The announcement, and the price
| Right | What a comparison needs | What the 2011 announcement publishes |
|---|---|---|
| Shirt | Which shirts, duration and exclusivity. | An extension of the relationship; no separate price or stated shirt term. |
| Stadium | Naming term, exposure and accompanying rights. | The Etihad Stadium rename; no separate price. |
| Campus | Facilities and scope of the rights included. | Naming across the described campus and facilities; no separate price. |
| Territory and media | Geographic reach and activation rights. | Media, business and international co-operation; no allocation of the fee. |
City and Etihad announcement, 8 July 2011
How a sponsorship is priced
On 8 July 2011 Manchester City announced a ten-year partnership with Etihad Airways. The club called it a comprehensive partnership and said it expanded a commercial relationship already in place. Etihad extended its shirt sponsorship. The page keeps the logo on the home and away shirts, and it does not say how long that extension runs. The City of Manchester Stadium was renamed the Etihad Stadium that day. The same name went onto the campus: a large part of the Sportcity site in east Manchester, City Square, and facilities already standing and still planned. The page also lists media, business and international co-operation, including a club-branded aircraft on the Manchester–Abu Dhabi route. No price is stated. The page does not say Etihad was paying for the buildings.
Years later the commission found that, across 2009/10 to 2017/18, more than £830 million had been recorded as sponsorship income instead of owner contributions. On a separate analysis, the recorded fees were substantially above fair market value. The question is whether the public papers can finish a price for that package. They cannot. City disputes the findings. The appeal is open. As at 6 October 2026, no sanction had been set. Two agreements the League accepted as arm’s-length, and at fair market value, remain redacted. They are not filled in here as the 2011 package. The money was allowed keeps the season table, the trophies and the charge list.
The group accounts are the next paper. Partnership revenue in the year to 31 May 2010 was £32.4 million. The financial review says the line was up £25.9 million, an increase of nearly 400 per cent, from new long-term deals with Etihad, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Aabar and Etisalat.
In the year to 31 May 2011 the line was £48.5 million. The review calls that a rise of 49.7 per cent, from a full year of Etihad Airways, Umbro, Aabar, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority and Etisalat. That year closed on 31 May. The ten-year partnership was announced a little over five weeks later. The same review, written in September 2011, says the July agreement was expected to help the club across the following decade. The £48.5 million is the year before that.
In the year to 31 May 2012 partnership revenue was £97.0 million. The review says the line doubled, underpinned by the new Etihad partnership, by further partnerships it does not name, and by improved renewals. The category was £48.5 million higher than the year before. The review leaves that rise in one line.
The room
What follows is how these deals tend to be argued.
The club opens with a cash number above the last deals it can point to. The sponsor opens below them. They trade years against cash. A longer term at a lower annual figure can be the same money as a shorter term at a higher one. The announcement can still lead with a single number. They also trade what that number covers. A sleeve, the training kit, hospitality, or the name on the ground is either inside it or a separate sale. They stop when one figure will pass both boards. Those boards are the club’s and the sponsor’s. The Premier League Board reads afterwards. It is not in the room.
When the sponsor is linked to the owner, that sponsor often has little reason to push the number down. The club wants the income in the accounts. The sponsor is not choosing the cheapest shirt in the league. The push comes later, from the test.
A package is often left as one headline. One number is easier to agree, and easier to announce. City’s announcement has that shape. The shirt extension, the stadium name and the campus name are set out as key elements of one ten-year agreement, and no price sits beside them. The page does not say whether that was one contract or three. The split comes afterwards, when a valuer, an accountant or the League has to say which part counted. The test looks at consideration. It does not price the word partnership.
Take three annual prices for a one-year domestic shirt: 40, 50 and 60. The average is £50.0 million, and the right being priced is a shirt as well. One defence says the prices are domestic and the right is global, so the difference is 15 per cent and £50.0 million becomes £57.5 million. The other says those clubs already sell worldwide, so the difference is nil and the price stays £50.0 million. Both are an illustration, and both come from no filing. If the stadium is still inside the right, neither figure is used. The season index on the check is a dial a reader can turn. It is not one of those defences.
