Manchester City are expected to argue in their appeal that major sponsorship agreements were financed by the Abu Dhabi government rather than by the club’s owners.
Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a private investment firm owned by United Arab Emirates vice-president and deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour, was accused of increasing the value of commercial agreements through a concealed funding arrangement worth £830.69m.
It was alleged that this arrangement allowed the club to give the impression that it was operating within Premier League and Uefa financial regulations.
City are reportedly preparing to present evidence to an appeal panel showing that the money provided to sponsors originated from the Abu Dhabi government and not from ADUG.
Premier League regulations permit organisations owned by governments to enter into sponsorship agreements with football clubs.
The independent commission said City denied operating the concealed funding arrangement alleged by the Premier League. The club maintained that the league had incorrectly understood how the Abu Dhabi sponsorship agreements were financed. According to City, the sponsors remained responsible for the full declared fees and paid those amounts using their own money and resources.
The club also argued that none of the declared sponsorship payments came from ADUG or its funds. It said Abu Dhabi-based sponsors occasionally requested financial support from the Abu Dhabi government to meet their obligations and that some of those requests were approved.
The independent commission dismissed that account as false, concluding that the explanation had been developed afterward in an effort to hide the true nature of the alleged funding arrangement.
City’s planned defence is expected to revive questions about whether the club’s ownership can be considered separate from the Abu Dhabi state and about the wider consequences of state-linked ownership in football.
Sheikh 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 have maintained that the club is an entirely private business rather than a state-owned organisation. Critics have challenged that distinction, while human rights groups have alleged that the ownership has been used to improve the UAE’s international image through sport.
City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak recently referred to what he described as undeniable evidence supporting the club’s innocence. City have also argued that the commission’s ruling is unreliable because it contains significant errors involving law, principle and fact.
Al Mubarak, who became City chairman after the 2008 takeover, is listed as an Emirati diplomat in the UK government’s current directory of foreign representatives.
Foreign-state representatives and diplomatic personnel receive protections under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, including immunity from prosecution in criminal, civil and administrative matters.
City’s main sponsor, Etihad Airways, has said it may take legal action against the Premier League. The company argues that publication of the commission’s conclusions caused reputational harm even though the airline was not identified in the redacted findings.
The UAE’s state-owned national airline firmly rejected any finding, conclusion or suggestion that it had participated in improper commercial dealings.
Etihad is owned by the sovereign wealth fund L’Imad, which is chaired by Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince, the son of the UAE president.
The Premier League chose not to provide a response.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
