Manchester City's appeal against a ruling by an independent Premier League commission is directly contradicted by a document that Etihad Airways submitted to the US government in 2015, according to Telegraph reporters Sam Wallace and James Ducker.

A core argument in Manchester City's appeal is that additional funds in relevant commercial sponsorship deals were not provided by the club's owners but came from the Abu Dhabi government. Manchester City believes that such an arrangement would not violate Premier League rules if the funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club's owners.

However, the Telegraph points out that this claim contradicts a statement Etihad Airways submitted during a US government investigation into state-owned airlines.

In the 60-page document, Etihad Airways stated: "Allegations that the Abu Dhabi government financed Etihad Airways' sponsorship of Premier League club Manchester City are false. In 2011, Etihad Airways signed a 10-year sponsorship agreement with Manchester City, which included naming rights to Manchester City's stadium. Etihad Airways used its own liquid funds to pay for this sponsorship."

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 are a state-owned enterprise and have been since our founding. We have always clearly communicated that we do not receive subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and our financing comes from a combination of equity, shareholder loans, and commercial loans. The equity and loans provided by our shareholder—the Abu Dhabi government—do not constitute subsidies under any applicable definition but rather represent a reasonable investment by the Abu Dhabi government in a successful business model."

The Telegraph also noted that Manchester City's current position differs from the stance the club took in 2020 when it contested the relevant UEFA charges before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At that time, Manchester City insisted that all sponsorship contract payment obligations were met by the respective sponsors.

However, it is understood that Manchester City does not believe these earlier statements by Etihad Airways to the US government weaken its appeal. On the contrary, Manchester City believes these materials could actually strengthen its defense.

Manchester City's legal team is expected to argue that Etihad Airways received funds from the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince's court for promotional purposes. Once these funds were received by Etihad Airways, they became part of the airline's own "liquid funds." Therefore, Manchester City contends this is not the same as the Abu Dhabi government directly paying Manchester City on behalf of Etihad Airways.

Manchester City officially announced on Friday that it will appeal the guilty verdict from the independent commission. The club insists there is "irrefutable evidence" proving the commission's findings are false.

The Telegraph compared several key statements in the dispute. In May 2015, Etihad Airways told the US government that its Manchester City sponsorship was not state-financed; in July 2020, then-Etihad Airways CEO Hogan similarly argued in the Court of Arbitration for Sport case regarding Manchester City's sponsorship deals that "sponsorship is not state-financed"; yet by September 2024, when Manchester City defended itself against the Premier League charges, the club argued that the relevant sponsorship funds came from the Abu Dhabi government.

Meanwhile, other Premier League clubs are pressing for any sanctions against Manchester City to be enforced this season should the appeal fail. Reports suggest possible penalties could include relegation, points deductions, and fines, with some also calling for the club's sale by its Abu Dhabi owners. However, since Manchester City has appealed, final sanctions have yet to be determined.

The FA has also previously hinted at possible action. Before Manchester City officially announced its appeal decision, the FA stated: "The independent commission's ruling has significant implications for the integrity of football. We are carefully reviewing this ruling and its implications, and will take action as appropriate. As proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City Football Club remain ongoing, we do not intend to comment further at this time. However, we will continue to monitor developments closely."

During the international break, Manchester City's Premier League rivals have largely refrained from public comment. However, Aston Villa manager Unai Emery did address the matter on Friday, stating that a failure of Manchester City's appeal would "do some damage."

Emery said: "We are all restricted. To comply with Financial Fair Play rules, we must sell players and consider how we structure new player contracts. Club owners typically have substantial financial resources, but the purpose of Financial Fair Play rules is to ensure financial balance, meaning you can only spend the money you generate yourself and cannot artificially inflate revenue."

"If other clubs have indeed artificially inflated revenue and these matters are now coming to light, then this will obviously do some damage. This should be decided by the courts and the relevant authorities."

Emery added: "I regret it, because this team has played such beautiful football. During Guardiola's tenure, there were times when they were truly unstoppable."

The case was originally triggered by whistleblower Rui Pinto's release of a large cache of documents, which prompted the Premier League investigation. The Telegraph reported that Pinto has been under witness protection for six years, though this protection is set to be lifted soon. His Portuguese and French legal teams issued a joint statement saying: "His situation is now very dangerous. Threats against him are not merely theoretical; in April of this year, he was attacked in Lisbon."

Pinto was previously convicted of five counts of illegal access to computer systems, three counts of breach of communications privacy, and attempted extortion, receiving a four-year suspended sentence.

Übersetzt von KI.

Die AF-Website ist jetzt online! Vollständige Nachrichten, Kommentare, Spieldetails und Statistiken auf dem Computer. Besuchen Sie: www.allfootballapp.com