Manchester City were reported on Friday to have been found in breach of Premier League financial rules on 114 of 115 charges. No sanction has been announced, the decision is unpublished, and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said on Saturday that nothing has changed in the club's position. The less examined financial exposure sits outside the disciplinary sanction: compensation claims preserved by four rival clubs in 2024, through a route that produced a £35.1 million award against Everton only three months ago.
TL;DR
- The Athletic reported on 25 September that an independent commission found against Manchester City on 114 of the 115 charges brought in February 2023, with Reuters and The Times carrying the same account.
- The Premier League has not published the decision. City say the process remains ongoing with significant elements to be completed and have consistently denied wrongdoing.
- Chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said on Saturday that nothing has changed in City's position and reiterated the club's confidence in proving its innocence.
- No sanction has been determined. Reports indicate both parties have 14 days to appeal, with any appeal heard by a new three-person commission.
- Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham preserved rights in 2024 to pursue compensation for loss of earnings.
- The Times has reported potential losses above £100 million for each of the four clubs; the Independent reports that successful actions could be worth more than £200 million to some claimant clubs.
- The notices were served against a reported six-year limitation concern linked to the publication of the Football Leaks material in 2018.
- In June, an independent commission ordered Everton to pay Burnley £26 million in damages plus £9.1 million in pre-award interest. Everton has appealed.
- Chelsea did not preserve a claim against City, reportedly because of its own investigation into conduct during the Abramovich era.
The Reported Finding
Precision matters here more than usual. On 25 September, David Ornstein of The Athletic reported that sources briefed on the decision said the independent commission had ruled against Manchester City on all but one of the 115 charges. The Times carried the same finding and Reuters subsequently reported both accounts.
The Premier League has not published the commission's written decision. Manchester City said on Friday that the process remains ongoing, with significant elements to be completed and subject to strict confidentiality, and that its position remains consistent with its February 2023 statement.
On Saturday, Al Mubarak wrote directly to supporters. He said the Premier League process still had a long way to run and that City's confidence and intention to prove its innocence remained as strong as when the process began. "Nothing has changed," he wrote.
City have denied wrongdoing throughout and said in 2023 that they possessed a comprehensive body of what they described as irrefutable evidence in support of their position.
No sanction has been determined. Reports indicate both parties have 14 days to appeal and that any appeal would be heard by a new three-person commission. Nothing below predicts either the sanction or the outcome of an appeal.
Compensation: The Exposure Outside the Sanction
Most coverage has focused on what the Premier League might impose — fines, points deductions or, in the extreme case, expulsion. The Pyramid has examined what expulsion could mean structurally and whether English football's rulebook has anywhere to put a club it removes. A second financial channel runs alongside the disciplinary process, and it has become considerably more concrete this year.
The four preserved claims
In 2024, four clubs served notices preserving their ability to pursue compensation from Manchester City for losses if breaches were ultimately established. Arsenal moved first, followed by Tottenham, Liverpool and Manchester United.
The Times has reported that the four clubs estimated potential losses significantly above £100 million each. The Independent reported on Friday that successful actions could potentially be worth more than £200 million to some claimant clubs.
The potential losses arise from sporting outcomes across the charge period. Missing a title or Champions League qualification can affect prize money and broadcast distributions, while the Independent reports that prospective claims may also encompass subsequent loss of chance and lost commercial deals.
These sums would accrue to claimant clubs rather than to the competition, distinguishing them from a Premier League fine. That does not make compensation necessarily larger than the disciplinary sanction: no sanction has been determined, while a substantial points deduction or more severe sporting penalty could itself carry significant indirect financial consequences. It is instead a separate contingent exposure, operating on a different timetable.
Why the rights were preserved in 2024
The timing is important. The reported legal concern was the six-year limitation period for contractual claims. The allegations entered the public domain through Der Spiegel's publication of Football Leaks material in 2018, and the clubs were advised that waiting for the City proceedings to conclude could risk potential claims becoming time-barred. The four therefore acted in 2024 to preserve their positions before the limitation issue could arise.
That distinction matters. It should not be read as establishing that a court or commission has definitively determined that the limitation clock began with the Der Spiegel publications. It explains why the clubs acted when they did.
Friday's reported finding brings those preserved rights materially closer to becoming actionable, but the Independent reports that substantive legal action could only follow once the entire City case, including appeals, has concluded. Chelsea did not preserve a claim against City, reportedly because of its own investigation into conduct during the Abramovich era.
The Everton precedent is now real
The compensation route is no longer theoretical. In June, an independent commission ordered Everton to pay Burnley £26 million in damages plus £9.1 million in pre-award interest after concluding that Everton's 2021/22 PSR breach conferred a sporting advantage that caused Burnley financial loss through relegation. Everton immediately appealed. The award is therefore not final, and further interest may also accrue.
The case nevertheless represents the first substantial inter-club compensation award arising from a Premier League PSR breach. Leeds separately settled its claim against Everton on confidential terms, while Leicester, Southampton and Nottingham Forest did not proceed.
That precedent cuts both ways for City's potential claimants. It establishes that a proven financial-rules breach can lead to a substantial compensation award to another club. But the claimant must still establish causation and loss. Burnley's case concerned a single relegation battle: Everton finished on 39 points and Burnley on 35, while Everton's later six-point PSR deduction related to the relevant accounting period. Claims involving league titles, Champions League qualification or subsequent commercial losses across multiple seasons could require more complicated counterfactual arguments.