What the papers actually give
A fee reaches a public paper when that paper had to disclose it. A directors’ report can name the contract and stop.
Manchester United’s 2012 prospectus disclosed approximately £20 million a season from Aon’s shirt sponsorship, from June 2010 through 2013/14. Training-kit rights were excluded and sold separately, and a separate insurance arrangement is not in that figure. A shirt price, with the kit taken out, still cannot price a stadium and a campus.
Arsenal’s directors’ reports for the year to 31 May 2012, the club’s and the holdings company’s, name the contracts they treat as the group’s most important commercial agreements. Emirates naming rights expired in 2021. The Emirates shirt expired in 2014, and so did the Nike kit. They print no fee. The name on the ground and the name on the shirt do not end in the same year.
Liverpool’s directors said a Standard Chartered sponsorship from July 2010 could bring in up to £81 million over four years. The 2009 report and note 28 call it a shirt deal and place it after the year end. The 2010 report calls it a kit deal that had started, and says the next year’s commercial revenue would include it. A ceiling is not a year. The report for the year to 31 July 2011 does not print the figure again.
What the Handbook requires
In 2011 no rule required the Board to assess the fair value of a sponsorship agreed with a party linked to the owner. Every season in the table below came later. That argument is between the club and the sponsor. Where the other party is linked to the owner, the Handbooks put another reader on the bargain after it is made. The cash stays the cash the contract stated. A restatement changes the income used in the spending test. The copies held here were read on 5 October 2026.
| Season | What the book requires |
|---|---|
| 2014/15 | Short-term cost-control guidance. The Board may restate related-party revenue inside the uplift to fair market value, and must hear the club first. |
| 2015/16 | Rule E.54. The Board determines whether related-party consideration in earnings before tax is at fair market value, and restates it if it is not. Rule E.55 requires the club to be heard first. |
| 2021/22 | Each associated-party transaction is submitted for a fair-market-value assessment, before the agreement or within two clear working days. If the club signs first, completion is subject to the Board’s confirmation. The Board conducts the assessment. |
| 2021/22 | A threshold transaction is with a third party that is not an associated party, above £1 million or above 5 per cent of annual turnover excluding central funds. The rule applying to it was not on the page that defines it. |
| 2022/23 | The associated-party submission and the threshold definition are printed as in 2021/22. |
| 2023/24 | The guidance seeks the veracity of the costs and revenues, and seeks to extinguish reliance on enhanced commercial revenues from entities linked to ownership. It names no club. Rule E.58.2 excludes the associated party’s consideration from revenue in the profitability calculation unless and until the Board approves. A threshold transaction must be submitted. |
| 2025/26 | Each associated-party transaction is submitted before the agreement, or within two clear working days. A director of the associated party must declare that fair market value was obtained. If the club signs before written confirmation, the consideration is expressly subject to that confirmation. A shareholder loan is the exception named on the page. |
A price paid by a party linked to the owner is the price being tested. From 2025/26, a club that signs first has to make the fee expressly subject to the Board’s written confirmation. That rule is not read back into 2011.
The five clubs
The check is for that later defence, once a right has a name. It is set for the five clubs with the most Premier League titles. Opta Analyst’s count, through Arsenal’s win in 2025/26, is Manchester United 13, Manchester City 8, Chelsea 5, Arsenal 4 and Liverpool 2. The count is the Premier League era only. Older English championships are a different list. The boxes start as an illustration and stay one until a reader replaces them: 40, 50 and 60 for a shirt, and 8, 12 and 16 for the name of the ground. Choosing a club loads the name and the ground. It does not load a fee. The page averages the three annual prices, applies the adjustment the reader types, and then the season index. Leave the stated price blank and the page says there is no stated price. Open the fair-market-value check.
