The Manchester City case under the Premier League’s rules, from the 2018 leaks to the Appeal Board: every step that has happened, the step the case is on now, and the steps the rules still allow.
Published by The Uneven FieldRecord checked 3 October 2026
Where it stands. The Commission published its decision on liability on 29 September. The club lodged an appeal on 1 October and the League confirmed it on 2 October. No sanction has been set, and no points have been deducted.
Who acts. Der Spiegel and partner outlets. Journalism, not a rule body.
From 5 November 2018 Der Spiegel published a series on internal Manchester City emails obtained through Football Leaks. They concerned how sponsorship from Abu Dhabi was funded and recorded. Two cases followed from the same documents: one at UEFA, one at the Premier League.
A publication is not a finding. The emails were obtained without the club’s consent, and the weight they carried was for the panels that later heard the cases.
The rule. None. This step sits outside any rulebook.
From reportingReporting of the Der Spiegel series. The original articles are behind Der Spiegel’s paywall and are not linked here.
Who acts. The Premier League Board, which has power to inquire into any suspected breach of its rules.
The League began investigating in December 2018. The investigation ran for more than four years before any charge was brought, and the club’s conduct during it later became Charge 4.
An investigation is not an allegation. Nothing was charged publicly until February 2023.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.1: the Board’s power of inquiry. The cooperation charges cite the rules in force in each season from 2018/19.
Checked against documentsPremier League statements of 6 February 2023 and 29 September 2026; Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.1.
Who acts. The Adjudicatory Chamber of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body.
UEFA had settled with City once before, in 2014, without resolving whether the club complied. After the leaks it opened a new investigation in 2019. In February 2020 the Chamber found that City had overstated sponsorship income between 2012 and 2016 and failed to cooperate, excluded the club from UEFA competitions for two seasons and fined it €30 million.
It was not the last word. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as UEFA’s rules allow.
The rule. UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Checked against documentsCAS press release, 13 July 2020 (UEFA decision and sanction); Core Decision footnote 11 (2014 settlement).
From reportingThat UEFA opened its new investigation in 2019.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport sets the ban aside
Who acts. A three-member CAS panel.
CAS set the UEFA decision aside. It said most of the alleged breaches were either not established or time-barred, found that the club had failed to cooperate, and cut the fine to €10 million. The UEFA track ends here.
CAS ruled on UEFA’s rules, UEFA’s evidence and UEFA’s time limit, for 2012 to 2016. It did not decide the Premier League case, which covers 2009/10 to 2017/18 under different rules.
The rule. CAS appeal procedure, applied to UEFA’s regulations.
Checked against documentsCAS press release, 13 July 2020, as reproduced by LawInSport. The copy on the CAS website could not be retrieved for checking.
Who acts. The Premier League, as prosecutor. The Commission is chosen by the independent Chair of the Judicial Panel, not by the clubs.
The League referred the case to an independent Commission. The Commission describes “well over 100” alleged breaches, grouped in four charges: Charge 1, the accounts for 2009/10 to 2017/18, in four parts; Charge 2, UEFA’s financial fair play rules; Charge 3, the League’s profitability and sustainability rules from 2015/16; and Charge 4, cooperation with the investigation, in four parts. Reporting counted 115.
A charge is an allegation. The twenty member clubs did not vote on it. The club denied each charge.
The rule. As cited at referral in February 2023: Rule W.3.4 (referral), W.19, W.20 and W.26 (appointment), W.82 (confidential, heard in private). The same provisions in the Handbook 2026/27: W.6.4, W.23 and W.24 (a financial case must include a qualified accountant or auditor), and W.105.
Checked against documentsPremier League statement, 6 February 2023; Core Decision ¶¶1–2 and ¶¶38–44; Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.6.4, W.23, W.24 and W.105.
The hearing ran for 42 days. Witnesses and experts gave evidence on 34 of them. The transcripts ran to about 7,000 pages. The Commission said its decision took much longer than it had expected and called that regrettable.
Accounts of what was said at the hearing are reporting, not a record. No transcript is public.
