The 115 charges refer to the allegations levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League in February 2023, accusing the club of more than 100 breaches of the league’s financial rules across a nine-year period from 2009 to 2018 — the most serious and consequential legal case in the history of English football. The actual number of individual alleged breaches is believed to be 130, though the Premier League’s original press release referenced 115 distinct rules violations spanning financial reporting, sponsorship revenue misrepresentation, player and manager remuneration irregularities, and repeated failures to cooperate with investigators. Manchester City have denied every single allegation throughout and insist they have an “irrefutable body of evidence” to support their position. An independent three-member commission heard the case across ten weeks between September and December 2024 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, but as of mid-March 2026 — more than fifteen months after the hearing concluded — no verdict has been announced. Finance expert Stefan Borson has called the delay “largely inexplicable,” while LaLiga president Javier Tebas has stated it has been “damaging” for the Premier League’s credibility. In this comprehensive guide, you will find everything about the 115 charges: what they allege, how they came to be filed, who is overseeing the case, what punishments are possible, what experts are predicting, why the verdict is taking so long, and everything else you need to know about the case that has redefined football finance governance.
What Are the 115 Charges?
The Allegations in Full
The 115 charges — officially “Alleged Breaches of Premier League Rules” — were filed by the Premier League against Manchester City on 6 February 2023, at the conclusion of a four-year investigation that had begun in March 2019. The charges fall into several distinct categories, each relating to a different aspect of the club’s alleged financial conduct over the period from the 2009–10 season through to the 2022–23 season — a span of fourteen years and multiple different regulatory environments.
The most serious category of charges relates to the alleged misrepresentation of financial information — specifically, accusations that Manchester City provided the Premier League with inaccurate accounts of their revenues (including from sponsorship deals), their operating costs, and their related-party transactions. In plain terms, the Premier League alleges that City systematically overstated or misrepresented revenues — in particular, the income from Abu Dhabi-connected commercial sponsors — to make their finances appear compliant with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations that they would otherwise have breached. This allegation, if proved, would constitute what legal experts and football finance analysts have described as a form of systematic financial fraud against the league — a deliberate effort to circumvent rules that all other Premier League clubs were required to comply with.
The second major category concerns player and manager remuneration — specifically, allegations that Manchester City made payments to players and to their manager Pep Guardiola that were not fully reflected in the official financial records provided to the Premier League. The allegation is not simply that City paid their players and manager highly — that would be legal — but that elements of their remuneration were structured in a manner designed to conceal their true value from the league’s regulators. The third category concerns failures to cooperate with the Premier League’s investigation — an allegation that covers the entire period of the inquiry from 2019 to 2023, and that the Premier League claims was systematic rather than inadvertent.
Why 115 Rather Than One?
A question that arises frequently when discussing the 115 charges is why they constitute so many separate charges rather than a smaller number of broader allegations. The answer lies in how financial rules work in the Premier League’s regulatory framework: each season represents a separate set of reporting obligations, and each individual failure to comply with each individual obligation constitutes a separate breach. Because the alleged conduct spans at least nine seasons and covers multiple distinct categories of financial reporting, the cumulative number of individual rule violations is very large. Some analysts believe the actual total is closer to 130, with certain charges grouped or presented in the press release in a way that understates the full count.
The number of charges also has practical significance for determining potential sanctions. The Premier League’s own sanctioning framework does not have a fixed “sentencing grid” — a structured set of prescribed punishments for specific offences — because the league deliberately chose not to implement one, fearing that clubs would calculate the cost of rule-breaking in advance and treat punishments as an acceptable business risk. Without a grid, the independent commission has discretion to impose whatever punishment it considers appropriate given the full scope of what it finds. The greater the number of charges on which City are found guilty, the broader that discretion becomes.
Origins: How the Case Began
Football Leaks and Der Spiegel
The 115 charges trace their origins to the “Football Leaks” disclosure — one of the largest data leaks in the history of sport — in which a trove of internal documents from clubs, agents, and financial intermediaries across European football were obtained by a group of hackers and subsequently shared with the German investigative newsmagazine Der Spiegel. The Football Leaks documents included internal emails, contracts, financial records, and correspondence from Manchester City that appeared to contradict the club’s official representations to UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulators and, subsequently, to the Premier League.
Der Spiegel published a series of investigative articles in November 2018 and the following months based on the Football Leaks documents, alleging that Manchester City had used a series of financial mechanisms — primarily the inflation of sponsorship revenues from Abu Dhabi-connected companies — to manufacture compliance with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations. The documents appeared to show internal communications discussing how to structure deals to satisfy FFP requirements while ensuring that the actual economic benefit to the club was larger than the officially reported figure. City denied the allegations, described the documents as “illegal” and potentially altered, and launched legal proceedings against Der Spiegel.
