Key Points
ใปOn September 29, 2026, the Premier League announced that an independent commission had found Manchester City guilty of serious breaches of its financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009-10 to 2017-18. No sanction has been decided, and City say they will appeal.
ใปThe nine seasons overlap with City’s rise. A club that spent decades in Manchester United’s shadow became a title contender after its 2008 change of ownership, and won the league three times within the period covered by the ruling.
ใปEverton and Nottingham Forest were punished for losses above the permitted limit. City were found to have misstated the figures themselves and to have failed to cooperate with the investigation. A heavier sanction than those clubs received is widely expected, but both the appeal and the sanctions hearing are still ahead.
โผ Watch the Japanese-language video explainer
This video has Japanese audio and slides. To read English captions, open Settings โ Subtitles/CC โ Auto-translate โ English, where available. Automatic translations may contain errors. If the option is unavailable in the embedded player, watch on YouTube. The accompanying English article provides the written explanation.
Commission Upholds the Financial Charges Against City
According to the Premier League’s statement of September 29, 2026, an independent commission upheld every charge relating to Manchester City’s financial reporting and spending limits over the nine seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18. The same statement said the commission upheld three of the four charges relating to the club’s duty to cooperate with the league’s investigation.
The Premier League’s statement said City entered into “sham” arrangements with several commercial partners that did not reflect who actually paid. The sponsors covered only part of the sponsorship fees, and the rest was funded by the club’s owner, Abu Dhabi United Group. Arrangements that made costs look lower were also found. According to the league, the inflation of revenue and the understatement of costs added up to more than ยฃ900m over the period.
The commission concluded that the club had intended to get around the rules, and found that parts of the evidence given by some of City’s key witnesses were untrue. Premier League chief executive Richard Masters described it as the most serious disciplinary case in the league’s history, according to the league’s statement.
Sanctions will be decided by the same commission at a separate hearing. Under the rules, the options include fines, points deductions and other sporting sanctions. No date has been announced.
In a statement issued the same day, Manchester City said it was innocent and that the decision contained serious errors of law, principle and fact, and said it would appeal. According to the Premier League, the deadline to lodge an appeal is October 2.
Related Articles
Spending Rules, Owner Money and City’s Rise
The Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) are the Premier League’s limits on how much a club may lose, so that a club’s spending on transfers and wages is tied to the revenue it earns. UEFA applies the same principle to clubs in its competitions under Financial Fair Play.
Why it matters whether money comes from a sponsor or an owner
An owner is allowed to put money into a club. But an owner’s investment does not count as commercial revenue in the way a sponsorship fee does, and there is a cap on how much of a loss owner funding can cover. Money paid by a sponsor counts as revenue, and raises what the club can spend.
What the commission found was a way of turning one into the other. In a simple illustration with made-up figures, a club reports a sponsorship worth 100, but the sponsor pays only 20 and the owner’s side supplies the other 80. On paper, all 100 is revenue, and the club’s spending room grows accordingly.
According to the commission’s redacted core decision published on September 29, 2026, neither the league nor the club’s auditors knew of this flow of money for many years. The rules run on the accounts that clubs submit. If those accounts do not reflect reality, a club can appear to comply.
From United’s neighbour to champions
For most English football fans this history needs little retelling. Manchester United dominated the city for decades, while Manchester City fell into the third tier for the first time in 1998 and spent the early 2000s in the Premier League’s middle and lower half after returning in 2002.
The turning point was September 2008, when a takeover by an Abu Dhabi investment company led by Sheikh Mansour was announced. In May 2012, Sergio Agรผero’s late winner gave City their first league title in 44 years, ahead of United on goal difference. Pep Guardiola arrived in 2016, and the club went on to win four straight league titles from 2021 to 2024 and its first Champions League in 2023.
The nine seasons covered by the ruling run from the season after the takeover to the 2018 title, a period that includes three league titles. Most of the players from that era have since left. The current team, under Enzo Maresca, who succeeded Guardiola in 2026, is built around Erling Haaland and Phil Foden.
