England's new football regulator circles as Man City found guilty of Premier League charges

The Premier League's investigation into Manchester City published on 29 September found the football club guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the league’s financial rules over a nine-season period and the majority of charges of failing to cooperate with the investigation.

The case raises regulatory questions that reach beyond the Premier League's own disciplinary process: in particular, whether the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) could become involved, what powers it might exercise in relation to the club's owners and officers, and the potential consequences for individuals – and there are broad lessons to draw from Man City's approach to the investigation as it looks to make its next steps in the appeal process.

Financial investigations

Following the release of leaked emails the Premier League and Uefa (the Union of European Football Associations), the governing body of football in Europe, carried out investigations relating to Man City's financial dealings. The Premier League investigation covered seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18, and the case is continuing to unfold.

The independent commission reviewing Man City's conduct found that, in the relevant seasons, the club entered into "sham" contracts with a number of commercial partners; filed misstated accounts concealing the true state of its finances from auditors and regulators; was significantly in breach of the Premier League spending limit; and committed multiple breaches of the duties of cooperation and utmost good faith.

The commission found the purpose of these schemes was to inflate the club’s revenues and reduce its costs by more than £900 million during the affected period in order to appear to comply with the financial rules.

City's appeal

Man City appealed the decision on 1 October. Under Premier League rules, the appeal must be conducted by a streamlined procedure. Directions as to the conduct of the appeal hearing are issued within seven days of receipt of the appeal. Based on the available information, this means by 8 October. The standard directions contained within the Premier League rules state that the appeal must conclude no later than 12 weeks after filing and that the decision must be published within 30 days of the final day of the hearing. Twelve weeks from when the appeal was announced falls on 24 December.

However, this is according to the standard directions set out in the Premier League's procedures: and those directions can be varied or disapplied in certain circumstances. The most likely ground to be relevant here is the "necessity for expedition" criterion, which would ensure that a points deduction can take place by the end of the season. Given the possibility of lengthy appeals following an already lengthy case, the commission may take the view that this criterion is met.

Man City has stated that "the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe". The commission's decision was notably strident in condemning the relevant practices as rule breaches. Parties may apply for permission to bring evidence that was not before the commission. Otherwise the appeal proceeds by way of a review of the evidence already brought before the commission. Man City in a statement after the release of the commission's opinion indicated it may wish to bring additional evidence, given that it believes that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists" in support of its position that it has not committed any wrongdoing.

If the appeal concludes with Man City being found guilty, the commission may suspend the club from the Premier League, deduct points or recommend expulsion from the league. However, these are not the only potential sanctions. 

Man City could also reach a settlement with the Premier League before the appeal is heard, but this would be unlikely to affect the commission’s adverse findings.

Independent Football Regulator

This case may prove to be the first real test of the IFR, the regulatory body established under the UK's Football Governance Act 2025. It has been described as raising "serious issues" by David Kogan, the chair of the IFR, who also noted that the new regulator has the power to assess the suitability of club owners and officers when there is "clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals". Although the IFR has said that it will not become formally involved while the proceedings between Man City and the Premier League are ongoing, the forthright nature of the statement suggests that intervention remains on the table once the appeal process concludes.

If the IFR does get involved, it could assess whether the conduct of owners and officers of the club gives rise to "ground for concern" about whether the individuals meet the "fitness criteria". These include having the requisite honesty and integrity to hold a position at a football club. The IFR must take into account any determination made by the relevant competition organiser, in this case the Premier League, as well as any other finding it considers relevant, which would be likely to include the findings of the commission. If the IFR finds that these criteria are not met, it can disqualify or remove an individual from holding a position as an owner or officer of a club.

The IFR’s interest in Man City’s case represents an early test of its approach, with potential consequences for individuals that stretch beyond the sporting sanctions available through the Premier League’s disciplinary process.

City's conduct

The commission found that, over the course of the four-year investigation, Man City committed multiple breaches of its duties of cooperation and utmost good faith towards the league. Specifically, it found that the club made “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate” the investigation and that important factual witnesses knowingly gave untrue evidence and were dishonest in material respects. Commentary has criticised the approach as counterproductive, on the basis that an aggressive litigation strategy risks attracting additional sanctions and costs for non-cooperation. It may even weaken a party's position on appeal. 

Man City's membership of the Premier League gave rise to specific contractual obligations of co-operation and utmost good faith. While such duties most commonly arise in the context of membership agreements, joint ventures and long-term commercial relationships, there is a broader lesson around the importance of carefully balancing a robust defence against the risk of being perceived as obstructing or frustrating an investigatory process. It is also a reminder that assessing the merits of a case early, planning the approach accordingly and ensuring the accuracy of factual evidence and witness responses presented throughout the investigation are all important steps for any organisation under scrutiny. 

While it would be speculative to conclude that a more forthcoming approach might have resulted in a marginally less damning report for Man City, the case underlines the value of carefully managing engagement with investigators and regulators, taking into account both the procedural and reputational consequences.

Man City v Premier League

Separately, Man City brought arbitration proceedings against the Premier League challenging the legality of its Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which govern whether a club's sponsorship arrangements are concluded on fair-market-value terms. The rules are designed to prevent clubs from obtaining an artificial financial advantage through inflated revenues or artificially reduced costs. Man City successfully challenged the exclusion of shareholder loans from fair-market-value scrutiny, on the basis that such an exclusion conferred an unjustified advantage on clubs in receipt of shareholder loans relative to those relying on alternative funding structures. The dispute was resolved by settlement in September 2025.

The outcome serves as a reminder that rules expressly designed to promote financial fairness are not beyond scrutiny. In this case, certain provisions within the APT framework were themselves found to distort competition between clubs in practice. 

Osborne Clarke comment

This case has the potential to cause a seismic shift in the landscape of English football. Although subject to appeal, if the findings are upheld it is possible that Man City's sanctions could lead to the club being relegated from the Premier League, enforced sale of the club or transfer embargoes and other measures. Each of these would represent the strongest possible range of sanctions available for sporting breaches. In addition, there are a number of other alleged regulatory breaches which will require investigation by the relevant authority.

Although significant sanctions for breaches of the Premier League's rules have previously taken place, including points deductions, this could be the first time that the IFR becomes involved with a case of this type. English football's regulatory framework is still finding its feet, and the Man City case will be an important early test of how the new regime operates: this is a developing area of law that will be given careful consideration across the industry. 

Sioned Protheroe, a trainee solicitor with Osborne Clarke, contributed to this Insight.