UEFA Investigation and the Overturned Ban
Der Spiegel’s revelations prompted UEFA to open its own investigation into Manchester City’s FFP compliance. In February 2020, UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body found City guilty and imposed a two-year ban from European competition — specifically the UEFA Champions League — alongside a €30 million fine. The ban, if implemented, would have been the most severe sporting punishment inflicted on a Premier League club since Portsmouth’s financial collapse and relegation a decade earlier.
City immediately appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the world’s highest sports arbitration body. In July 2020, CAS overturned the ban on the following basis: some of the charges had exceeded the UEFA-imposed statute of limitations (meaning they were too old to be prosecuted), and the remaining charges were “not established to the required degree of proof” — legal language indicating that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings on the specific charges that fell within the limitation period. The fine was reduced from €30 million to €10 million for the charge of failing to cooperate with UEFA investigators. The CAS ruling was not an exoneration of the club — it was a finding that the specific charges that remained within the limitation period could not be proved to the required standard. The Premier League’s investigation, which had begun separately in March 2019, was not bound by CAS’s findings or by UEFA’s statute of limitations, as it operates under a different legal framework.
The Premier League Investigation: 2019–2023
While the UEFA process played out dramatically and publicly, the Premier League had begun its own independent investigation in March 2019 — a year before UEFA’s finding. The Premier League investigation was commissioned by an independent QC, was conducted over four years, and reviewed an enormous volume of documentation spanning Manchester City’s entire commercial, financial, and operational affairs across the relevant period. The scale of the investigation — reportedly involving thousands of documents, multiple witnesses, and forensic accounting analysis — explains both its four-year duration and the complexity of the charges that ultimately emerged from it.
The Premier League formally charged Manchester City on 6 February 2023, announcing in a press release that the club had been charged with “alleged breaches of Premier League Rules” across multiple seasons from 2009–10 to 2017–18, with additional charges relating to failures to cooperate with investigators during the investigation period from 2018 to 2023. City immediately issued a statement saying they had “irrefutable evidence to support their position” and “welcomed” the opportunity for an independent commission to review the case. The Premier League made clear that an independent commission would be convened to hear the case under the league’s own arbitration framework, separate from the court system.
The Independent Commission Hearing
Who Is on the Commission?
The three-person Independent Commission that heard Manchester City’s case was assembled by Murray Rosen KC, who at the time was the chair of the Premier League’s judicial panel. The identity of the three commission members has been kept confidential throughout the process — this is by design, reflecting the Premier League’s rules that allow for confidential proceedings when defendants request them, and reflecting the broader principle of protecting arbitration panel members from external pressure. What is known is that the commission consists of legally qualified individuals of senior standing, with expertise in commercial law, sports law, or financial regulation.
The confidentiality of the proceedings has been one of the most contentious aspects of the entire case from a public interest perspective. Unlike criminal court proceedings, which are generally public in the UK, the Premier League’s arbitration process allows for private hearings — and both City and the Premier League have exercised this right throughout the case. This means that the public, other Premier League clubs, football fans, and even the clubs that filed reserved rights to seek compensation from City in the event of a guilty verdict have been entirely unable to follow or verify the hearing as it took place.
When and Where Did the Hearing Take Place?
The hearing took place at the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) in London — a specialist arbitration facility in Fleet Street designed for precisely this kind of complex commercial and legal dispute. The location became public knowledge when photographers and journalists gathered outside the IDRC and documented the arrival and departure of legal teams for both Manchester City and the Premier League. The hearing began on Monday, 16 September 2024, and concluded in December 2024 — running for approximately ten weeks across the autumn of that year. It was the longest-running sports arbitration hearing in British legal history.
The legal teams involved were formidable on both sides. Manchester City were represented by a team led by City’s legal department and top-flight commercial barristers with extensive sports law experience. The Premier League was similarly represented by specialist counsel with experience in financial regulation and sports arbitration. The complexity and volume of the evidence — reportedly running to hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, alongside witness testimony from current and former club officials, accountants, and financial experts — explains in part why the hearing required ten weeks rather than the days or weeks that ordinary commercial arbitration might take.
Why Has There Been No Verdict?
The most pressing and widely-asked question about the 115 charges as of mid-March 2026 is the simplest one: why, more than fifteen months after the hearing concluded in December 2024, has no verdict been announced? This delay has no modern precedent in British sports arbitration and has been criticised by football figures, legal experts, rival clubs, and even by the head of Spanish football. Understanding the reasons for the delay requires understanding how the commission is structured and what it must produce.
The commission is not merely issuing a verdict and a punishment — it is producing what are known as “written reasons,” a detailed legal document that explains how it arrived at its conclusions on each individual charge, what evidence it considered and how it weighed it, and why it reached the conclusions it did. These written reasons must be legally robust enough to withstand appeal by either party, because it is virtually certain that whoever loses — City, the Premier League, or both — will immediately appeal the decision. The commission’s three members are not working full-time exclusively on the case; they have other professional commitments and are fitting the deliberation work around their primary roles. The sheer volume of evidence, the number of individual charges, and the legal complexity of the financial arguments involved all contribute to a process that takes significantly longer than a typical arbitration of this kind.