What this does not establish
The contracts are not held. The £57.5 million and the £50.0 million are an illustration. The £830 million is an aggregate, not an Etihad fee and not a figure for one season. The meeting is not held. The page is provided as it is. The Notice excludes liability for loss from relying on these pages, so far as the law allows. Nothing here excludes liability that cannot be excluded.
Sources
- Manchester City, City and Etihad announce a ten-year partnership, 8 July 2011. The page calls it an expansion of an existing commercial relationship. The shirt element is an extension, with no term and no fee. The stadium rename is effective immediately. The campus name covers the Sportcity site, City Square, and facilities already there and still planned. Media, business and international co-operation are listed, including a club-branded aircraft. No price is stated. The page does not say Etihad was paying for the buildings.
- Premier League v Manchester City, redacted core decision. Paragraph 101 records more than £830 million recorded as sponsorship income instead of owner contributions across 2009/10 to 2017/18. Paragraphs 149 to 150 and 153 to 154 distinguish the alternative fair-value analysis, on which the recorded fees were substantially above fair market value. Paragraphs 58 and 60, printed page 15, record two agreements about which the League made no complaint. Identities and terms are redacted. The appeal, and the position that no sanction had been set as at 6 October 2026, are set out in The money was allowed.
- Manchester City Limited, financial reviews in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 group accounts, printed pages 6, 7 and 7. Partnership revenue of £32.4 million in the year to 31 May 2010, up £25.9 million, an increase the review calls nearly 400 per cent, from deals with Etihad, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Aabar and Etisalat. £48.5 million in the year to 31 May 2011, a rise of 49.7 per cent, from a full year of Etihad Airways, Umbro, Aabar, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority and Etisalat. That year closed before the 8 July 2011 announcement. £97.0 million in the year to 31 May 2012, described as underpinned by the new Etihad partnership, further unnamed partnerships and improved renewals. The narrative does not allocate a fee to Etihad.
- Manchester United plc, 2012 prospectus, printed pages 53 and 93–94. Aon shirt revenue of approximately £20 million a season, from June 2010 through 2013/14. Training-kit rights were excluded and sold separately. A separate insurance arrangement is not in the shirt figure.
- Arsenal directors’ reports, club and holdings, year to 31 May 2012. The reports call the naming-rights and shirt contracts with Emirates Airline, expiring in 2021 and 2014, and the Nike kit contract, expiring in 2014, the group’s most important commercial contracts. No sum is printed. The naming rights and the shirt expire in different years.
- Liverpool directors’ report for the year to 31 July 2010, and the directors’ report and note 28 for the year to 31 July 2009. A Standard Chartered sponsorship from July 2010, up to £81 million over four years. The 2009 papers call it a shirt sponsorship and place it after the year end. The 2010 report calls it a kit sponsorship that had started, and says the next year’s commercial revenue would include it. A ceiling. Not turnover of the year in which it is written. The report for the year to 31 July 2011 does not repeat the £81 million.
- Premier League Handbook 2014/15, short-term cost-control guidance, in the copy held here. The Board may restate related-party revenue inside the uplift to fair market value, and must hear the club first.
- Premier League Handbook 2015/16, printed page 114. Rule E.54 and Rule E.55.
- Premier League Handbook 2021/22, printed pages 131 and 132, and the threshold definition on printed page 101.
- Premier League Handbook 2022/23, printed pages 131 and 132, and printed page 101. The submission rule and the threshold definition are printed as in 2021/22.
- Premier League Handbook 2023/24, printed pages 133 and 134, Rule E.58.2. Associated-party definition, printed pages 81 and 82, including the £500,000 exclusion.
- Premier League Handbook 2025/26, printed pages 137 and 138. Submission, the director’s declaration, and the shareholder-loan exception.
- Opta Analyst, Which Teams Have the Most Premier League Titles? Counted through Arsenal’s 2025/26 win. Manchester United 13, Manchester City 8, Chelsea 5, Arsenal 4, Liverpool 2.