What Makes This Case Heavier, and What Happens Next
How is City’s case different from Everton’s and Forest’s?
Since 2023, the Premier League has deducted points from Everton and Nottingham Forest. In both cases, the figures the clubs reported showed losses above the permitted limit. The question was how much they had spent, not whether the accounts were accurate.
City’s case is about the accuracy of the reported figures. The commission found that revenue and costs were recorded in ways that did not match reality over nine seasons, and that the club intended to get around the rules. Add the failure to cooperate and the untrue witness evidence, and the case differs from the two earlier ones in length, scale, intent and conduct during the investigation.
City reject all of this. The club’s September 29 statement said it has evidence of its innocence and that the decision contains serious errors, but it did not say which findings are wrong or why. Only a redacted version of the decision has been published, and its appendices are not yet available. From the outside, there is not enough material to weigh the two sides point by point.
The commission did accept parts of City’s case. It found that much of the revenue-raising work the club carried out in 2012 was legitimate, and treated some of City’s arguments as reducing the seriousness of the breaches.
Why the 2020 outcome is not a template
City have been here before. In 2020, UEFA banned the club from European competition for two seasons, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the ban. According to the CAS statement reported by CBS Sports in July 2020, most of the breaches UEFA had found were either not established or fell outside UEFA’s five-year time limit. The finding that City had failed to cooperate stood, and a fine remained.
The Premier League’s rules have no equivalent time limit, and this time witness evidence was tested over a 42-day hearing, according to the league. According to the Premier League’s September 29 statement, the ruling covers seasons up to 2017-18. It does not find that the same conduct continued afterwards, and the scope of any sanction, including whether later titles are affected, has not been decided.
Some argue that the investment made during those nine seasons laid the foundation for City’s later success, which has pulled the post-2018 titles into the debate. The decision does not say how far the conduct it found is linked to results in later years.
How do past sanctions compare?
Clubs in England and Italy have been punished over finances and accounting before.
| Club | When | What was at issue | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everton | 2023-24 | Losses above the PSR limit (twice) | 8 points deducted in total |
| Nottingham Forest | 2024 | Losses above the PSR limit | 4 points deducted |
| Chelsea | 2026 | Undisclosed payments under the previous owner, self-reported by the club | Fine; one-year first-team transfer ban suspended for two years; no points deduction |
| Juventus | 2023 | Accounting linked to player transfer deals | 10 points deducted |
| Juventus | 2006 | Improper influence over referee appointments | Relegation to Serie B; two titles revoked |
| Manchester City | 2026 | Nine seasons of misstated figures and failure to cooperate | Not yet decided |
Compiled from league announcements and media reports. Rules and the bodies that set sanctions differ by country and league.
According to the Premier League’s March 2026 statement on Chelsea, the payments did not push the club over the loss limit even when they were added back in. The new owners’ decision to report the matter and cooperate with the investigation also counted in the club’s favour.
City, by contrast, were found to have been far over the spending limits once their figures were corrected, and their failure to cooperate was itself found to be a breach. How the sanctions hearing weighs those two differences is likely to be the central question.
Juventus’s relegation and loss of titles in 2006 came from a scandal about the integrity of matches, known as Calciopoli. Its 2023 accounting case ended in a 10-point deduction, according to reports at the time. Separating the two cases weakens the argument that “Juventus were relegated, so City should be too.”
The Premier League has no precedent of the same nature and scale, and no fixed table that converts a financial breach into points. City’s ยฃ900m, which the Premier League’s statement describes as inflated revenue and understated costs combined, and Everton’s overspend measure different things, so a points deduction cannot be calculated from the ratio between them.
Financial rules assume that the information clubs provide is accurate. When manipulation of that information is found years after the fact, the question becomes how far a sanction now can make up for an advantage gained then. A fine does little against an owner with deep pockets. A points deduction falls on today’s players and fans. If titles are revoked, awarding them to the runners-up is a separate decision, and in two of the three title-winning seasons in the period, the runners-up were Manchester United.