Stefan Borson, former financial advisor to Manchester City and a senior partner at London law firm McCarthy Denning, has described the delay as “largely inexplicable” and has suggested it reflects a level of complexity in the deliberation process that was not anticipated when the hearing concluded. ESPN’s Gabriele Marcotti, one of the most knowledgeable football journalists in Europe, has said there is “urgent need for progress” and that “similar commercial cases have reached decisions in far less time than the 15 months we’ve seen here.” LaLiga president Javier Tebas characterised the delay as creating damaging “uncertainty” around the application of financial rules in European football.
Potential Punishments: What Could Happen?
The Range of Possible Sanctions
The Premier League’s rules give the Independent Commission essentially unlimited discretion in determining the punishment if Manchester City are found guilty of some or all of the 115 charges. Unlike UEFA’s FFP regulations, which have specific sanctions attached to specific breaches, the Premier League did not build a “sanctions grid” into its rules precisely because it did not want clubs to be able to pre-calculate the cost of rule-breaking. In February 2025, Premier League CEO Richard Masters indicated the league was considering introducing a sanctions grid going forward, but confirmed it was not yet in place — meaning the commission is working without a structured sentencing framework.
The possible sanctions that experts have identified as being within the commission’s power include: fines (the least severe end of the spectrum, unlikely on their own for charges of this magnitude); points deductions in the current season; points deductions applied retrospectively to past seasons; title stripping (removing points and potentially reversing past Premier League, FA Cup, or other title wins); suspension from the Premier League; and — theoretically — expulsion from the Premier League, though this is considered extremely unlikely and arguably not within the commission’s sole power. Kieran Maguire, the prominent football finance expert and author of The Price of Football podcast, has predicted that a points deduction in the range of 40 to 60 points represents the most consistent outcome with precedent if City are found guilty of the serious charges, describing this as “logical” given the scale of the alleged offences compared to the 6-point and 4-point deductions imposed on Everton and Nottingham Forest for less extensive PSR violations.
Points Deduction: The Everton and Forest Precedent
The most-discussed potential punishment for Manchester City is a points deduction, and the most instructive precedents for understanding what scale of deduction might be imposed come from recent Premier League sanctions against Everton and Nottingham Forest for Profit and Sustainability Rule (PSR) breaches. Everton were deducted 6 points in November 2023 for a first-ever PSR breach involving a deficit of £19.5 million over one accounting period, and then a further 2 points in February 2024 for a separate PSR breach. Nottingham Forest were deducted 4 points in March 2024 for their first PSR breach.
These precedents, however, are of very limited predictive value for the Manchester City case, for the simple reason that the alleged conduct is so qualitatively different. The Everton and Forest cases involved single-period PSR breaches — essentially, spending more than the allowed amount in a specific accounting period. The Manchester City charges allege deliberate, systematic falsification of financial records across nine or more seasons, with the intention of deceiving the league’s regulators while winning multiple Premier League titles and Champions League trophies. If the commission accepts the Premier League’s characterisation of the conduct, the appropriate sanction is categorically different in kind from a PSR overspend. Maguire’s prediction of 40–60 points reflects an attempt to scale the Everton/Forest precedent to the alleged duration and deliberateness of City’s alleged conduct, but even he acknowledges the commission has essentially unlimited discretion and the final number could be anything.
Title Stripping and Historical Sanctions
If Manchester City are found guilty and the commission chooses to apply sanctions retrospectively to past seasons — stripping titles and points from seasons in which breaches occurred — the implications for the Premier League’s historical record would be extraordinary. City won the Premier League title in the seasons: 2011–12, 2013–14, 2017–18, 2018–19, 2020–21, 2021–22, 2022–23, and 2023–24 — eight titles in total. If sanctions applied to any of those seasons retroactively, the titles could theoretically be reassigned to the runners-up: clubs including Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal who finished second.
In practice, most legal experts believe that retrospective title stripping is unlikely for several reasons. First, such a decision would cause enormous administrative and commercial disruption. Second, it would need to be legally defensible under UK law as a proportionate and lawful exercise of the commission’s powers. Third, there is an argument that clubs and players who competed fairly in those seasons should not have their achievements diminished by the administrative decisions of a subsequent arbitration process. Fourth, the Court of Arbitration for Sport — which has already demonstrated in the UEFA case that it applies a high standard of evidence — would almost certainly be asked to review any title-stripping decision on appeal, and might well overturn it. Most expert predictions focus on current-season points deductions combined with significant financial penalties as the most likely combination, with retrospective sanctions considered a possibility but not a probability.
