Pending
On 29 September 2026 the Premier League announced the decision of an independent Commission in its case against Manchester City Football Club Limited.1 News of the result had first broken four days earlier, on Friday 25 September.2 The League described it as “the most significant in Premier League history”.1
The Commission sat between 16 September and 6 December 2024, across 42 hearing days listed on the face of the decision.3 A redacted version of the Core Decision has been published by the Premier League and is the primary source for this section.3
115 charges were brought in February 2023, grouped into four categories — Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, with Charge 1 divided into four sub-charges.3 The Commission upheld 114: all of the financial charges, and all but one part of the charge concerning failure to co-operate.2 They covered nine seasons, 2009/10 to 2017/18.1
The Premier League's statement sets out what was found: arranging “sham” contracts with commercial partners to artificially inflate revenues and reduce costs; filing misstated accounts and concealing finances from auditors and regulators; significant breaches of Premier League and UEFA spending limits; and multiple breaches of the duties of co-operation and good faith owed during the investigation.1
Two money figures circulate in reporting and they are not the same figure. The decision itself, at paragraph 101, finds that sums were wrongly recorded as income which ought to have been treated as equitable contributions from ADUG, so that income across those years was “hugely overstated by over £830 million”; separately, expenses were understated and the AD Sponsorship Agreements were not disclosed as related party transactions.3 The Premier League's “more than £900 million” is the combined effect of inflating revenues and reducing costs.1 The £830m is the income overstatement alone, taken directly from the decision.
“The Club made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation.”
Independent Commission, Redacted Core Decision, paragraph 157 [3]
This is usually reported only as “all but one”, so it is worth stating exactly. Charge 4 — failure to co-operate — was pleaded in parts. At paragraph 157 the Commission found the club breached its duties of co-operation in the majority of the respects set out in Charge 4(A), in each of the respects in Charge 4(C), and in the respect set out in Charge 4(D). It then found:3
“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).”
Independent Commission, Redacted Core Decision, paragraph 157 [3]
A point the Commission expressly declined to decide. At paragraphs 158–159 the decision records that the Premier League had reserved the right to assert that, given the findings made, the club had committed “additional and perhaps more egregious acts of non-cooperation” by making inaccurate, dishonest and/or misleading statements when answering the League's questions. The Commission noted that no such assertion formed part of Charge 4 as presented, and that the Statement of Charges was not amended — and so said “nothing further about that”. It is therefore not a finding, and appears here only because the decision records it.3
No sanction has been imposed. Sanction will be decided at a separate hearing, and at the time of the League's statement no date for it had been announced.12 Manchester City had until Friday 2 October 2026 to exercise its right of appeal.1 The club has said it is “disappointed and surprised”, that it intends to appeal, and that it will be “relentless” in seeking to clear its name.4 Until the appeal route is exhausted and sanction determined, the case is not concluded.
These are news headlines about this case, collected hourly. They are NOT part of the record and have not been verified: nobody has read them against a primary document, and they carry no status. The record above is what has been established; this is what is being reported. Where the two differ, the record governs.
Last checked 2026-10-01 11:58 UTC · 42 checks · 24 entries
The sources for this case. Numbering matches the full record.
This page summarises published documents — decisions of independent bodies, official statements, and reporting by established news organisations. It is a factual record compiled for information, not legal advice, and carries no affiliation with any club, league or regulator. Where a case is under appeal or its sanction undecided, it is marked as such and should be read as unresolved.
Legal notice, corrections & right of reply →
It will not be forgotten.
v1.0.9 · build 20261001-1202 · 22 cases · 48 sources · 11 languages