Why Man City are facing 115 charges and what it means as Premier League hearing set for verdict in 2025

Today at 09:33 AM

The Premier League’s hearing into Manchester City’s alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play is now heading into its 10th week.

Proceedings looking into the English club’s financial dealings from 2009-2018 have been mooted for some time, but the process has officially started, meaning we are in the end game regarding this situation.

Pep Guardiola‘s side, who deny every count against them, wrapped up a record fourth consecutive top-flight title in May and are looking for a fifth, but a cloud hangs over their continued success.

City – whose latest title was their sixth in seven years – were charged by the Premier League over a year and a half ago in February 2023.

Since then, the investigation hasn’t concluded but Everton and Nottingham Forest have been punished for lesser offences.

The Premier League have argued that City’s case is different because of the depth, scale and complexity of the charges…

Latest on Man City’s hearing

Proceedings between the Premier League and Manchester City look as if they are going to continue into 2025.

That’s according to expert Stefan Borson, who told talkSPORT: "My understanding is that it is all still going on, which is in line with the original expectations of the length of the hearing. 

"This week is Week 10 in person. So it does look like it's going to run for the full 10-12 weeks." 

He continued: "The hearing has gone on for what is a very long time.

“A 10-12 week trial or hearing in a commercial sense is a long time. They have obviously covered a huge amount of territory. 

"Therefore, I think when it does end, assuming it's run all the way through and not been paused, it's going to take them some time to deliberate and come up with their decision.

"And that would push us in 2025."

Borson also explained what he believes has led this case to take such a long time, adding: “That tells us some things about what's going on.

“Which is that there are a lot of witnesses giving evidence. Because in reality, that will be the thing that will be taking most of the time.

“Those witnesses are very likely to be City witnesses as to what actually happened at the time. 

"So it will include their evidence and the cross-examination of it and also experts and they will come in to talk about some of the technical aspects of the allegations."

Away from the hearing, which is still awaiting the verdict, Man City have claimed two huge wins in separate cases.

The club picked up a significant victory in September after the Premier League decided to drop a planned vote over third-party transaction rules.

In October, they then won a huge case against the top flight regarding sponsorship deals they were blocked from making earlier this year.

City launched legal action against the league over associated party transaction (APT) rules, on the grounds they were anti-competitive and they have now been found to be unlawful by an independent panel.

As previously mentioned, this does not have any relation to the 115 charges.

But it could indicate how the hearing over those might go.

Below is an in-depth look at why the hearing over 115 charges is happening and what the outcomes could be for Man City…

Why Man City are facing over 100 charges?

Man City have been charged with breaking FFP rules around 100 times over nine years, from 2009 until 2018.

Their alleged offences have coincided with the club blossoming into the dominant force of English football.

City won the Premier League three times during that period in question – in 2012, 2014 and 2018.

Their charges vary from failing to provide accurate financial information, not complying with UEFA’s FFP rules, and not disclosing manager compensation.

However, not all relate to financial issues – 35 relate to allegedly failing to cooperate with the Premier League’s investigation.

Why Man City are actually facing 130 charges

It’s been reported extensively that City face 115 charges, but the actual number is 130 because the Premier League made an initial error when publishing their findings.

So, these extra charges aren’t new and are additions to the ones we all know about.

The confusion comes from some of the alleged rule breaches not being associated with particular seasons.

Therefore, some of the existing charges have been divided up into new ones, but we don’t know what categories they fit into, with that information not public knowledge.

Charges explained

While failure to comply offences are self-explanatory, the first alleged breach is the breach which City face the most charges from.

Every Premier League club signs up to a code of compliance, which involves providing the league with accurate and up-to-date accounts.

City, however, have been accused of inflating the value of their sponsorship which allowed owner Sheikh Mansour to pump more money into the club.

Other charges include a failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation.

The latter concerns former Man City manager Roberto Mancini, who was alleged to have been paid over £1million annually as a consultancy fee for Al Jazira in Abu Dhabi on top of his reported salary.

These alleged hidden payments were also said to have been given to players signed during that period, which in theory, allowed City to build the foundations of success from which Guardiola took over in 2016.

The Citizens were fined around £27m for alleged FFP breaches by UEFA and handed a two-year ban in 2020, which was later overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the money was reduced to £10m.

The panel found some breaches alleged were time-barred – crucially, the Premier League’s investigation does NOT include a time bar.

Trial process

Proceedings involving the Premier League and Man City got underway on Monday, September 16.

The formal hearing with the independent commission looks set to go on for over 10 weeks due to the complexity of the case and the depths of legal arguments from both sides.

But even once the the hearing ends, the three-person panel overseeing the process must deliver their verdict, which is likely to be a document 100s of pages long.

This is not expected until next year, potentially not until March.

No matter what happens, the decision can’t be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS].

However, an appeal could be lodged by either the club or the league, meaning there would be a new hearing.

So, despite the fact the case is almost done, we could still have a long time until there is a clear verdict because of the appeals process.

What it means for their future?

A range of penalties could be levied at the reigning champions should they be found guilty of any or indeed, all of the charges.

A hefty fine or a points deduction would seem most likely, but City could also be expelled from the Premier League.

Other possible punishments from the Premier League include a transfer ban, which Chelsea experienced in 2019.

In similar fashion, spending limits could be slapped on City, who have spent £1.53 billion on players over the last ten years.

The Manchester club could even face relegation, although former City financial adviser Borson explained how that’s unlikely.

He told talkSPORT: “There can be no question that, if these charges are proven, this will end in at least relegation.

“There is the suggestion of conspiracy over, effectively, a ten-year period.

“If proven, this is super serious. Nobody would argue with that. City will say, I promise you, that this is an allegation of the most serious nature.

“It seems to me to be highly unlikely that the conduct is alleged has taken place over a ten-year period with the sorts of individuals that are involved in the club and in the companies that are involved.

“It will be a very big call for any court or tribunal to suggest that this number of people have been dishonest, and perjured themselves.

“That would be a massive call for, effectively, some KCs and maybe a former finance director of a football club, to make against not just Manchester City, but against numerous executives, against third party individuals, and against, of course, potentially senior members of foreign states.”