Expulsion from the Premier League
Expulsion from the Premier League — essentially, forcibly removing Manchester City from the top division — is theoretically possible under the commission’s powers but is considered by virtually all legal and football experts to be an extremely remote outcome. Kieran Maguire has confirmed that relegation directly to League One or League Two is not within the commission’s power because that would require action by the EFL, which operates a separate disciplinary framework. The commission could recommend or require that City be removed from the Premier League, but the subsequent question of where they would be placed in the football pyramid is one that the commission could not unilaterally resolve.
The practical and legal obstacles to expulsion are substantial: the Premier League’s own commercial contracts with broadcasters, shirt manufacturers, and other commercial partners would be affected; the impact on City’s players, many of whom are contracted on terms that assume Premier League football; the reaction of UEFA to the removal from English football of a current Champions League participant; and the certainty that the decision would face immediate legal challenge before any courts. Expulsion is discussed because it is technically within the commission’s available armoury, but the majority view among football finance and sports law experts is that it will not happen.
Manchester City’s Position
Consistent Denial and Legal Confidence
Manchester City have maintained a consistent, unequivocal denial of every allegation in the 115 charges throughout the entire six-year period from the Football Leaks disclosures in November 2018 to the present day. Their public position has not wavered: they welcomed the Premier League’s investigation, they describe the charges as unfounded, and they state they possess a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” that supports their position. The club’s communications about the case have been careful, disciplined, and consistent — there has been no public briefing against the Premier League process, no attempts to litigate the case through the media, and no departure from the core messaging of denial and confidence in the outcome.
City’s operational response to the charges has been equally defiant. Far from reducing spending in anticipation of potential sanctions, they have invested heavily in the squad since the charges were announced — signing Erling Haaland, Josko Gvardiol, Mateo Kovacic, and multiple other high-profile players since February 2023, expanding the Etihad Stadium’s capacity to 60,000, recording revenues of £694.1 million in their 2024–25 accounts (the highest in Premier League history), and signing Erling Haaland to a new nine-and-a-half-year contract in 2025. This combination of continued investment, continued success, and continued public confidence suggests either genuine legal certainty about the outcome or a deliberate strategy of business-as-usual messaging designed to prevent market disruption and player recruitment difficulties.
Pep Guardiola’s Position
Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola has been asked about the 115 charges in almost every press conference since they were announced, and his responses have been consistently supportive of the club’s position while increasingly impatient with the process’s duration. In February 2025, he told reporters the verdict would be announced “in one month” — a prediction that came from his own conversations with club officials and that proved to be materially inaccurate, since no verdict had been issued by mid-March 2026. On New Year’s Day 2026, when asked again, Guardiola said: “It’s the same question I ask you, so I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe you have better info than me.” His visible frustration with the timeline — shared by the club’s ownership and management — reflects the reality that even Manchester City do not know what is happening inside the commission’s deliberation process or when the verdict will arrive.
The APT Settlement
In a separate development that intersects with but is distinct from the 115 charges case, Manchester City reached a settlement with the Premier League in late 2024 over an Associated Party Transaction (APT) dispute — a different set of rules violations related to the mechanisms by which related-party commercial deals are regulated under the new APT framework implemented in 2022. The APT settlement — the specific financial terms of which were not publicly disclosed — resolved a dispute that had been running in parallel with the main 115 charges case and that had been one of several additional legal fronts on which City and the Premier League were engaged. The settlement was cited by City’s lawyers as evidence of their willingness to engage with the league’s regulatory processes in good faith, and was referenced in City’s 2024–25 annual financial report alongside the ongoing 115 charges case.
Implications for the Premier League
Credibility and Governance
The 115 charges case has placed the Premier League’s governance credibility under sustained and intense scrutiny. The most fundamental challenge is the perception gap between how the league has handled City’s case and how it has handled other clubs’ financial rule breaches. While Everton and Nottingham Forest were charged, heard, and sanctioned within months of the Premier League identifying their PSR breaches, the City case has now taken more than three years from charges to verdict — an inconsistency that LaLiga president Javier Tebas characterised explicitly as “uncertainty” that is “damaging” to perceptions of how consistently and fairly the league’s financial rules are applied. Other Premier League clubs — who privately filed papers reserving the right to seek compensation from City in the event of a guilty verdict — have reportedly expressed frustration at the rate of progress and the commercial uncertainty the unresolved case creates.
The longer-term governance question is whether the Premier League will emerge from the case with enhanced or diminished authority over its clubs. If the commission finds City guilty and imposes significant sanctions, the Premier League’s financial regulatory framework — despite its imperfections — will be validated as a meaningful enforcement mechanism. If City are found not guilty on the majority of charges, questions will be raised about why the investigation was conducted and the charges filed in the first place, and about the proportionality of a four-year investigation that ultimately did not produce convictions. Either outcome generates significant consequences for the league’s regulatory credibility.