When will the sanctions come, and how far could they go?
Two processes remain: an appeal against the findings, and a hearing to decide the sanctions. A newly appointed three-member panel will hear the appeal, and the same commission will decide the sanctions in private. The Guardian, in a report carried by The Irish Times on September 29, 2026, said the two are expected to run in parallel. The league has not published a timetable.
Reports suggest the appeal could take several months. Sky Sports reported on September 29, 2026 that the league is thought to want the case settled this season, and that there is no route to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as there was in 2020.
On the sanction itself, some in England expect a large points deduction, and a former chairman of the Football Association called for City to be expelled from the league, Al Jazeera reported on September 29, 2026. These are outside views, and the commission has not said what standard it will apply. Expulsion would mean City ceasing to be a Premier League club, which is different from relegation to a lower division.
Timing is the hard part. If points are deducted before the appeal is decided and the findings are later overturned, the table cannot be put back. If the league waits, the title race and the relegation fight will go on with an unresolved sanction hanging over them. Either choice affects other clubs’ positions.
Other clubs are also moving. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham were reported in 2024 to have sent notices preserving their right to seek compensation if breaches were proven. The notices were a precaution for possible future claims, and it is not yet clear whether any club will sue, or which losses it would tie to City’s breaches.
City have also challenged the league’s rules themselves. In a 2024 arbitration over rules restricting deals with companies close to a club’s owner, parts of those rules were found unlawful. That dispute ended in a settlement in September 2025, in which City accepted the current rules as valid, ESPN reported.
There has long been criticism that rules letting clubs with higher revenue spend more favour established giants over new investors. That criticism of how the rules are designed, and the finding about whether City complied with the rules in force at the time, are being treated as separate questions.
Japanese Reactions to Manchester City’s Financial Breach Ruling
These are posts on X and do not represent Japanese public opinion. The translations are by Sekahan, handles are omitted, and like counts are rounded figures displayed on September 30, 2026 (JST). The Premier League’s statement reached Japan at about 1 a.m. on September 30.
The story had already been running in Japan for days before the ruling. After reports on September 25 that City had been found guilty, Japanese football accounts spent the following days guessing at the punishment, and commentator Ben Mabley, an Englishman who covers the game in Japanese, announced a video calling it the biggest scandal in the history of English football. One football media account had already framed the question as one of legitimacy before the ruling. This GOAL Japan post, from the afternoon of September 28, promoted a translated article.
๐ตใใฎๆ ๅ ใฏโๆฌ็ฉโใ ใฃใใฎใ๐ฅ
— GOAL Japan (@GoalJP_Official) September 28, 2026
ใใณใใงในใฟใผใปใทใใฃใฎ9ๅนดใซๅใถ่ฒกๅ่ฆๅ้ๅใฏใใฌใใขใชใผใฐใฎๆ นๅนนใๆบใใใ
ใใใใฏใThe Damned Unitedใใจใฏ้ใใๆฌๅฝใฎๆๅณใงใใฉใ1ใคใจใใฆใใงใขใซๅใกๅใฃใใใฎใงใฏใชใใใจๆใใใฆใใพใใใใใใชใ็ถๆณใชใฎใ ใ
๐https://t.co/ZYMK0lYw8c pic.twitter.com/X04Snhzic6
Was that glory “real”? Manchester City’s nine years of financial rule-breaking shake the foundations of the Premier League. “This isn’t The Damned United. It’s a situation where people may genuinely think none of it was won fairly.”
GOAL Japan, September 28, 2026, before the ruling (roughly 500 likes, translated by Sekahan)
Once the statement was published, the most widely shared posts were plain summaries. A football news account posted this within minutes of the announcement, and it drew roughly 4,900 likes.