Timing adds another obstacle. Any action against City would follow completion of the disciplinary process and appeals. A case that began with a Premier League investigation in 2018, produced charges in 2023, a hearing in 2024 and a reported finding in 2026 is unlikely to produce a compensation determination quickly.
The Valuation Backdrop
The finding arrives during a period of unusually large English football transactions. Clearlake agreed this month to acquire the remaining minority interests in Chelsea in a transaction reported at around £950 million. Liverpool's minority transaction with 1892 Holdings valued the club at approximately £5.5 billion, while Leicester is being marketed by Citigroup.
Those transactions provide context rather than evidence of how buyers have priced regulatory risk. The City case instead raises a question for future transactions: whether potentially material club-to-club compensation liabilities begin to feature explicitly in due diligence, warranties, indemnities or valuation adjustments. The Burnley award gives that issue a concrete number for the first time, albeit one under appeal and arising from a considerably simpler factual scenario.
Separately, the Independent Football Regulator's provisional licence application window opens on 2 November 2026 and runs to 26 February 2027, with all clubs in the top five divisions required to obtain a provisional licence ahead of 2027/28. How an unresolved Premier League disciplinary proceeding would interact with City's licensing process is not established by the published IFR material and should not be assumed.
Outlook
Base case: A sanction is determined and City pursue the appeal process indicated in current reporting. Compensation action remains on hold until the underlying disciplinary process concludes.
Escalation risk: The reported findings survive appeal and the four clubs pursue their preserved claims. Potential losses reported above £100 million per club — and above £200 million for some claimants — would put the scale well beyond the Burnley precedent.
De-escalation risk: An appeal materially reduces the findings relevant to particular claimant clubs or otherwise weakens the causal basis for compensation. Everton's appeal may also narrow the precedent established by the Burnley decision.
What would change the view: Publication of the commission's reasoning, determination of the sanction, the scope and outcome of City's appeal, Everton's appeal against the Burnley award and any indication from the four potential claimant clubs that they intend to proceed.
Key Risks
The finding remains reported rather than published. The commission's decision is not public. Manchester City maintain that the process remains ongoing and deny wrongdoing.
No sanction has been determined. The eventual financial consequences cannot be assessed from the liability reporting alone.
The process can still change on appeal. City are expected to appeal, and the compensation question depends materially on what findings ultimately survive.
Compensation figures are estimates. The figures above £100 million and £200 million come from press reporting and sources familiar with potential claims. No compensation claim against City has been adjudicated.
The Burnley award is under appeal. It establishes an important route at first instance, but not yet a final precedent.
Causation remains the central hurdle. Establishing a breach and establishing what another club would have earned absent that breach are different exercises.
Intelligence Monitoring Points
- Publication of the commission's written decision and the precise findings on each category of charge.
- The sanction and its reasoning.
- City's appeal, including its scope and timing.
- Everton's appeal against the Burnley award, which will test the first substantial inter-club PSR compensation decision.
- Any statement from Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool or Tottenham on pursuing compensation.
- The Chelsea investigation, given the wider implications for inter-club compensation.
- Future English club transactions, particularly whether regulatory and compensation exposure appears explicitly in transaction structures.
FAQ
Have Manchester City been found guilty? The Athletic reported on 25 September that an independent commission found against City on 114 of 115 charges, with Reuters and The Times carrying the report. The commission's decision has not been published. City say the process remains ongoing and deny wrongdoing.
What exposure sits outside the sanction? Potential compensation claims. Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham preserved rights in 2024, with reported potential losses above £100 million for each club and potentially above £200 million for some claimants.
Why did the clubs act in 2024? They were reportedly advised that a six-year limitation issue linked to the 2018 publication of the Football Leaks allegations meant waiting for the City case to finish could jeopardise potential claims.
Has a Premier League compensation claim succeeded before? At first instance, yes. An independent commission ordered Everton to pay Burnley £26 million plus £9.1 million in pre-award interest in June. Everton has appealed.
Does Burnley mean City's rivals would win? No. It establishes a route to compensation, but each claimant would still have to establish causation and loss on its own facts.
Does this affect English club valuations? It creates a potential diligence issue rather than an established valuation discount. Future transactions will show whether buyers begin pricing compensation and regulatory exposure explicitly.
Data and source note: The reported finding against Manchester City is based on reporting by The Athletic, The Times and Reuters. The commission's decision has not been published. Manchester City's statements of 25 and 26 September maintain that the process is ongoing and that the club denies wrongdoing. Compensation estimates are attributed to The Times and the Independent and are not adjudicated claims. The Burnley award comprises £26 million in damages and £9.1 million in pre-award interest and is under appeal. IFR licensing dates are from the regulator's published licensing material. Nothing here predicts the sanction or the outcome of any appeal or compensation claim.
Sources
- Reuters — Manchester City reported found against on 114 of 115 charges, 25 September 2026
- Manchester City — A Letter from the Chairman, 26 September 2026
- The Independent — Manchester City compensation claims, 25 September 2026
- The Times — Manchester City rival compensation claims, 2026
- Reuters — Everton challenges Burnley compensation ruling, 10 June 2026
- Independent Football Regulator — Licensing Rules and Guidance
- The Pyramid — Manchester City Reportedly Found Guilty: How Far Could They Fall Down the Pyramid?
- Bloodstone Research — Football finance briefing, 21 September 2026
This document is published by Bloodstone Research for informational and institutional research purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, an investment recommendation, an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument, commodity or security, or a forecast of future performance. Market conditions and data may change without notice. Readers should conduct their own analysis and, where appropriate, seek independent professional advice before making investment decisions. For institutional enquiries contact research@bloodstonecapital.co.uk.