Premier League findings on Manchester City demand a close look by HMRC, says the chair of a cross‑party MP group.
An independent commission declared City guilty of every breach from 2009‑10 to 2017‑18. How could such a scheme slip past regulators?
The club continues to deny any wrongdoing and plans to file an appeal by Friday.
Investigators say the owners helped inflate revenue through sham sponsorship deals.
The commission concluded City used mechanisms to mask the true size of certain liabilities.
The Treasury Committee, which oversees HMRC, has asked whether the department has secured the redacted report. In my view, the committee’s push is long overdue.
Dame Meg Hillier said she would welcome reassurance that HMRC recognises the public‑interest stakes.
The letter follows a Tax Policy Associates report alleging City dodged up to £12 million in tax via a sham contract with former manager Roberto Mancini.
Beyond unpaid income tax and NI, the analysis suggests a penalty could lift liabilities to £24 million.
Man City not ‘above the rules’, says No 10 after backlash to Burnham remarks
City to argue sponsorship deals came from Abu Dhabi government
In its appeal, Manchester City will argue that key sponsorships were funded by the Abu Dhabi government, not the owners.
Owners Abu Dhabi United Group – a private firm linked to UAE vice‑president Sheikh Mansour – are alleged to have boosted commercial values by a disguised funding scheme worth £830.69 million.
That injection, the claim goes, let the club appear compliant with Premier League and UEFA financial rules.
Premier League rules do permit state‑owned entities to sponsor clubs.
The 40‑page decision notes City denied any disguised funding, claiming it misunderstood how Abu Dhabi sponsorships were financed. In reality, the club contended Abu Dhabi sponsors paid all recorded fees from their own resources, without ADUG money.
“No part of any recorded sponsorship fee was paid by ADUG or its funds. Abu Dhabi sponsors occasionally sought government assistance to meet fee liabilities, and such requests were approved…”
The commission dismissed this claim as false, stating: “We concluded it was an explanation concocted after the fact to hide the disguised funding scheme.”
City’s defence is set to reignite debate over how separate the ownership is from the Abu Dhabi state and what that means for clubs with government ties.
Mansour belongs to Abu Dhabi’s ruling family and is the brother of UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Since the 2008 takeover, City has insisted it operates as a wholly private business, yet critics argue the ownership serves to sports‑wash the UAE.
On Saturday, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak cited ‘irrefutable evidence’ backing the club’s innocence. He also claimed the commission’s ruling contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, rendering it unsafe.
It emerged that Al Mubarak, appointed chairman after the 2008 takeover, appears on the UK government’s list of foreign representatives as an Emirati diplomat.
Diplomats enjoy privileges and immunities under the Diplomatic Privileges Act (1964), shielding them from criminal, civil and administrative prosecution.
Etihad Airways, City’s main sponsor, says it may pursue legal action against the Premier League, arguing the commission’s release causes damaging implications despite the airline not being named.
The UAE’s national carrier categorically rejects any suggestion it was involved in improper commercial arrangements.
Etihad is owned by sovereign wealth fund L’Imad, chaired by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, the UAE president’s son.
Criminal investigation? Relegation or expulsion? The key Man City questions
Why do people think this Man City video is AI?
How does CAS work and why can’t Man City appeal to it?
Pre‑match, post‑match and topical City content.
Subscribe for everything you love about City.