The rule. Confidential and heard in private: Rule W.82 as cited at referral; Rule W.105 in the Handbook 2026/27.
Checked against documentsCore Decision, cover page (hearing dates), ¶16 and ¶18.
DecidedBefore 29 September 2026, date not published
The decision is ruled a final award
Who acts. The Commission, confirmed by an Appeal Board.
The League can publish only a Commission’s final award. The Commission ruled that its decision on liability was one, and an Appeal Board confirmed it. That is why a redacted decision could be published before any sanction.
This earlier Appeal Board ruled only on whether the decision could be published. It did not review the findings.
The rule. Publication of final awards: Rule W.82.2 as cited at referral; Rule W.105.5 in the Handbook 2026/27.
Checked against documentsPremier League statement, 29 September 2026; Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.105.5.
The Commission publishes its decision on liability
Who acts. The independent Commission.
The Commission found every charge proven except Charge 4(B). It found that the club’s income for 2009/10 to 2017/18 was overstated by over £830 million of owner money from Abu Dhabi United Group booked as sponsorship, with further sums from the Fordham image-rights arrangement and costs left out of the accounts. The League puts the total at more than £900 million. At paragraph 77 it rejected, as untrue, the club’s account that the money came from the Abu Dhabi government through the Crown Prince’s Court.
“We concluded that it was an ‘explanation’ that the Club had concocted well after the event.” Core Decision, ¶77
A liability finding is not a sanction. No points have been deducted and no title has been removed. The accounting charges cover 2009/10 to 2017/18, which includes the 100-point season; the cooperation charge covers the investigation, from December 2018 to February 2023. The four titles from 2020/21 to 2023/24 and the 2023 treble were won after the accounting period. That does not by itself settle what a sanction can reach, and the decision says nothing on sanction. The club denies the findings.
The rule. Publication: Rule W.105.5 in the Handbook 2026/27 (W.82.2 as cited at referral).
Checked against documentsCore Decision ¶¶6–7, ¶¶76–78 with footnote 9, ¶101 and ¶157; Premier League statements of 6 February 2023 (charge periods) and 29 September 2026.
Not public
Appendix 15, which holds most of the reasons on the Crown Prince’s Court account
Appendices 12, 13, 14, 22 and 33, which feed into those reasons
Names and passages redacted in the 40-page Core Decision
How to read this step
Source
Redacted Core Decision and Premier League statement, both 29 September 2026.
Definition
“Over £830 million” is the Commission’s figure for owner money booked as income (¶101). “More than £900 million” is the League’s total once the Fordham arrangement and understated costs are added. Neither is a transfer total, a saving or a fine.
Period
2009/10 to 2017/18.
Adjustment
None. Nominal pounds, as stated.
Limitation
The decision says it must be read with its appendices, which are not yet published.
Who acts. Manchester City, to the Chair of the Judicial Panel.
The club lodged its appeal at 7pm on 1 October, a day inside the deadline the League had set, saying the decision contains material errors of law, principle and fact. The League confirmed it on 2 October. The appeal hearing will stay private until publication of the outcome is permitted.
The grounds of appeal are not public. Reports of what the club will argue are reports, not the grounds.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.80 and W.81: an appeal against a Commission is made on Form 24 to the Chair of the Judicial Panel, within 14 days unless a shorter period is ordered. Rule W.105.2: the League confirms an appeal in public.
Checked against documentsPremier League statements of 29 September and 2 October 2026; Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.80, W.81 and W.105.2.
From reportingThe 7pm filing time and the club’s grounds wording, from the club’s statement as reported.
Who acts. Three members of the Appeals Panel, appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. The chair must have held judicial office.
The appeal is a review of the evidence the Commission heard, not a rehearing. New evidence is allowed only if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time. Under the standard directions, the hearing lasts no more than five days in one block and ends within 84 days of the appeal, and the decision follows within 30 days.
