Ben Jacobs EXPLAINS how Etihad Airways could UNDERMINE Man City's APPEAL against GUILTY verdict!

Overview

Ben Jacobs (TalkSPORT) outlines the status and likely complications of Manchester City’s appeal after the Premier League found the club “almost entirely guilty” over breaches related to financial rules.

Appeal basics and what City must prove

• City’s appeal is expected to be heard by a panel of three (typically retired judges) and should not last more than about 12 weeks, though timelines have already been delayed.
• Jacobs stresses that an appeal is not a full retrial but a review of the earlier panel’s work.
• City must argue points such as:
  • misinterpretation of law
  • new evidence unavailable to the original panel
  • bias or misconduct

Central issue: disguised payments and “sham” deals

Jacobs highlights the original panel’s key finding: as described in his summary, City’s owner’s related vehicle (ADUG / Abu Dhabi United Group) made £830 million in commercial payments across nine seasons.

The panel also treated roughly £120 million as money paid directly by sponsors as relatively straightforward income.

City’s counter-argument

City’s position is that the £830m payments were not effectively from ADUG/ownership, but instead from the Abu Dhabi government—undermining the conclusion that the arrangements were “sham.”

Mansour knowledge complication

Jacobs adds a nuance: while the panel found ADUG was involved, it found Sheikh Mansour himself was not guilty, which may imply Mansour didn’t necessarily know how the money was being used.

• City may argue Mansour’s knowledge is implausible if the vehicle wasn’t genuinely involved.
• However, if evidence indicates Mansour was aware, consequences could worsen.

Etihad Airways angle: could it “undermine” the appeal?

Jacobs’ main headline involves potential significance from Etihad’s 2015 statements, made during a US-related investigation.

Etihad, responding to claims that Abu Dhabi government money funded its Manchester City sponsorship, said:

• the idea that government funds paid for Etihad’s EPL sponsorship is false
• Etihad financed the sponsorship using its own cash reserves

“Liquidity” framing (the dispute)

Jacobs frames it as a liquidity argument:

• Etihad view: government money → Etihad → becomes Etihad liquidity, so sponsorship obligations were paid from Etihad’s own funds.
• City view: that logic supports City’s position that government funding became part of the sponsor/vehicle liquidity and was then paid out—mirroring arguments City made previously in the 2020 CAS challenge regarding UEFA sanctions.

Potential contradiction in the documentation

Jacobs notes a potentially serious tension:

• A separate 2010 internal consultant report for the Crown Prince reportedly said the Abu Dhabi government covered the Manchester City sponsorship.

This creates friction between Etihad’s later public/legal statements and earlier documentation.

What it could mean for the appeal

Jacobs’ takeaway: Etihad’s statements could strengthen City’s case, but others may see them as inconsistent or contradictory—making them likely to be a contentious point during the appeal.

Broader repercussions beyond the appeal

Jacobs also outlines downstream issues if outcomes change, or if criminal/tax angles come into play:

• HMRC reportedly asked to look for possible criminal implications related to tax evasion tied to hidden payments.
• The FA is watching closely and may act depending on findings.
• Compensation concerns could follow any change to standings/titles, especially if points or results shift:
  • Jacobs references legal experts expecting punishments to be prospective, which may reduce complexity, but still leaves room for claims (including potentially by current players).
  • A more severe scenario—such as relegation—could potentially trigger extensive club/player compensation disputes.
• Jacobs cites an ESPN report on timing:
  • City’s appeal period allegedly began September 19, making October 2 the deadline.
  • ESPN claimed City expected the verdict to be largely guilty as early as the start of summer.

Finally, Jacobs flags concern that prolonged uncertainty could cast a “cloud” over the season’s integrity, with the Premier League aiming for resolution by season’s end if possible.

Conclusion

• City has appealed and argues it has “irrefutable” evidence supporting its case.
• The original verdict was mostly guilty, and the appeal is expected to be time-bound but complex—particularly around the Etihad liquidity/funding narrative and related documentation.
• The timing of any sanctions may depend on whether the appeal affects enforcement, while the Premier League aims to resolve matters before the end of the season.

Presenters / Contributors

• Ben Jacobs (host and explainer)