decision (the hearing concluded in December 2024, and the decision was produced much later) may:· Prejudice City’s ability to defend itself (witnesses’ memories fade, documents become harder to obtain)· Violate City’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time· Support a claim for abuse of process or a stay of proceedings.
14. The Commission’s Factual Findings Are Not Supported by Direct Evidence from Key Third PartiesMissing witnesses include:· AD Sponsors (Etihad, Etisalat, etc.)· CPC officials· ADUG officials· HHSM himselfWeakness: The Commission made findings adverse to City based on inferences from documents, without hearing from the third parties who allegedly participated in the scheme. This is a classic due process weakness. If those third parties would have testified that the arrangements were genuine, the Commission’s findings would be undermined.
15. The Commission’s Findings on “Intent” Are InferentialThe Commission found:”By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.” (¶114, ¶121, ¶128, etc.)Weakness: Intent is a subjective state of mind. The Commission inferred intent from:· The nature of the arrangements· The concealment of the arrangements· The absence of direct evidenceCity will argue:· The arrangements were legitimate tax and commercial structures· Any concealment was for confidentiality, not deception· The Commission failed to consider alternative explanations for the Club’s conduct· The finding of intent is inconsistent with the finding that the scheme operated “without [HHSM’s] knowledge” (¶70)
16. The Commission Did Not Adequately Address City’s Legal DefencesThe Commission stated:”None of the matters raised by the Club provides it with a defence to any of the Charges” (¶108)Weakness: This is a conclusory statement. The Commission’s Appendices (3, 27, 28, 31) supposedly contain the detailed reasoning, but the redacted decision does not show that the Commission engaged with:· Limitation arguments· Res judicata / double jeopardy (given the UEFA CAS proceedings)· Abuse of process· Proportionality of the charges· The proper interpretation of the PL Rules
17. The Commission’s Reliance on the CAS Award Is ProblematicThe Commission references the CAS proceedings:”That investigation led to the CAS proceedings. The CAS proceedings led to the CAS Award.” (¶104)Weakness: The CAS Award (which overturned UEFA’s ban on City) is a significant document. The Commission’s reliance on it — or its failure to adequately distinguish it — may be a weakness. If the CAS found that the AD Sponsorship Agreements were genuine, the Commission’s contrary finding is vulnerable.
18. The Redactions Themselves Are a WeaknessThe document is heavily redacted.Weakness: The redactions:· Prevent meaningful scrutiny of the Commission’s reasoning· May conceal exculpatory evidence· May violate City’s right to a fair and public hearing· May support an appeal on the ground that the decision is not adequately reasoned.
19. The Commission’s Finding That the Club “Clearly Intended” to Circumvent Rules Is Inconsistent with Its Finding That the Scheme Operated Without HHSM’s KnowledgeThe Commission found:”There was no direct evidence that [redacted] was aware of the Disguised Funding Scheme or authorised the operation of the Disguised Funding Scheme. We therefore concluded that the Disguised Funding Scheme was operated without [redacted] knowledge.” (¶70)But also found:”By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.” (¶114)Weakness: If the ultimate owner (HHSM) did not know about the scheme, how can the “Club” have “clearly intended” to circumvent the rules? The Commission appears to attribute the intent of lower-level employees to the Club as a whole, without establishing that the Club’s directing mind and will (HHSM/ADUG) authorised the scheme. This is a fundamental weakness in the finding of intent.
20. The Commission’s Damages Calculations Are UnverifiedThe Commission found:”The Club’s income across those years was consequently hugely overstated by over £830 million” (¶101)Weakness: The £830 million figure is based on the Commission’s findings about the Tagged Sums. If those findings are wrong (e.g., if the CPC Explanation is true), the damages calculation collapses. The Commission did not obtain independent forensic accounting evidence to verify the figures — it relied on the PL’s experts.
Conclusion
The Premier League’s ruling against Manchester City, while comprehensive on its face, contains numerous weaknesses that City can exploit on appeal. The most significant are:1. The reliance on circumstantial evidence and inferences rather than direct evidence2. The missing witnesses (AD Sponsors, CPC officials, ADUG officials, HHSM) who could have contradicted the Commission’s findings3. The inconsistency between finding the scheme operated “without HHSM’s knowledge” and finding the Club “clearly intended” to circumvent rules4. The rejection of the CPC Explanation as “concocted” without hearing from CPC officials5. The “sham” finding which requires a common intention to deceive — difficult to prove without direct evidence from the alleged co-conspirators (AD Sponsors)6. The delay in producing the decision7. The redactions which prevent meaningful scrutinyCity’s appeal will likely focus on these weaknesses, arguing that the Commission’s findings are unsafe, unsupported by adequate evidence, and legally flawed. The outcome of any appeal will depend on whether the appellate body is willing to re-examine the Commission’s inferential findings and credibility assessments — a difficult but not impossible task.