Impact on Other Premier League Clubs
The uncertainty around the 115 charges has had tangible impacts on other Premier League clubs beyond the governance credibility question. Clubs that have been found guilty of PSR breaches — particularly Everton and Forest — have publicly noted what they perceive as an inconsistency in how quickly their own cases were resolved compared to City’s. The reserve compensation claims filed by multiple unnamed clubs against City create a financial uncertainty that is difficult to plan around: clubs cannot know whether they will receive compensation payments, in what amounts, or on what timeline. Transfer planning, squad investment decisions, and long-term financial modelling are all affected by this uncertainty.
Arsenal, who finished second to City in the Premier League on goal difference in 2011–12, are one of the clubs most directly affected by the potential title-stripping question. If the 2011–12 title were reassigned, Arsenal would be the recipients. Their position — publicly supportive of the Premier League process and unwilling to campaign for specific outcomes — reflects the difficulty of clubs whose interests are directly engaged in the case’s resolution maintaining a principled neutrality.
Latest Updates: March 2026
Current Status of the Case
As of mid-March 2026, the 115 charges case remains unresolved. The Independent Commission’s hearing concluded in December 2024. As of February 2026, fifteen months had elapsed since the hearing’s conclusion without any publicly announced verdict. Manchester City’s most recent annual financial report — covering 2024–25 — stated that as of the accounts’ publication date, “the Commission is still in the process of reviewing the matter,” confirming that no decision had been communicated to the club. Football finance expert Stefan Borson described the situation as “inexplicable” and predicted the verdict would now arrive in 2026, while football journalist sources cited by ESPN have suggested the process is “still some way from completion.”
Kieran Maguire told Sports Illustrated FC: “I think we’re probably into the final reaches of getting a decision. I think part of the challenge has been that because there are three very senior people who are on the court, who are making that final judgment.” Multiple sources suggest the commission’s written reasons — the detailed legal judgment that will accompany any verdict — are of extraordinary length and complexity, reflecting the unprecedented scale of the case. One source has indicated that the written reasons document could run to hundreds or thousands of pages, far exceeding any previous sports arbitration judgment in British history. The practical implication is that whoever receives the judgment — City, the Premier League, or both — will need weeks to review it before any appeal can be filed.
What Happens When a Verdict Arrives?
When the Independent Commission does issue its verdict and written reasons, the consequences will unfold in several distinct phases. First, both Manchester City and the Premier League will receive the verdict simultaneously and will have a defined period — likely 24 hours, based on reporting about the process — to review it before it becomes public. Second, the losing party — whoever that is — will almost certainly file an immediate appeal to a separate arbitration panel. Third, if City are found guilty on significant charges, the claims filed by other Premier League clubs for compensation will be activated, requiring additional legal proceedings to determine the amounts. Fourth, if the sanctions include a points deduction, the timing of the announcement relative to the end of the season becomes critical: a mid-season announcement would have immediate table implications; an end-of-season announcement could affect relegation, European qualification, and title outcomes.
The ESPN analysis by Gabriele Marcotti specifically identified the possibility that the commission could issue a verdict on guilt and innocence first, and then deal with sanctions separately at a later stage — “kicking the can further down the road.” This two-stage approach, while not common in arbitration, would have the advantage of providing resolution on the factual questions (guilty or not guilty on each charge) while allowing more time for the complex sanctioning question to be worked through. It would also provide the losing party on the guilt question an opportunity to appeal before sanctions are imposed — potentially extending the total timeline of the case by a further year or more.
Understanding Financial Fair Play and PSR Rules
What Are the Rules City Are Accused of Breaking?
To fully understand the 115 charges, it helps to understand the financial rules the Premier League has used to regulate club spending and financial reporting, and how those rules have evolved across the period covered by the allegations. The charges span two distinct regulatory frameworks: UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, which applied in European competition contexts from 2011 onwards, and the Premier League’s own financial rules, which have been separately developed and enforced throughout the period.
UEFA’s FFP regulations, introduced in 2011 under UEFA President Michel Platini as a response to the explosion in loss-making club finances driven by oligarch and sovereign fund ownership, required clubs participating in European competition to demonstrate that their revenues and costs were broadly in balance — specifically, that clubs did not lose more than €5 million over a rolling three-year period (with allowances for “acceptable deviations” that could be covered by direct owner investment). The critical mechanism was the break-even calculation: clubs needed to show that their revenues — from matchday income, broadcast rights, commercial deals, and player sales — covered their costs, including wages, transfer fees amortised over contract length, and operating expenses. It was this break-even calculation that the Football Leaks documents appeared to show Manchester City managing through the inflation of sponsorship revenues.
