According to reports from Telegraph journalists Sam Wallace and James Ducker, Manchester City's appeal against the Premier League independent panel's verdict is ongoing, but a document submitted by Etihad Airways to the US government in 2015 directly contradicts a key claim Manchester City is making in its appeal.

One of Manchester City's central arguments in its appeal is that additional funds in the relevant commercial sponsorship contracts were provided by the Abu Dhabi government, not by the club's owner. Manchester City contends that if the funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the club owner, such arrangements would not violate Premier League regulations.

However, the Telegraph points out that this claim contradicts statements Etihad Airways made during a US government investigation into the state-owned airline in 2015.

In its 60-page document, Etihad Airways stated: "Claims that the Abu Dhabi government funded Etihad Airways' sponsorship of Manchester City are false. In 2011, Etihad Airways entered into a ten-year sponsorship agreement with Manchester City, which included the naming rights to Manchester City's stadium. Etihad Airways paid for this sponsorship using its own operating cash flow."

The document was submitted to then-US Secretary of State John Kerry, then-US Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, and then-US Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, accompanied by a five-page explanatory letter signed by then-Etihad Airways President and CEO James Hogan.

Etihad Airways also stated in its submission to the US government: "We have been a state-owned enterprise since our inception. We have consistently made clear that we receive no subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and our funding is a combination of equity, shareholder loans, and commercial financing. Equity and loans provided by our shareholder, the Abu Dhabi government, do not constitute subsidies under any applicable definition; rather, they represent the Abu Dhabi government's legitimate investment in a successful business model."

The Telegraph also notes that Manchester City's current position differs from the stance the club took in 2020 when it appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against related UEFA charges. At that time, Manchester City argued that all payment obligations corresponding to sponsorship contracts were met by the relevant sponsors themselves.

However, Manchester City is understood not to believe that these statements made by Etihad Airways to the US government undermine the basis of its appeal. Rather, Manchester City believes these materials may actually strengthen its defense.

Manchester City's legal team is expected to argue that funds received by Etihad Airways from the Abu Dhabi royal family for the airline's promotion become part of the airline's own "operating cash flow" once received. Therefore, Manchester City contends this differs from the Abu Dhabi government making direct payments to Manchester City on behalf of Etihad Airways.

Manchester City formally announced on Friday that it would appeal the independent panel's guilty verdict. The club claims it has "irrefutable evidence" that contradicts the panel's findings.

The Telegraph compared several key statements at issue. In May 2015, Etihad Airways told the US government that its Manchester City sponsorship was not government-funded. In July 2020, then-Etihad Airways CEO Hogan also took the position in Court of Arbitration for Sport proceedings regarding Manchester City's sponsorship that "the sponsorship is not government-funded." Yet by September 2026, when Manchester City was defending itself against Premier League charges, it claimed the relevant sponsorship funds came from the Abu Dhabi government.

Meanwhile, other Premier League clubs are calling for potential sanctions against Manchester City to be imposed during this season if the appeal ultimately fails. Reports suggest potential penalties could include relegation, points deductions, and fines, with some voices calling for Manchester City's Abu Dhabi owners to sell the club. However, as Manchester City has appealed, final sanctions have not yet been determined.

The FA has also previously suggested potential action. Before Manchester City formally announced its appeal decision, the FA stated: "The independent panel's verdict carries significant implications for the integrity of football. We are carefully considering this verdict and its implications, and we will take appropriate action where necessary. Given that proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City Football Club are ongoing, we do not intend to comment further at this stage. However, we will continue to monitor developments closely."

During the international break, Manchester City's Premier League rivals largely remained silent. However, Aston Villa manager Unai Emery commented on Friday that if Manchester City's appeal fails, it would cause "some damage."

Emery stated: "We are all restricted. To comply with Financial Fair Play regulations, we must sell players and consider how to structure new contracts for incoming players. Club owners typically have significant financial resources, but the purpose of Financial Fair Play regulations is to ensure financial balance—meaning clubs can only spend what they generate, not artificially inflate their revenue."

"If other clubs are indeed artificially inflating their revenue and that is now coming to light, it will obviously cause some damage. That is something the courts and relevant authorities must decide."

Emery added: "I feel sorry because that team played really good football. Under Pep Guardiola, they had a truly unmatched period."

The case began when whistleblower Luis Pinto released a large volume of documents, which triggered the Premier League's investigation. According to the Telegraph, Pinto has been under witness protection for six years, though this protection is reportedly being withdrawn. His legal team from Portugal and France issued a joint statement saying: "His situation is now extremely dangerous. The threats against him are not merely theoretical; he was attacked in Lisbon in April of this year."

Pinto previously received convictions for five counts of unauthorized access to computer systems, three counts of communications interception, and attempted extortion, and was given a four-year suspended sentence.

AI翻訳。

AFのPCサイトが新登場！パソコンでニュース、コメント、試合詳細、詳細データをご覧いただけます。アクセス：www.allfootballapp.com