๐จๅ ฌๅผ็บ่กจ๐จ
— Fooootest๏ผใตใใซใผใใญใฐ๏ผ (@Fooootest) September 29, 2026
ใใฌใใขๅ ฌๅผใใทใใฃใฎ่ฒกๅ่ฆๅ้ๅใ่ชๅฎ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ
2009-10ใ17-18ใฎ9ใทใผใบใณใซใใใใๅ็ใฎไบบ็บ็ใชๆฐดๅขใใไผ่จๆ ๅ ฑใฎ่ๅฝ่จ่ผใๆฏๅบๅถ้้ๅใชใฉใ่ชๅฎใใทใใฃใฏ10ๆ2ๆฅใพใงไธ่จดๅฏ่ฝใ pic.twitter.com/ot54Cfiuaq
Official: The Premier League has confirmed that City broke its financial rules. Across nine seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18, it found artificially inflated revenue, false statements in the accounts and breaches of spending limits, among other things. City can appeal until October 2.
Fooootest, September 30, 2026 (roughly 4,900 likes, translated by Sekahan)
Ben Mabley followed within the hour with a fuller outline of the findings, including what remains undecided.
ใๆๆฐใPLใฎ็ฌ็ซๅงๅกไผใฏใใทใใฃใ9ๅญฃใซไบใ้ๅคงใช่ฒกๅ่ฆๅ้ๅใใใฆใใใจ่ชๅฎใ่ๅฝใฎๅฅ็ดใชใฉใงๅๅ ฅใๆฐดๅขใใใ่ฒป็จใ้ๅฐใซ่ฆใใ่ฒกๅ็ถๆณใ็ฃๆปไบบใPLใซ้ ใใฆใใใจๅคๆญใๅฝฑ้ฟ้กใฏ9ๅใใณใ่ถ ใ่ชฟๆปใธใฎ้ๅๅใซใคใใฆใใ้ๅใฎๅคงๅใ่ชๅฎใใใใๅถ่ฃใฏๆชๆฑบๅฎใงใใทใใฃใฏๆง่จดใใๆน้ใ https://t.co/ODZzaFV3eC
— Ben Mabley๏ผใใณใปใกใคใใชใผ๏ผ (@BenMabley) September 29, 2026
[Latest] The Premier League’s independent commission has found that City committed serious breaches of financial rules over nine seasons. It judged that the club inflated revenue through sham contracts and other means, made costs look smaller, and hid its true financial position from its auditors and the league. The sums involved exceed ยฃ900m. Most of the non-cooperation charges were also upheld. Sanctions have not been decided, and City plan to appeal.
Ben Mabley, September 30, 2026 (roughly 680 likes, translated by Sekahan)
As the night went on in Japan, attention moved from what had been found to whether the club would answer for it. Football journalist Takuma Yamanaka translated a question put to City chief executive Ferran Soriano by a reporter the post identifies as Sky’s Rob Harris.
ใใใฌใใขใชใผใฐใใใชใๆนใใปใผ10ๅนดใซใใใฃใฆใใผใ่ก็บใๅใใใจ่ชๅฎใใพใใใใตใใซใผใใกใณใธ่ฌ็ฝชใฏใใใพใใ๏ผใๅฝ่ฃ ๅฅ็ดใใจใใ่จ่ใๅบใพใใใใใทใใฃใฏๅฝ่ฃ ใฏใฉใใจใใใใจใงใฏใชใใงใใ๏ผใตใใซใผ็ใ็ ดๅฃใใใฎใงใใ๏ผใตใใซใผ็ใธใฎใกใใปใผใธใฏไฝใใชใใฎใงใใใใใฎใใใชไธโฆ https://t.co/sOSlt48Cfg
— ๅฑฑไธญๆ็ฃจ(Takuma Yamanaka) (@gern3137) September 29, 2026
“The Premier League has found that you cheated for almost a decade. Is there an apology to football fans? The words ‘sham contracts’ came up. Doesn’t that make City a sham club? Are you destroying football? There is no message to the football world at all. After wrongdoing like this, don’t you have a duty to give some kind of explanation?” Sky’s Rob Harris pressing City CEO Soriano hard.