The Premier League’s own financial rules — which have evolved through various versions over the period from 2009 to 2023 — similarly required clubs to file accurate financial information with the league at the start of each season and at various points during the year. The rules specifically required that financial information about player and manager remuneration, related-party transactions, and sponsorship deals be disclosed accurately and completely. The allegations against City in the 115 charges are primarily that these disclosure obligations were not met — that the information provided to the league was materially inaccurate in ways that made City appear more financially sound than they actually were.
Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR)
From 2013, the Premier League introduced its own version of financial sustainability rules — initially called the Profitability and Sustainability Rules and later simplified to the Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). PSR requires Premier League clubs not to lose more than £105 million over a rolling three-year period. Clubs that breach PSR are subject to Premier League disciplinary proceedings, which can result in points deductions. The PSR framework is separate from UEFA’s FFP rules but operates on similar principles.
The 115 charges are not PSR charges — they predate the current PSR framework and are broader in scope. However, the PSR system provides the most direct precedents for understanding what a points deduction regime looks like in the Premier League context. Everton’s 6-point and 2-point deductions and Nottingham Forest’s 4-point deduction were all imposed under the PSR framework for what were relatively straightforward cases of overspending against the permitted loss threshold. The City case, if it results in a guilty verdict, would be the first points deduction under the older “financial information” rules framework rather than PSR, and the commission would need to develop its sanctioning reasoning largely from first principles, given the absence of directly applicable precedent.
The Abu Dhabi Ownership Context
The Sheikh Mansour Era and FFP Tension
When Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family, purchased Manchester City in September 2008, he transformed the club from a mid-table Premier League side with modest revenues into one of the world’s highest-spending clubs almost overnight. The initial investment — a £200 million acquisition fee — was followed by extraordinary transfer expenditure in the following years: Carlos Tevez, Emmanuel Adebayor, Robinho, Joleon Lescott, David Silva, Yaya Touré, Sergio Agüero, and many others arrived in rapid succession, funded by direct investment from Sheikh Mansour that dwarfed anything a club of City’s previous commercial standing could have generated organically.
The tension with UEFA’s FFP rules — introduced in 2011, just as City’s transformation was reaching its first competitive peak — was almost immediate. City’s organic commercial revenues (matchday, broadcasting, merchandise) were not large enough to offset their extraordinary wage costs and transfer expenditure, meaning that without owner subsidy, they would have exceeded FFP’s permitted loss thresholds by very large amounts. The alleged solution — identified in the Football Leaks documents and forming the core of the Premier League’s charges — was to structure commercial sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi-connected entities (including Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, and others) at values that overstated the genuine arm’s-length market price of those sponsorships, thereby generating inflated commercial revenue that made City’s break-even position appear much healthier than it actually was.
If this allegation is proved, it represents not simply a technical rule breach but a fundamental subversion of the philosophy underlying FFP — using the formal structure of commercial deal-making to launder what was effectively additional owner investment that FFP was specifically designed to restrict. The entire purpose of the arm’s-length valuation requirement for related-party deals in both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s rules is to prevent exactly this kind of inflation. If a club can simply agree inflated sponsorships with connected companies and classify them as genuine commercial revenue, FFP’s break-even calculation becomes meaningless.
Abu Dhabi’s Investment Strategy and Reputational Stakes
The Manchester City case is also significant as a test of a broader investment strategy — the use of elite football club ownership as soft power and reputational capital by sovereign and semi-sovereign wealth vehicles. Abu Dhabi’s investment in Manchester City through Sheikh Mansour’s ownership is widely understood as part of a broader strategy to elevate Abu Dhabi’s international profile, attract investment, tourism, and talent, and demonstrate to the world that Abu Dhabi is not merely an oil economy but a modern, sophisticated global actor. The City project — the football club, the stadium, the City Football Group ownership network encompassing clubs in Australia, France, Spain, the United States, China, and elsewhere — is one of the most ambitious and comprehensive uses of sport as national branding in the history of professional athletics.
If the commission finds that this investment strategy was partly built on financial deception — on falsifying the records provided to the regulators who were supposed to ensure that Sheikh Mansour’s investment advantage over other clubs was subject to meaningful limits — the reputational consequences extend beyond Manchester City to Abu Dhabi’s entire soft power project in sport. This is one of the reasons the case is followed so closely not merely by Premier League fans and clubs but by governments, sports governance bodies, and international observers who are watching to see whether powerful sovereign-connected owners can be held accountable by domestic sports regulatory frameworks.
Practical Guide: Following the Case
Best Sources for Updates
For anyone following the 115 charges case as it develops, the most reliable and consistently well-informed sources are: Sky Sports News (whose chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol has been consistently close to both the Premier League and City positions throughout the case); ESPN’s UK football coverage, specifically Gabriele Marcotti’s analysis pieces; The Athletic (whose Manchester City beat reporters have the most reliable club-side access); Football Insider; and Stefan Borson’s regular appearances on legal and football finance commentary platforms. Borson in particular — a former financial advisor to City who now operates as an independent legal expert — provides the most technically detailed analysis of the case’s financial and legal dimensions available in the public domain.