Conditional standard timetable, counted from 1 October 2026
Today
8 OctBoard’s directions due (W.85)
24 DecHearing must have ended (W.86.1.1)
23 JanLatest date for the decision to reach the parties, if the hearing ends 24 Dec (W.95)
Applies only if the standard directions stand. The decision goes first to the parties; it is published only when publication is permitted (W.105.5).
The standard timetable is conditional. Within seven days of the appeal the board must give directions, and it can vary or set the standard timetable aside, as the parties can by agreement. No timetable for this appeal has been published.
The rule. Rules W.77 (Appeal Board), W.84–W.86 (standard directions), W.88 (new evidence), W.92 (review), W.95 (decision within 30 days), W.96 (powers) and W.97 (final, subject to Section X).
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.77, W.84–W.86, W.88, W.92, W.95–W.97; Premier League statement, 2 October 2026.
Not public
Members of the board
Directions for this appeal
Hearing dates
How to read this step
Source
Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.84–W.86 and W.95; Premier League statement, 2 October 2026.
Definition
A review of the Commission’s evidence and reasoning, with oral argument.
Period
From 1 October 2026.
Adjustment
Days counted from the filing date, 1 October.
Limitation
The parties can agree, or the board can direct, a different timetable. None has been published.
The finding stands as published, and a sanction follows from it. Subject to Section X, the board’s decision is final.
A dismissed appeal is not itself a sanction. Whether the sanction hearing waits for the appeal, runs alongside it or follows it has not been published.
The rule. Rules W.96.2 and W.97.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.96–W.97.
The board can remit the matter to the Commission with directions on how to deal with it. The Commission would then decide again on the points sent back.
A case sent back is neither won nor lost. It adds a step, and time, to the points sent back.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.96.7.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rule W.96.7.
Who acts. The same independent Commission, at a further private hearing.
The League has said sanction will be addressed separately, at a further hearing before the Commission. It has not said whether that hearing waits for the appeal. The League and the club first put aggravating and mitigating factors. The rule then gives a menu whose items can be combined or made conditional. Every item below is unused in this case.
ReprimandW.64.1Unused
FineW.64.2UnusedUnlimited in amount; part can be suspended.
SuspensionW.64.4.1UnusedFrom League matches, for such period as the Commission thinks fit.
Points deductionW.64.4.2UnusedPoints scored or to be scored.
Recommend a replayW.64.4.3Unused
Recommend expulsionW.64.4.4UnusedA recommendation only. Expulsion needs a vote of the clubs under Rule B.6.
CompensationW.64.5UnusedUnlimited in amount, to any person or club.
Registration ordersW.64.6UnusedCancel or refuse a player registration made in breach of the rules.
Conditional penaltyW.64.8UnusedA penalty that applies unless a defined action is taken within a defined time.
CostsW.64.9Unused
Any other orderW.64.7, W.64.11UnusedReporting has asked whether this could reach a past title. No rule in Section W names titles, and no published Premier League Commission or Appeal Board decision has removed one.
No sanction has been heard or set. A menu is a list of powers, not a forecast. Deductions given to other clubs, for other breaches, are not a price list for this one.
The first three rows are sanctions for single profitability calculations, already applied. The City row is a liability finding under appeal, with no sanction heard. One is not derived from the other.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.63 and W.64. A sanction is itself a Commission decision, so it can be appealed under Rule W.80.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.63–W.64 and W.80; Premier League statement, 29 September 2026; the published Everton and Forest decisions for the comparison.
From reportingThat the question of past titles has been raised.
Not public
Date of the sanction hearing
Whether it waits for the appeal, runs alongside it or follows it
Who acts. The member clubs, at a General Meeting of the League.
A Commission can only recommend expulsion. The League can expel a club only by a special resolution passed by at least three-quarters of the members entitled to vote that do vote, at a General Meeting called with notice of the proposal. If all twenty voted, that would be fifteen.
No recommendation has been made and no meeting has been called. The threshold is a rule, not a count of anyone’s intention.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.64.4.4 (recommendation) and Rule B.6 (expulsion by special resolution).
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.64.4.4 and B.6.
