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
The Premier League’s independent Commission found Manchester City guilty of nearly all the financial-rule and cooperation charges covering the 2009/10 through 2017/18 seasons. The Premier League says the findings include more than £900 million in artificially inflated revenue and reduced costs. City has appealed, and the appeal and any sanction remain unresolved. The ruling is a disciplinary decision under Premier League rules—not a criminal conviction—and it is separate from the League’s dispute with City over Associated Party Transaction rules.
What did the Commission decide?
The Commission was appointed under Section W of the Premier League Rules to decide charges that Manchester City denied. Its redacted core decision says it and its appendices form the decision and reasoning together. The Commission found every charge proven except Charge 4(B). The Premier League’s public summary describes three of the four alleged failures to cooperate as upheld.
In its summary, the Premier League says the Commission found that City used “sham” contracts or agreements with commercial partners, and arrangements funded by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), to inflate revenue and reduce costs. The League also reports findings that the club submitted misstated accounts, concealed its financial position from auditors and regulators, breached Premier League and UEFA spending limits, and repeatedly failed to cooperate and act in utmost good faith. These are findings at the Commission stage; City disputes the result and has appealed.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The scale and process
- The Premier League describes the artificial revenue inflation and cost reduction as more than £900 million over the affected period. That is the League’s account of the Commission’s finding, not a separate estimate of an impact on other clubs.
- The League says the Commission hearing lasted 42 days and concluded in December 2024.
- The Commission decision, published by the Premier League in 2026, refers to approximately 7,000 pages of witness and expert transcripts available to it. That figure describes those transcripts, not the entire case record.
Premier League Chief Executive Richard Masters said the decision “establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period.” The Commission also acknowledged the time taken to publish its decision, saying: “It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated would be the case when the hearing concluded, to produce our Decision. That is regrettable.”
#1 Best Overall
What happens next?
City’s appeal
Manchester City said it lodged a comprehensive appeal at 7pm on 1 October 2026. The club’s statement says its position is that the opinion contains “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe.” That is the club’s argument, not a finding by the Commission. The Premier League confirmed on 2 October that an appeal had been lodged to the Judicial Panel chair. It said the independent Appeal Board hearing would remain private and confidential until publication of an outcome is permitted. No appeal outcome is established in the available official statements.
A separate sanction stage
The Premier League says sanction will be addressed separately by the independent Commission. Its procedural note lists fines, points deductions and other sporting sanctions as possible outcomes; it does not establish which, if any, will be imposed. The appeal outcome, sanction and timing therefore remain open.
The Commission’s decision is a determination under Premier League rules. The official material described here does not establish a criminal finding or a criminal proceeding arising from the ruling. A finding that rules were breached should not be presented as a court conviction.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWhat does the ruling mean for other Premier League clubs?
It establishes serious findings against one club under the League’s financial and cooperation rules. It does not, on its own, establish a particular change to another club’s accounts, league position, title, prize money or compensation. The reviewed official material supplies no figure for such effects, so assigning one would go beyond what has been decided.
For clubs more broadly, the case makes the stakes of accurate financial reporting, spending-limit compliance and cooperation with a League investigation clear. But this Commission decision is not itself a ruling on every club’s conduct, nor does it determine the outcome of any separate dispute involving another club.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How this differs from the APT dispute
Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules concern how clubs assess transactions with parties linked to them, including whether a commercial deal reflects fair market value. That is a different subject from the 2026 Commission’s charges about financial reporting, spending limits and cooperation.
| Proceeding | What it concerned | Outcome or status in the cited official material |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 Commission ruling | Manchester City’s alleged financial-rule and cooperation breaches over 2009/10–2017/18 | The Commission found every charge proven except Charge 4(B); City appealed in October 2026, and sanction remains a separate unresolved stage. |
| APT arbitration, October 2024 | Rules for assessing owner-linked transactions, including fair-market-value treatment | The arbitration panel found narrow aspects of the then rules unlawful while rejecting most of City’s broader challenge. The Premier League said the panel upheld the system’s overall objective and framework, while requiring changes including to shareholder-loan treatment and procedural disclosure. |
| Follow-on APT decision, February 2025 | Enforceability of the previous APT rules | The League said a tribunal rendered the previous rules unenforceable as a whole, while expressly stating that this did not affect the new rules voted into effect in November 2024. |
| APT settlement, September 2025 | Ending the separate APT dispute | The League announced a settlement and said City accepted the current APT rules as valid and binding. |
The APT decisions and settlement provide background on owner-linked commercial transactions, but they do not decide the financial charges in the Commission’s 2026 ruling.
Quick Recap
What is established—and what is not
- Established at the Commission stage: the findings cover nine seasons, 2009/10 through 2017/18; every charge except Charge 4(B) was proven; and the Premier League reports more than £900 million in artificial revenue inflation and cost reduction.
- City’s position: the club denies wrongdoing and says the opinion contains material errors. Its appeal arguments remain the club’s position unless and until the appeal process determines otherwise.
- Still undecided in the official material: the appeal result, any sanction, its timing and any further publication of decision materials.
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.
