According to reporting by Sam Wallace and James Ducker of The Telegraph, Manchester City's current appeal of an independent panel's decision directly contradicts the club's key appeal arguments based on a 2015 Etihad Airways document submitted to the U.S. government.

One of Manchester City's key appeal arguments is that additional funding for the relevant commercial sponsorship deals came not from the club's owner but from the Abu Dhabi government. Manchester City contends that if the funding came from the Abu Dhabi government rather than the owner, the agreement does not violate Premier League rules.

However, The Telegraph points out that this argument contradicts statements made by Etihad Airways during a 2015 U.S. government investigation into the state-owned airline.

In the 60-page document, Etihad Airways stated: "It is false to claim that the Abu Dhabi government pays for Etihad Airways' sponsorship of Manchester City in the Premier League. In 2011, Etihad Airways entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement with Manchester City, including naming rights to Manchester City's stadium. Etihad Airways funded this sponsorship through its own operating revenues."

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

Etihad Airways also stated in materials submitted to the U.S. government: "We have been a state-owned enterprise since our founding. We have never received subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and we have consistently made clear that our funding comes through a combination of capital, shareholder loans, and commercial borrowing. Capital and loans provided by our shareholder, the Abu Dhabi government, do not constitute subsidies under any applicable definition, but rather represent the Abu Dhabi government making sound investments 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 appealing UEFA-related charges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. At that time, Manchester City argued that all payment obligations for sponsorship deals were the responsibility of the relevant sponsors.

However, Manchester City does not believe these statements made by Etihad Airways to the U.S. government undermine its appeal case. Rather, the club believes these materials could actually strengthen its defense.

Manchester City's legal team is expected to argue that Etihad Airways received funding from the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince's court for Abu Dhabi promotional purposes, and that once this funding entered Etihad Airways, it became part of the airline's own "operating revenues." Therefore, Manchester City contends this is not equivalent to the Abu Dhabi government directly funding Manchester City on behalf of Etihad Airways.

Manchester City officially announced on Friday that it will appeal the independent panel's guilty verdict. The club claims it has "irrefutable evidence" proving the panel's findings are factually incorrect.

The Telegraph compared several key statements in dispute. In May 2015, Etihad Airways told the U.S. government that Manchester City's sponsorship was not funded by government money. In July 2020, Etihad Airways CEO Hogan also took the position in a Court of Arbitration for Sport case related to Manchester City's sponsorship deal that "the sponsorship was not funded by government money." In September 2026, Manchester City will argue in its defense against Premier League charges that the sponsorship funding came from the Abu Dhabi government.

Meanwhile, other Premier League clubs are pressuring for sanctions against Manchester City to be implemented this season if the club is ultimately found guilty. According to reports, potential sanctions could include relegation, points deductions, and fines, with some calling for Manchester City's Abu Dhabi owner to sell the club. However, since Manchester City has appealed, final sanctions have not yet been determined.

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

During the international break, most of Manchester City's Premier League rivals maintained public silence on the matter. However, Aston Villa manager Unai Emery addressed the issue on Friday, saying there will be "some damage" if Manchester City's appeal fails.

Emery said: "We are all constrained by the rules. To comply with financial fair play regulations, we must sell players and consider how to structure new player contracts. Club owners typically have substantial financial resources, but the purpose of financial fair play regulations is to ensure financial balance—meaning clubs can only spend the money they earn, not artificially inflate revenue."

"If other clubs have indeed artificially inflated revenue and these facts are now revealed, there will certainly be some damage. This must be decided by the courts and relevant authorities."

Emery also said: "I regret that such football was played by that team. Under Pep Guardiola, there were times when they were truly invincible."

The case was initially triggered by whistleblower Luis Pinto's disclosure of a large cache of documents, which led to the Premier League investigation. The Telegraph reported that Pinto has been under witness protection for six years, but this protection is set to be withdrawn soon. His Portuguese and French legal teams issued a joint statement saying: "His situation is now extremely dangerous. The 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 "unauthorized access to information systems," three counts of "breach of communications," and attempted extortion, and was sentenced to four years suspended imprisonment.

AI 번역.

AF PC사이트가 오픈했습니다! 컴퓨터에서 전체 뉴스, 댓글, 경기 상세 정보와 데이터를 확인하세요. 방문하기: www.allfootballapp.com