Who acts. An arbitral tribunal under Section X of the League’s rules.
An Appeal Board’s decision is final subject to Section X. Section X allows a disciplinary decision to be reviewed by arbitration, but only on five grounds: the body acted outside its jurisdiction; fraud, malice or bad faith; procedural errors so great that the applicant was clearly and substantially prejudiced; a perverse interpretation of the law; or a decision no Commission or Appeal Board properly applying its mind to the facts could reasonably have reached.
It is not a second appeal on the evidence. A club or person not party to the case cannot use it unless it shows it is sufficiently affected by the outcome. Nothing has been filed.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.97; Rules X.3.1 and X.4 (grounds of review) and X.6 (non-parties).
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rule W.97 and Rules X.3, X.4 and X.6.
An award made in a Section X arbitration is final and binding, subject to sections 67 to 71 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allow a challenge on grounds such as jurisdiction or serious irregularity. The League’s rules exclude an appeal on a point of law under section 69.
It is not a fresh trial of the facts, and no challenge has been filed. Exactly which decisions can be taken to court, and on what grounds, is a legal question the map does not answer.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule X.50 (challenging the award); Arbitration Act 1996, sections 67 to 69.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rule X.50; Arbitration Act 1996.
Who acts. The Commission, under its compensation power, or individual clubs in separate proceedings.
A Commission can order compensation, unlimited in amount, to any club. Separately, reporting says Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham formally registered possible claims through arbitration in November 2024, ahead of a possible limitation deadline, and that a number of clubs had already sought legal advice before the verdict was first reported in September 2026.
Those are reported protective steps. No claim document has been published, and no club has publicly filed a claim. A compensation order by the Commission would rest on the liability finding. A separate claim would turn on its own case, and each claimant would have to prove its own loss.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rule W.64.5, and Rule W.65 on hearing others on compensation.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.64.5 and W.65.
From reportingThe November 2024 registrations (The Times, as reported) and the legal advice taken before the verdict was reported (BBC Sport and The Athletic, as reported).
Who acts. The FA, England’s governing body, separate from the League.
The FA said the decision has significant implications for the integrity of the game, that it is considering it carefully, and that it will act where appropriate.
A statement is not a proceeding. The FA has not announced a charge or a process.
The rule. None engaged yet.
From reportingThe FA statement as reported. The statement itself is not linked here yet.
Who acts. No body. The route does not exist for this case.
The UEFA case went to CAS because UEFA’s rules send appeals there. The Premier League’s rules send them to an Appeal Board, whose decision is final subject only to the League’s own arbitration under Section X.
The 2020 CAS award on UEFA’s charges does not bind the Premier League case.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Rules W.77 and W.97.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Rules W.77, W.97 and X.3.
The map is complete when the Appeal Board has decided and, if any finding survives, a sanction has been set, any appeal against it decided, and any Section X arbitration or court challenge resolved. Until then, the open steps stay open.
Titles and points appear on this map only as questions for the sanction stage. Neither has moved.
The rule. Handbook 2026/27, Sections W and X.
Checked against documentsHandbook 2026/27, Sections W and X.
Each step is drawn from the redacted Core Decision, the Premier League Handbook (2026/27 for current rules; the edition cited at the time for earlier steps), a statement by the League or the club, or the CAS award. Under every step, one line names the documents it was checked against and a second line, where needed, names what rests on reporting. Where a document exists but is not public, the step shows it as not public rather than filling the gap.
Steps that have happened are fixed. Steps that have not are drawn as open, and say only what the rules permit. When the record changes, the step changes, and the change is logged in Corrections and changes, the one log for every page. Each step shows its own entries from that log. Entries are never edited.
The map does not give a probability for the appeal, does not forecast a sanction, and does not estimate what any breach did to results on the pitch. Those questions belong to the essays, starting with Who Gets to Spend. For the current spending rules, use How the rules land.
Corrections and changes to the map as a whole
Changes to a single step are listed under that step. Every change on every page is in Corrections and changes.