The Premier League’s own website publishes official statements about the case when new information becomes available for public disclosure — which has been rarely. Manchester City’s official website and their annual reports (published at Companies House) contain the most authoritative statements from the club’s perspective. Any official verdict announcement will be published simultaneously on both the Premier League and Manchester City official channels, following the pre-notification period that gives both sides’ lawyers time to review the document.
What to Watch For
The signals that a verdict may be imminent are subtle but, for those tracking the case closely, potentially meaningful. Previous false signals have included Guardiola’s February 2025 “one month” prediction and various media reports throughout 2025 suggesting the verdict was days or weeks away. The most reliable indicator of a verdict’s imminent arrival would be a pattern of high-profile Premier League officials declining to comment on the case’s timeline — signalling that non-disclosure obligations associated with the pre-notification period have kicked in — or an unusual pattern of legal activity around the IDRC in London. No such signals are currently apparent.
FAQs
What are the 115 charges against Manchester City?
The 115 charges are alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules filed against Manchester City on 6 February 2023. They cover three main categories: alleged misrepresentation of financial information (including sponsorship revenues) to appear compliant with Financial Fair Play rules; alleged irregularities in player and manager remuneration; and alleged failure to cooperate with the Premier League’s investigation between 2018 and 2023. The charges relate to conduct alleged to have occurred between the 2009–10 and 2022–23 seasons. Manchester City have denied all of the charges. The actual number of individual alleged breaches is believed to be closer to 130.
Has Manchester City been found guilty of the 115 charges?
No. As of mid-March 2026, the Independent Commission that heard the case between September and December 2024 has not issued a verdict. No guilty verdict has been announced. Manchester City maintain their innocence on all charges and state they have irrefutable evidence supporting their position. The case remains ongoing and unresolved.
What punishment could Manchester City receive for the 115 charges?
If Manchester City are found guilty, the Independent Commission has wide discretion to impose any sanction it considers appropriate. The most-discussed possibilities are: a points deduction (football finance expert Kieran Maguire has predicted 40–60 points as consistent with precedent from Everton and Nottingham Forest’s cases scaled to the alleged duration and nature of City’s conduct), financial fines, retrospective title stripping from seasons affected by the breaches, and — in the most extreme scenario — expulsion from the Premier League. Expulsion is considered extremely unlikely by most experts. There is no fixed sanctions grid in place for this type of case.
Why has there been no verdict on the 115 charges?
No verdict has been issued on the 115 charges because the three-person Independent Commission is still producing its written judgment — the detailed legal document that explains its conclusions on each individual charge and how it reached them. The commission’s members are not working full-time exclusively on the case and have other professional commitments. The written reasons must be legally bulletproof to withstand any appeal. Football finance expert Stefan Borson has described the delay as “inexplicable” and “extraordinary” given the norms of commercial arbitration, though he notes neither City nor the Premier League is directly responsible for the commission’s pace of work.
What was the hearing about the 115 charges?
The hearing was a private arbitration conducted at the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) in London, beginning on 16 September 2024 and concluding in December 2024 — approximately 10 weeks in total. A three-person Independent Commission (assembled by the chair of the Premier League’s judicial panel, Murray Rosen KC) heard evidence from both sides — the Premier League and Manchester City — reviewed a vast documentary record, and heard witness testimony. The proceedings were confidential throughout under the Premier League’s rules, meaning no public record of what was argued or disclosed is available.
Could Manchester City be relegated or expelled for the 115 charges?
Direct relegation to League One or League Two is not within the Independent Commission’s power, according to Kieran Maguire, because that would require action by the English Football League — which operates a separate disciplinary framework and has not brought charges against City. The commission could, theoretically, require City’s removal from the Premier League, but where they would then play is not a question the commission could unilaterally resolve. Expulsion is considered an extremely remote possibility by most sports law and football finance experts, both because of the legal challenges it would face and because of the commercial and sporting disruption it would cause.
What happened with UEFA’s charges against Manchester City?
UEFA charged Manchester City in relation to FFP breaches following the Football Leaks disclosures. In February 2020, UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body found City guilty and imposed a two-year European ban and a €30 million fine. Manchester City appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which overturned the ban in July 2020 on the basis that some charges had exceeded the statute of limitations and others were “not established to the required degree of proof.” The fine was reduced to €10 million for the charge of failing to cooperate with UEFA investigators. The CAS ruling was not an exoneration on the merits; it was a finding that the remaining charges could not be proved at the required standard.
When will the 115 charges verdict be announced?
