Man City's defence takes a double hit as rival clubs push for expulsion over financial charges
Fresh reports suggest Manchester City's own past statements to UEFA and the US government may undermine key parts of their appeal, while Premier League rivals are said to believe a points deduction would not be enough.

On this page(3)
Manchester City's appeal against their guilty verdict for 114 breaches of Premier League financial rules is now before Sir Gary Hickinbottom, chair of the independent judicial panel. But two fresh reports this week suggest the club's defence may already be in trouble.
What are the new claims?
The first centres on what City told UEFA six years ago. According to The Times, the club informed a UEFA panel that a financial broker named Jaber Mohamed had provided two separate £15m payments to cover sponsorship money that should have been paid by Etisalat, the United Arab Emirates' majority state-owned telecommunications company, in 2012 and 2013.
What City reportedly did not disclose at the time was that Mohamed was the general director of the UAE's Crown Prince Court (CPC), a direct link to the Abu Dhabi government. That matters because City's central defence in the current Premier League case rests on the argument that the so-called "sham" sponsorship deals were funded by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the club's owners. If the broker making those payments was himself a senior government official, the distinction between government and ownership becomes considerably harder to draw.
The second blow comes from Etihad Airways, City's main shirt sponsor. It re-emerged this week that Etihad told the United States Department of Commerce, Transportation, and State in 2015, during an investigation into state-owned airlines, that claims the Abu Dhabi government was covering sponsorship costs were false. That statement directly contradicts what City are now arguing in their appeal.
What do rival clubs want?
Premier League clubs reportedly do not expect to be playing City next season if the appeal fails. According to the MEN, rival chairmen believe a points deduction, which would only see City spend a single season outside the top flight, is not a sufficient punishment given the scale of the breaches.
The commission found City guilty of serious financial violations over nine seasons between 2009-10 and 2017-18, as well as the majority of charges relating to their failure to cooperate with the league's investigation.
How is the club responding?
Manager Enzo Maresca is said to be taking a relaxed approach. The Daily Mail reported that his private stance has been summed up in seven words: "All I can do is the football." Players, however, are less settled. Some have reportedly been speaking to their agents frequently, asking questions that nobody at the club can currently answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What was Manchester City found guilty of?
- An independent commission found the club guilty of serious breaches of the Premier League's financial rules between 2009 and 2018, as well as failing to cooperate with the investigation.
- Who is handling Manchester City's appeal?
- The club has submitted its appeal to Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the chair of the independent judicial panel.
- What are the latest sponsorship allegations against City?
- The Times reports that City allegedly received £30m from a financial broker linked to the UAE government to cover Etisalat sponsorship money, a connection reportedly not disclosed to UEFA.