What has happened?

An independent panel has found Manchester City guilty on almost all of more than a 100 charges of breaking Premier League competition rules between the seasons 2009-10 and 2022-23. The panel found they had acted in bad faith and broken numerous rules over financial fair play. City, meanwhile, say the process is continuing and it is understood the club intend to appeal against the guilty verdict.

Was this the result of ‘Football Leaks’?

Uefa found City in breach of its financial fair play regulations in 2014 but reached a settlement under which City paid a €20m (£17m) fine and submitted reduced squads to the Champions League. The revisiting of alleged irregularities came after the document hack known as “Football Leaks” in 2015 exposed what appear to be official documents and email communication from inside City, alongside a number of other football organisations. The allegations against City were published in 2018. These documents are understood to also have prompted the Premier League’s investigation, a four-year process which brought the charges. City have previously described Football Leaks as an “orchestrated campaign” and part of “an endless attempt to damage us”.

What are the accusations?

In February 2023 the Premier League charged the club with more than 100 rule breaches, after investigating the club since December 2018. The charges cover four areas: a failure to give “a true and fair view of the club’s financial position”; a failure to “include full details” of player and manager remuneration; breaches of national and continental financial fair play regulations; and a failure to “cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations”. The counts have been heard by a three-person independent commission, with the process starting in September 2024.

Do we have specifics?

The Premier League published only an extended charge sheet, with no details. The timeframes, however, suggest the charges line up with claims already in the public domain. First, that City inflated the value of sponsorship deals as a means of channelling more money from their owners into the club. Second, that secret payments were made to the then manager, Roberto Mancini, and to Dimitri Seluk, the then agent of Yaya Touré. “Everything was transparent, there was nothing on the back side,” Seluk said in 2023. “I am interested to see what happens as this was a surprise. Yaya paid everything – tax and everything. It was all transparent.” Third, that these acts left the club contravening financial rules. Fourth, that when the Premier League sought to investigate the claims, City obstructed it. City have always denied any wrongdoing.

Why do the charges matter?

Because of their seismic nature and implications. Because they are unprecedented in the domestic game. And because of City’s dominance. In the 14 seasons covered by the charges, City won seven Premier League titles, six League Cups, three FA Cups and the Champions League. Since then they have won another Premier League, the Uefa Super Cup and the Fifa Club World Cup. They have played in the Champions League every season from 2011-12. This has driven the global pre‑eminence of the Premier League and increasing transfer fees (City’s squad is worth £1bn-plus). There are arguments, too, that it has affected competitive balance here and across Europe, led to the near-development of a breakaway Super League (of which City were a part) and quickened the need for independent regulation of English football. When the charges were brought, the La Liga president, Javier Tebas, said the English top flight was a “doped market”.

What happened next?

Under Premier League instruction, Murray Rosen KC selected three people to form the independent commission that heard the charges, with one member of the panel required to be a financial expert. The hearings were conducted privately. When the verdict is published, either side can go to an appeals panel and, after this, arbitration. If all fails, either could attempt to find an argument to take to the high court. Under the rules of association of the Premier League there is no opportunity for either party to go to the court of arbitration for sport (Cas) in Switzerland.

What could the punishment be?

According to rule W.51 in the Premier League handbook, a commission has the ability to levy a wide range of sanctions against any club found to have broken the rules. These include fines, the docking of points and suspension, or even expulsion, from the competition. In fact, subclause W.51.7 states that the commission can “impose upon the respondent any combination of the foregoing or such other penalty as it shall think fit”. That even leaves open the possibility of City being stripped of their titles.

What have City said?

The club have been bullish from the start. They “welcomed the review” and the opportunity to “impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position”. On Friday, as reports of the verdict came through, a spokesperson said: “The Premier League process remains ongoing, with significant elements to be completed, and subject to strict confidentiality. As such Manchester City FC’s position remains consistent with the club’s statement of February 2023. The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator, free from partisan influence.”

Haven’t we been here with Uefa?

In 2020 Uefa suspended City from the Champions League for two years for “overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts” between 2012 and 2016, part of the same period covered by the Premier League’s charges. However, that sanction was overturned on appeal by Cas. In its ruling Cas found that a number of the claims brought by Uefa had fallen outside a five-year “time bar” which prevented historical charges. But the tribunal also argued that one key charge over payments relating to sponsorship by Etihad Airlines was “not established”. The panel said Uefa had submitted insufficient evidence and that, if its case had been correct, then City employees who had given testimony to Cas would have had to have been lying.