According to Sam Wallace and James Ducker of The Telegraph, Manchester City's current appeal of the Premier League independent commission's decision directly contradicts a key claim made by the club, which is based on a document Etihad Airways submitted to the U.S. government in 2015.

One of Manchester City's central arguments in its appeal is that additional funds from the relevant commercial sponsorship contracts were provided not by the club's owners but by the Abu Dhabi government. Manchester City contends that if the funds came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than from the club's owners, such an arrangement would not have violated Premier League rules.

However, The Telegraph notes that this claim contradicts a statement filed by Etihad Airways in 2015 during a U.S. government investigation into state-owned airlines.

In a 60-page document, Etihad Airways stated: "Claims that the Abu Dhabi government finances Etihad Airways' sponsorship of Manchester City Football Club are not accurate. In 2011, Etihad Airways signed a 10-year sponsorship agreement with Manchester City, which included naming rights to Manchester City's stadium. Etihad Airways paid for this sponsorship from its own liquid funds."

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

Etihad Airways also stated in its submission to the U.S. government: "We are a state-owned enterprise since our inception. We have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and our funding comes from a combination of equity capital, equity loans, and commercial loans. The equity capital and loans provided by our shareholder—the Abu Dhabi government—are not subsidies under any applicable definition but rather a way for the Abu Dhabi government to make a prudent 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 appealing UEFA charges before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At that time, Manchester City insisted that all payment obligations under sponsorship contracts were borne by the respective sponsors.

However, Manchester City reportedly does not believe these statements made by Etihad Airways to the U.S. government at the time undermine its appeal. Rather, Manchester City believes these materials may 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 office to promote Abu Dhabi. Once these funds were received by Etihad Airways, they became part of the airline's "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 independent commission's verdict. The club insists it has "irrefutable evidence" proving the commission's findings false.

The Telegraph compared several key statements in the dispute. In May 2015, Etihad Airways told the U.S. government its Manchester City sponsorship was not state-funded; in July 2020, then-Etihad Airways CEO Hogan also maintained the position that "sponsorship was not state-funded" in the Court of Arbitration for Sport case concerning Manchester City's sponsorship agreements; yet by September 2024, when Manchester City defends itself against Premier League charges, it will argue that the relevant sponsorship funds came from the Abu Dhabi government.

Meanwhile, other Premier League clubs are insisting that any potential sanctions against Manchester City be imposed this season if the club is ultimately punished. Reports suggest potential punishments could include league relegation, points deduction, and fines, with some also calling for Manchester City's Abu Dhabi owners to sell the club. However, since Manchester City has filed an appeal, final punishments have not yet been determined.

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

During the international break, Manchester City's Premier League rivals largely refrained from public comment. However, Aston Villa manager Unai Emery spoke on Friday, stating that if Manchester City's appeal is rejected, it would cause "some damage."

Emery said: "We all operate under constraints. To comply with Financial Fair Play rules, we must sell players and think carefully about how to structure contracts for new signings. 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 money you generate, not artificially inflate revenues."

"If other clubs have indeed artificially inflated revenues, and these matters are now coming to light, then obviously that will cause some damage. This should be resolved by the courts and the appropriate authorities."

Emery also added: "I'm disappointed because that team played such beautiful football. Under Guardiola's management, there were times when they were truly unmatched."

The incident was initially triggered by whistleblower Rui Pinto's disclosure of a large volume of documents, which prompted a Premier League investigation. The Telegraph reports that Pinto has been under witness protection for six years, but that protection is about to be lifted. His Portuguese and French legal teams issued a joint statement saying: "His position is now extremely dangerous. The threats against him are not merely theoretical; he was attacked in Lisbon in April of this year."

Pinto was previously convicted on five counts of "unauthorized access" to computer systems, three counts of "breach of correspondence confidentiality," and attempted extortion, and was sentenced to four years suspended.

Переведено ИИ.

Сайт AF теперь доступен! Читайте полные новости, комментарии, детали матчей и статистику на компьютере. Посетите: www.allfootballapp.com