This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
Manchester City has been found guilty of serious breaches of the Premier League's financial rules. The club says the decision is wrong and that it is innocent. Behind the football headlines is an accounting question every accountant should understand.
One of the biggest financial cases in professional sport has just reached a dramatic new stage.
On 29 September 2026, the Premier League announced that an independent Commission had found Manchester City guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the League's financial rules over nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18.
The Commission also upheld most of the charges concerning Manchester City's alleged failure to cooperate with the Premier League's investigation. The Premier League says the arrangements allowed Manchester City to artificially increase revenues and reduce costs by more than £900 million during the period.
Manchester City emphatically rejects that conclusion. The club says it is innocent, that a comprehensive body of evidence supports its position, and that the Commission's opinion contains material errors of law, principle and fact. It intends to appeal. No sanction has yet been determined, so the story is far from finished.
For accountants, though, this is much more interesting than a dispute about football. It raises a question that could arise in thousands of businesses: if a transaction is legally documented, commercially structured, invoiced, paid and recorded exactly according to its contracts, can the accounting still misrepresent what really happened?
And there is another side to the question: when is sophisticated commercial structuring entirely legitimate, allowing a business to achieve a better financial or regulatory outcome without misrepresenting the transaction?
That distinction is where this case becomes important for professional accountants.
What was Manchester City accused of doing?
The Premier League referred more than 100 alleged breaches to an independent Commission in February 2023. The allegations covered a nine-season period. At their heart were questions about the financial information Manchester City supplied to the Premier League, including:
sponsorship revenue;
related parties;
operating costs;
manager and player remuneration;
compliance with financial spending rules; and
cooperation with the subsequent investigation.
After a 42-day hearing in the last quarter of 2024, the Commission issued its core decision. According to the Premier League, the Commission found that Manchester City had entered into what it described as "sham" commercial arrangements that did not represent the true agreements between the parties. The Premier League says some of these arrangements formed part of a "Disguised Funding Scheme".
The Commission concluded that certain sponsors paid only part of the sponsorship amounts attributed to them, while the balance was effectively funded by Manchester City's owner, Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG).
This distinction matters enormously.
Why does it matter who provided the money?
Consider a simplified example. A football club signs a sponsorship agreement for £100 million. The club performs its sponsorship obligations, the sponsor is invoiced £100 million and the club receives £100 million. Its accounts record:
Dr Bank / Receivable £100m
Cr Sponsorship Revenue £100m
On the face of it, there is nothing remarkable about that transaction.
But now suppose investigators discover that £20 million ultimately came from the sponsor's own resources, while £80 million ultimately originated from interests connected with the club's owner.
Does that mean the £100 million revenue entry is wrong? Surprisingly, not necessarily. This is where the accounting becomes interesting.
Manchester City's argument matters
According to reporting on the Commission decision, City's position included an important proposition: the Abu Dhabi sponsors were liable for the sponsorship amounts reflected in the club's financial information, while those sponsors could from time to time obtain financial support from the Abu Dhabi government.
The Commission rejected City's explanation. But accountants should understand why the distinction matters.
Imagine that your accounting firm sells R1 million of consulting services to Company X. Company X only has R200,000 available. Its shareholder provides another R800,000, and Company X pays your firm R1 million.
Would your firm recognise only R200,000 as revenue? Normally, no. Your customer owed R1 million. How your customer financed its obligation does not automatically determine your revenue.
Now apply that principle to Manchester City. If a sponsor genuinely contracted to acquire £100 million of sponsorship rights and remained economically and legally responsible for the £100 million obligation, financial assistance the sponsor obtained from somewhere else does not automatically turn Manchester City's sponsorship revenue into an owner's capital contribution. That could be a perfectly legitimate commercial structure.
But the Commission says that isn't what happened
This is the critical distinction. The Commission did not merely conclude that Manchester City's sponsors obtained outside financial assistance. It concluded that the arrangements themselves misrepresented the true agreement between the parties.
According to Sky Sports' reporting of the Commission decision, Manchester City's financial statements showed about £949.94 million of commercial income from the relevant Abu Dhabi sponsors over the period. The Commission concluded that those sponsors contributed about £119.25 million, with about £830.69 million funded by ADUG.
That produces two very different versions of essentially the same transaction.
Version 1: City's case
Sponsor → £100m → Manchester City
The sponsor genuinely owes £100 million. Where the sponsor gets its financing is a separate matter. Potential accounting result: £100m sponsorship revenue.
Version 2: The Commission's finding
Sponsor → £20m
Owner-related funding → £80m
Manchester City reports £100m sponsorship
Under this interpretation, the sponsor is not simply financing its own £100 million commercial obligation. The structure itself is allegedly being used to make owner funding look like commercial sponsorship income. That could produce a completely different accounting result.
The accounting problem in one table
| Question | Genuine sponsorship structure | Alleged disguised-funding structure |
|---|---|---|
| Contract says sponsor owes £100m | Yes | Yes |
| £100m received | Yes | Yes |
| Invoice exists | Yes | Yes |
| Sponsorship delivered | Yes | Possibly yes |
| Sponsor genuinely bears £100m commercial obligation | Yes | Disputed |
| Owner ultimately supplies substantial funding | Could happen | Yes |
| Funding independent of sponsorship arrangement | Yes | Commission says no |
| Contract represents complete economic arrangement | Yes | Commission says no |
| £100m sponsorship revenue potentially supportable | Yes | Potentially not |
That final distinction is everything.