As of mid-March 2026, no verdict has been announced and the timing remains genuinely uncertain. Football finance expert Stefan Borson stated in December 2025 that the decision would not come before the end of that calendar year and would arrive “in 2026 territory.” By February 2026, experts were suggesting the case was in its “final reaches” and a decision could come “in the coming months.” Pep Guardiola said on New Year’s Day 2026 that he did not know when the verdict would arrive. The Independent Commission is not bound by any fixed deadline for issuing its judgment.
What is the Football Leaks connection to the 115 charges?
The 115 charges trace their origins to the Football Leaks disclosures — a large-scale data leak in which internal documents from multiple football clubs, including Manchester City, were obtained by hackers and shared with German news magazine Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel published investigations in November 2018 alleging that the documents showed Manchester City had used inflated sponsorship revenues from Abu Dhabi-connected entities to manufacture FFP compliance. City described the documents as illegal and potentially altered. UEFA’s investigation followed the Der Spiegel publications; the Premier League’s separate investigation began in March 2019 and culminated in the 115 charges filed in February 2023.
What is the APT settlement and how does it relate to the 115 charges?
Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules are separate from the 115 charges case and relate to a different regulatory framework — the rules governing commercial deals between Premier League clubs and companies connected to their owners. Manchester City reached a settlement with the Premier League over an APT dispute in late 2024, resolving a separate legal front from the main 115 charges case. The specific financial terms of the APT settlement were not publicly disclosed. The APT settlement does not affect or resolve the 115 charges case in any way.
Which clubs could receive title compensation if City are found guilty?
If Manchester City are found guilty and significant historic sanctions are imposed, multiple clubs have filed papers reserving the right to seek compensation for lost revenues from European competition and Premier League titles. The most directly affected clubs in terms of title races are those who finished as runners-up in seasons where City won the title: Manchester United (2011–12, 2013–14, 2021–22), Liverpool (2018–19, 2020–21), and Arsenal (2011–12, 2022–23) among others. However, compensation claims and title-stripping are separate questions — a club might receive financial compensation without a formal title reassignment, or vice versa.
Why did the Premier League charge Manchester City when UEFA cleared them?
The Premier League charged Manchester City because its investigation is separate from and not bound by UEFA’s findings or legal conclusions. The Premier League operates under its own regulatory framework, with different rules, different time limitations, and different evidentiary standards from UEFA’s FFP regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s overturning of the UEFA ban was based partly on UEFA’s statute of limitations (meaning UEFA could not prosecute charges older than a certain date) and partly on insufficiency of evidence for the charges that remained within the limitation period. The Premier League’s investigation covered overlapping but not identical conduct and is not subject to the same limitations.
To Conclude
The 115 charges case is, without question, the most consequential legal and regulatory matter in the history of English football. It concerns allegations of systematic financial deception at one of the world’s most powerful football clubs, spanning more than a decade, involving the most serious potential sanctions ever contemplated in top-flight English football, and unfolding at a moment when Premier League governance credibility is under international scrutiny.
More than three years after the charges were filed in February 2023, more than fifteen months after the hearing concluded in December 2024, and with no verdict in sight as of mid-March 2026, the case continues to generate questions that dwarf the answers available. What was in those Football Leaks documents? What did the commission hear across ten weeks of private proceedings? How will three senior legal professionals balance precedent, proportionality, and practicality in a case without precedent? And when the judgment finally arrives — in whatever form it takes — will English football be ready for what it says?
The 115 charges case will not be resolved quietly. Whatever the verdict, it will reshape the Premier League, its governance framework, its relationship with its clubs, and its position in global football for years to come.
The case also raises fundamental questions that football — and sport more broadly — will need to answer regardless of the specific outcome. Can a regulatory framework designed in an era of relatively modest club revenues adequately govern the financial conduct of clubs owned by sovereign wealth funds with essentially unlimited resources? Should sporting competitions be subject to financial rules at all, given the inherent tension between commercial competition and the specific competitive balance purposes those rules are meant to serve? And is an arbitration system designed for commercial disputes — private, confidential, conducted by part-time panel members with day jobs — adequate for adjudicating what is, in effect, the most consequential matter of sporting governance in the history of British football? These questions will outlast the verdict, whenever it comes, and their answers will shape the next era of football finance governance. For now, the wait continues — the most consequential judgment in the history of English football sits in the hands of three unnamed legal experts working through an unprecedented case of unprecedented complexity, in private, at their own pace, with the entire Premier League watching. When the verdict finally arrives, English football will never look quite the same again. Either the Premier League’s regulatory framework will have been validated as a mechanism capable of holding its wealthiest and most powerful club to account — or Manchester City will have been vindicated, and the questions about how the charges were brought and investigated will become urgent ones. In either scenario, the conversation about how English football regulates itself, who enforces the rules, and what accountability means in an era of billion-pound sovereign ownership will be more intense, more informed, and more consequential than at any point in the sport’s history. The 115 charges case has already changed football governance; its verdict will change it further still.
Read More on Manchesterindependent