The Man City 115 charges verdict is in: an independent commission has found that Manchester City breached the Premier League's financial rules in each of the nine seasons from 2009/10 to 2017/18, and that the club also breached its duty to co-operate with the League's investigation in most of the ways alleged. No sanction has been imposed yet. That will be decided at a separate, private hearing before the same commission, and City, who deny any wrongdoing, have said they will appeal. The Premier League published a redacted version of the commission's Core Decision on Tuesday 29 September, after the outcome had first been reported the previous Friday.
What the commission found, charge by charge
The decision does not count to 115. It sorts the allegations into four charges, two of them split into sub-charges, and describes the total as "well over 100" individual breaches (paragraph 1). Charge 1 covers the accounts City submitted to the League, Charge 2 UEFA's financial fair play rules, Charge 3 the League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), and Charge 4 co-operation with the investigation. The commission's headline finding is at paragraph 7: "we found each of the Charges proven against the Club bar Charge 4(B)." Paragraph 157 adds that Charge 4(A) was proved "in the majority of the respects" alleged, and 4(C) and 4(D) in full. Several outlets, CBS Sports among them, have reported this as 114 of the 115 charges proved; that tally is theirs, and the decision itself uses the charge numbers above.
The mechanism behind Charge 1 is worth a paragraph, because everything else follows from it. The commission found that in early 2010 the club devised what it calls a "Disguised Funding Scheme" (paragraph 67). According to the decision, a group of sponsors signed agreements recording large fees but were liable for, and paid, only a fraction of them, with the balance paid by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the club's owner. Under UEFA's rules, and later the League's, money from an owner cannot count towards the income that offsets a club's spending, while sponsorship revenue can. The commission found those sponsorship agreements were "a sham" (paragraph 110) and that the club's income across the nine seasons was "hugely overstated by over £830 million" (paragraph 101). It also found costs kept off the books through other arrangements, among them an image-rights deal with a company called Fordham, through which £24.5m was wrongly booked as income and £49.4m of operating costs were left out. The League's statement puts the combined effect at "more than £900 million".
Once the accounts were restated, the commission found City failed UEFA's break-even requirement and the League's PSR test (a limit of £105m in losses over three seasons) "by a very substantial amount" in every season each rule covered (paragraphs 149 and 153). On intent, it was direct: "By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules" (paragraph 114). On Charge 4, it found the club "made concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation" (paragraph 157). These are disciplinary findings under the League's rules, made on the balance of probabilities (Rule W.58), though the commission said the seriousness of the allegations required "strong, cogent evidence" (paragraph 6).
Manchester City's response
City's statement, issued at 5pm on 29 September, says the club "is both disappointed and surprised by the opinion of the Premier League Commission" and that it "is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions." It adds that the club "will now pursue the appeal avenues open to it, on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe," and that it will be "relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums."
Three days earlier, in a letter to supporters, chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak wrote that "our confidence and intent in proving the Club's innocence is just as strong as when this began."
The sanctions available, and who decides them
The commission decides, after hearing each side's mitigating and aggravating factors (Rule W.63). Its powers are listed in Rule W.64 of the 2026/27 Handbook. Against a club, it may reprimand; impose a fine "unlimited in amount"; suspend the club from playing League matches; deduct "points scored or to be scored"; recommend that a match be replayed; recommend that the League expel the club; order compensation to any person or club; or impose "any combination of the foregoing or such other penalty as it shall think fit." Expulsion is a recommendation only: under Rule B.6 it needs a special resolution backed by at least three-quarters of the clubs voting at a general meeting. Rule W.64 does not list the removal of past titles among its named sanctions, and the League's statement does not mention titles.
Richard Masters, the League's chief executive, said: "There are elements of the case that remain to be decided, including, importantly, what sanction must follow for these breaches." The statement says the sanction hearing "will remain private and confidential until such a time as publication of the outcome is permitted." No date has been announced, and Sky Sports reported on 30 September that it is unclear when the hearing will take place.
How an appeal works under Section W
City have until Friday 2 October to lodge an appeal, according to the League. An appeal is made on Form 24 (Rule W.80) and goes to an Appeal Board of three members, chaired by someone who has held judicial office (Rule W.77). It works as a review of the evidence the commission heard, with fresh evidence admitted only with the board's permission (Rule W.92). Under the standard directions the appeal hearing should finish no later than 84 days after the appeal is filed, with a reasoned decision within 30 days of the hearing (Rules W.86 and W.95), although the board can vary that timetable (Rule W.85). It can allow or dismiss the appeal, vary any penalty, or send the case back to the commission (Rule W.96). The sanction, once set, can itself be appealed by either side (Rule W.76).
The League says it could publish the Core Decision because the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that it is a "final award". Its stated aim is for the whole process to be "concluded as soon as possible", but it has published no timetable beyond the 2 October deadline.
What it means for the 2026-27 table and fixtures
For now, nothing in the Premier League table has changed. Manchester City lead after five matches with five wins, 15 points, 13 goals scored and five conceded. Arsenal are three points behind on 12, with Brighton and Newcastle on 10. The wording of Rule W.64, "points scored or to be scored", means any deduction could apply to a current or future season, but whether there will be one, how large, and when it would apply, are all for the commission at the sanction hearing and then for any appeal.
The football resumes after the international break with Liverpool v Manchester City at Anfield on Sunday 11 October, kick-off 4.30pm BST. Liverpool are ninth on eight points. City then host Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League on Wednesday 14 October (8pm BST) and Ipswich Town on Saturday 17 October (3pm BST, Manchester City v Ipswich Town). City's fixtures, scores and the live table are on ONTOUR's Premier League page.
Sources: Premier League statement (29 September 2026); redacted Core Decision of the independent Commission (published 29 September 2026; paragraph numbers as cited); Manchester City club statement (29 September 2026) and chairman's letter (26 September 2026); Premier League Handbook 2026/27, Rules B.6 and W.58 to W.97; reporting by CBS Sports (29 September) and Sky Sports (30 September) for context. Table and fixtures from ONTOUR's data on 1 October 2026; kick-off times converted from UTC to BST.
Written with AI assistance and edited by a human before publication.