The Fordham arrangement: the other side of the income statement
The allegations did not concern revenue alone. The Commission also examined an arrangement involving an entity called Fordham and players' image rights.
According to the Premier League, the arrangement allowed owner-related funding to enter the club while letting Manchester City record lower operating expenses than it otherwise would have. Sky Sports reports that the Commission concluded the Fordham arrangement overstated income by about £24.5 million and understated expenses by about £49.4 million.
That illustrates an important accounting principle: financial performance can be altered from both directions, with revenue pushed up and expenses pushed down. Consider a hypothetical business:
| Economic result | Reported result | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | R500m | R580m |
| Expenses | R600m | R550m |
| Profit/(loss) | (R100m) | R30m |
Every rand could exist. Every bank account could reconcile. The ledger could balance perfectly. Yet the financial statements could still tell the wrong economic story.
And that creates a fascinating audit problem
Suppose you are the auditor of our hypothetical £100 million sponsorship transaction.
You inspect the signed contract: £100m ✓
You inspect the invoice: £100m ✓
You confirm the amount with the sponsor: £100m ✓
You trace the payment into the bank: £100m ✓
You confirm that the club delivered the sponsorship rights: ✓
Everything agrees. Have you proved that the accounting treatment is correct? Not necessarily.
You have gathered substantial evidence that the documented transaction occurred. But you haven't necessarily established that there isn't another arrangement sitting behind it.
This is why professional scepticism cannot simply mean "check the documents". Sometimes it must mean "determine whether the documents describe the entire transaction".
Four different realities can exist in one transaction
Accountants should analyse complex transactions through four lenses.
Legal reality. What do the contracts say?
Economic reality. Who actually provides the resources, assumes the risk and receives the benefit?
Accounting reality. How has management recognised, measured, classified and disclosed the transaction?
Regulatory reality. What consequence does that accounting treatment have?
Ideally, the legal, economic, accounting and regulatory pictures all tell substantially the same story. The professional risk increases where they do not.
Manchester City says the Commission has got it wrong
That must not disappear from the story. Manchester City has issued an unusually strong response. The club says it is innocent of the Premier League's accusations and that a comprehensive body of evidence supports all of its positions. It says the Commission's opinion contains material errors of law, principle and fact, describes the decision as unsafe, and says it will pursue the appeal avenues available to it.
Its chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, wrote to supporters days before the decision was published, saying the club remained confident it would prove its innocence.
Accountants should therefore resist an easy conclusion. There are two very different lessons, depending on what survives the appeal process.
If the Commission is ultimately upheld
The lesson becomes one about substance, disclosure and professional scepticism. A contract cannot be used merely as a label for a fundamentally different economic transaction. An accountant should be particularly cautious where:
related parties are involved;
unusual funding arrangements exist;
transactions materially improve regulatory compliance;
consideration appears commercially unusual;
multiple agreements operate together;
funds circulate between connected entities;
significant transactions occur close to reporting dates; or
management has a particularly strong incentive to achieve a predetermined accounting outcome.
The professional accountant cannot simply process the documentation. The accountant must understand the transaction.
But what if Manchester City ultimately succeeds?
That outcome would create an equally important lesson. Businesses are generally entitled to structure genuine commercial transactions efficiently. A company does not ordinarily have to choose the transaction that produces the worst financial, tax or regulatory result merely because another structure is available.
There is an important difference between structuring a genuine transaction so that it legitimately produces a favourable result and creating documentation that disguises a different underlying transaction.
That boundary matters enormously to accountants advising businesses. Consider again our customer who obtains shareholder financing to buy R1 million of services. The transaction does not automatically stop being R1 million of revenue because somebody helped finance the customer. The accountant therefore needs to understand:
who the real contracting parties are;
who assumes the contractual obligations;
whether those obligations are genuine;
whether consideration is commercially supportable;
whether agreements are interdependent;
whether related parties are properly identified;
whether all material arrangements have been disclosed;
whether the accounting follows the underlying substance; and
whether the structure complies with applicable law, accounting standards and regulatory rules.
Done properly, commercial structuring is not accounting manipulation. It is part of legitimate business and professional advice.
The question every accountant should now ask
Imagine one of your clients brings you a R10 million contract tomorrow. The agreement is legally signed. The invoice is correct. The customer confirms the balance. The R10 million arrives in the bank. But you then discover that R8 million ultimately came from another party connected to your client.
What would you do?
Would you recognise R10 million revenue?
Would you investigate further?
What evidence would you obtain?
What questions would you ask management?
Would the accounting change if the third-party funding arrangement existed before the contract was signed?
What if the transaction conveniently moved your client from breaching a banking covenant to complying with it?
What if it changed a regulatory ratio?
What if it reduced tax?
And what if the structure was completely legal and commercially genuine?
This is where professional accounting judgement begins.
Sources: Premier League announcement of 29 September 2026, as reported by Al Jazeera; figures from Sky Sports' reporting of the Commission decision; Manchester City's response as reported by Khaleej Times.
Trending
