What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Manchester City’s case is broader than the cited Everton and Nottingham Forest cases: the independent Commission found serious financial-rule breaches across nine seasons and upheld most of the League’s cooperation charges. Everton and Forest admitted breaches of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) over defined assessment periods. Everton’s deduction ended at six points after appeal; Forest’s four-point deduction was upheld. Those outcomes provide context, but they do not determine City’s sanction.
What the Commission found in Manchester City’s case
In a statement published on 29 September 2026, the Premier League said an independent Commission had found serious financial-rule breaches relating to the 2009/10–2017/18 seasons, along with most of the alleged failures to cooperate with the League’s investigation. These are the Commission’s findings as summarized by the League; they should not be confused with a final sanction.
According to the League’s summary, the Commission found that City used sham commercial contracts, or relied on sham arrangements, that misrepresented the parties’ true agreements. The League said some sponsor payments were attributable to Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which it said owned the club at the relevant time. The summary also describes arrangements that reduced reported operating expenses and a circular arrangement concerning player image rights. The League said those arrangements artificially inflated revenue and reduced costs by more than £900 million across the affected period.
The League further reported findings that City filed misstated accounts and concealed its financial position from auditors and football regulators, and was significantly in breach of Premier League and UEFA spending limits. Three of four alleged cooperation breaches were upheld. The Commission, as quoted by the League, concluded that “by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules”.
#1 Best Overall
How the three cases compare
| Case | Rule or conduct at issue | Period and threshold | Outcome reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manchester City | Commission findings on serious financial-rule breaches and most alleged failures to cooperate; the case is not described in the League’s summary as only a PSR-threshold breach. | Financial rules covering 2009/10–2017/18; the League’s summary says arrangements affected reported revenue and costs by more than £900 million. | The League’s 29 September 2026 statement did not announce a sanction. It said a separate private hearing would determine one, and City could appeal the findings. |
| Everton | Admitted a PSR breach. | Assessment period ending 2021/22. | An initial 10-point deduction was reduced to six on appeal. The Appeal Board upheld two of the nine grounds advanced against the sanction. |
| Nottingham Forest | Admitted exceeding its adjusted PSR threshold. | For the period ending 2022/23, the League said Forest exceeded its £61 million threshold by £34.5 million. Two Championship seasons reduced the threshold from the ordinary £105 million. | A four-point deduction, with exceptional cooperation cited by the Commission, was upheld on appeal. |
The figures and outcomes in the Everton and Forest rows are from the Premier League’s 2024 case decisions and appeal materials; the City findings and procedural information are from the League’s 29 September 2026 statement. The cases differ in both the conduct considered and the stage the process had reached when those outcomes were reported.
What PSR explains about Everton and Forest
The Premier League’s PSR explanation describes adjusted earnings as profit or loss after depreciation and interest but before tax, with permitted add-backs for areas such as infrastructure, community activity, women’s football and youth development. The assessment ordinarily aggregates three years. The stated maximum loss is £105 million, reduced by £22 million for each Championship season in the assessment period.
That framework helps explain why Forest’s threshold was £61 million rather than £105 million: the League said the two Championship seasons reduced the allowance by £44 million. Forest admitted going £34.5 million over its adjusted limit. These PSR figures explain the threshold cases; they are not a formula for calculating City’s sanction, given the different and broader findings reported in City’s case.
Why Everton received more points than Forest
The headline deductions are not directly comparable without accounting for how each case was handled. Everton’s initial 10-point sanction was reduced to six after appeal. Forest’s original six-point sanction was reduced by two points to four, with early admission and exceptional cooperation cited as reasons for the reduction. The BBC’s comparison of the cases also reports that Everton exceeded its threshold in two consecutive financial years, while Forest admitted its breach and received cooperation-related credit. The Premier League’s decisions establish the final deductions; the BBC account adds context on the comparison.
Cooperation is especially important when comparing those cases with City. The League reported that most of the cooperation charges against City were upheld, whereas Forest’s exceptional cooperation was cited in its sanction. That difference is relevant context, not a way to calculate how many points City might lose.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happens next in City’s case
The League said it began its investigation in December 2018 and issued its complaint in February 2023. The Commission hearing lasted 42 days and concluded in December 2024. The League said a redacted Core Decision was available, with additional appendices to be published when possible.
The 29 September 2026 statement said a further private hearing would determine City’s sanction, which could include a fine, points deduction or another sporting measure. It also stated that City had a right to appeal the findings, with a deadline of Friday 2 October 2026. The materials available here do not establish whether City filed an appeal by that deadline or whether any later sanction decision has been made; the statement itself announced no sanction. The Associated Press also described the potential sanctions as unresolved when it reported the decision on 29 September.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesPremier League Chief Executive Richard Masters characterized the decision by saying: “The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.” That is the League chief executive’s description of the Commission decision, not a separate finding.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
