Manchester City’s long-running financial case has reached its most delicate stage. The guilty verdict is in. What remains is the punishment, and the Premier League board decision on what sanction to recommend is now central to everything that follows.
What the commission found
On 29 September 2026, the Premier League announced that an independent commission had found City guilty of all charges linked to serious breaches of its financial rules over a nine-season period. It also upheld the majority of the charges for failing to cooperate with the league’s investigation. The tally was 114 of the 115 charges. That meant all 80 financial charges and 34 of the 35 charges of non-cooperation.
The heart of the ruling is the finding on sponsorship. The commission concluded that between 2009/10 and 2017/18, City arranged “sham” contracts with commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, artificially inflating revenue by £830m. The league’s own statement and some reports put the figure at roughly £900m. The gap appears to come down to how the different amounts are counted, so it is worth quoting the commission’s £830m figure when you want to be safe.
The wait for the verdict was long. A three-person commission heard the case over about ten weeks, from September to December 2024. The commission itself called the delay in reaching a decision “regrettable”.
Where the Premier League board comes in
This is the part many fans have been searching for. The commission that found City guilty will be the one to hand down the sanction. But it does not start from a blank page. The Premier League’s board, made up of five people, is responsible for recommending a sanction to that panel. City will then get the chance to respond with mitigating evidence before the commission decides.
The board is the league’s chair, its chief executive and three independent non-executive directors, with no club representatives. The names are chair Alison Brittain, chief executive Richard Masters, Mai Fyfield, Dharmash Mistry and the senior barrister Matthew Ryder.
There is already a wrinkle. BBC Sport noted that Brittain has described herself as a lifelong Manchester United fan, a detail City may seize on if they want to question the board’s neutrality. Nobody has suggested the board is anything other than independent, but in a case this heated, small details get noticed.
It is also worth remembering the board’s recommendation is not binding. The Premier League can say what it believes City should receive, but the sanction itself remains a decision for the independent process. Rival clubs have no seat at the table either. They will not be involved in the sanction hearing.
What punishment could City face?
Nothing has been announced, so everything below is reporting and speculation rather than fact.
The most specific claim so far concerns points. One report said City are increasingly likely to receive a single-season deduction of around 40 to 50 points if their appeal fails. That would be far beyond anything the league has handed out before. For comparison, Everton were docked six points on appeal in 2023/24, and Nottingham Forest lost four.
Beyond points, the options on the table include fines, transfer bans, expulsion from the Premier League and even the stripping of titles. Title removal looks like the least likely route. Reporting cited by Football365 suggested the idea of City being stripped of past titles is considered unlikely, though not impossible.
The mood among rivals is harder. Sky Sports reported that Premier League clubs do not expect City to be in the division next season if the appeal fails, and that a one-season punishment for rules broken across many seasons would not be seen as enough. That is a view from competitors, not a ruling, and it should be read that way.
The appeal clock
City did not accept the verdict quietly. The club had until Friday 2 October to appeal. The appeal was filed on 1 October, and the club continues to deny wrongdoing. The chair of English football’s Independent Regulator said he expects the appeal to be heard by January, and City manager Enzo Maresca has said he completely trusts the club and expects it to win.
The rules set a tight schedule. The appeal process must be completed within 12 weeks of submission. The hearing itself should last no more than five days, after which the appeal board has 30 days to deliver its decision and reasons. On that timetable, the process ends around the end of December, and the final ruling would likely arrive in early 2027.
If the appeal board upholds the charges, that is the end of the matter, because no further appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport is possible. That makes this very different from City’s 2020 escape from UEFA’s Champions League ban.
Will the sanction come before or after the appeal?
Reports disagree, and you should treat any firm date with caution. One outlet says no sanction can be imposed while the appeal is ongoing, which would push any punishment into 2027. Others suggest the two tracks could move together. Yahoo Sports reported there is no official time frame, and that sanctions could come either before or after the appeal verdict.
The latest reporting is similarly split. The Independent said many sources expect sanctions this month, while the Mirror puts the punishment decision and the appeal hearing in the New Year. The honest summary is that the date of the sanction hearing is not public.
More trouble on the horizon?
The case may not stop at 2018. The Independent has reported that a growing number of English football executives want the league to investigate City’s finances for later seasons or bring further charges. Nothing formal has been announced, but if it happens, the story gets longer.
Meanwhile, the people involved appear to be tiring of the uncertainty. Football Insider reports a belief among some at City that a final outcome is needed sooner rather than later, with a growing feeling on both sides that the drama is not helping anyone.