Takuma Yamanaka, September 30, 2026 (roughly 180 likes, translated by Sekahan)
The overall tone was critical, and the balance was lopsided. In our search, we found no widely shared Japanese post defending the breaches themselves. The closest was an argument, posted before the ruling, that the “red” clubs criticizing City’s oil money had also grown on rich owners’ money in their early years. Replies quickly drew a line between investing before any rules existed and breaking rules that were already in place. Fan posts from supporters of rival clubs such as Arsenal, Liverpool and United were the harshest, and many returned to the same comparison: Chelsea reported its own case and cooperated, while City were found not to have cooperated.
The shift over five days was clear. From September 25 to 29, Japanese posts were built on British press reports and centred on guesses about the punishment and on disappointment as fans. After the statement, they moved to checking what had actually been found, the scale of the ยฃ900m figure, and the club’s accountability. The like counts above compare posts found in searches at one point in time and do not measure the overall balance of opinion.
One Ruling on City’s Fifteen Years
A club that had fallen to the third tier won the league four years after its change of ownership and became European champion fifteen years after it. The independent commission has concluded that, in the first nine of those seasons, the revenue and costs City reported did not reflect reality. City deny this and intend to appeal.
The case differs from Everton’s and Forest’s in what was at issue, and from Chelsea’s self-reported case in how the club dealt with the investigation. If the findings stand, a heavier sanction than Everton and Forest received is widely expected. Neither its weight nor its timing has been decided.
If points are deducted this season, the effects will reach the title race, qualification for European competition and the relegation battle. The next markers are the October 2 appeal deadline and the timetable for the hearings that follow. What the ruling leaves open is how far a sanction today can make up for an advantage gained years ago.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was Manchester City found guilty of?
An independent commission found Manchester City guilty of serious breaches of Premier League financial rules over nine seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18, according to the Premier League’s statement of September 29, 2026. The findings include sham sponsorship arrangements partly funded by the owner, Abu Dhabi United Group, arrangements that understated costs, breaches of spending limits, and three of four charges of failing to cooperate with the league’s investigation.
What does the ยฃ900m figure mean?
It is the combined total of inflated revenue and understated costs over the nine seasons, according to the Premier League’s September 29, 2026 statement. It is not a fine, not an annual amount, and not the amount by which City exceeded the loss limit.
Will Manchester City be relegated or have points deducted?
No sanction has been decided as of September 30, 2026. According to the Premier League’s statement, the same commission will decide sanctions at a separate private hearing, with options including fines, points deductions and other sporting sanctions, while City said on September 29, 2026 that it will appeal the findings by the October 2 deadline.
How did Japanese social media react to the Manchester City ruling?
Reactions on X in Japan were largely critical, and the most widely shared posts on September 30, 2026 were factual summaries of the findings from football media and commentators. Before the ruling, posts centred on guesses about the punishment and on whether City’s titles were legitimate; afterwards they moved to the scale of the ยฃ900m figure and the club’s accountability, and Sekahan’s search found no widely shared post defending the breaches.
Sekahan on YouTube
We publish video summaries of articles like this one, along with short clips built around Japanese reactions.
Reference Links
- Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC๏ฝPremier League
- Independent Commission Redacted Core Decision๏ฝPremier League
- Club Statement๏ฝManchester City
- Man City Commits Huge Financial Rule Breaches, Club to Appeal (Japanese)๏ฝTokyo Shimbun (Kyodo News)
- Man City guilty of all serious financial breach charges: Premier League๏ฝAl Jazeera
- Man City Premier League charges: Appeal process, punishment hearing and what happens now after guilty verdict๏ฝSky Sports
- Manchester City guilty of Premier League charges after ยฃ900m of ‘sham’ contracts๏ฝThe Irish Times
- Premier League statement on Chelsea sanctions๏ฝPremier League
- Manchester City settle Premier League dispute over APT rules๏ฝESPN
- Manchester City’s UEFA ban overturned by CAS๏ฝCBS Sports
