Jonathan Liew: Restitution, not retribution, should follow Manchester City verdict
Manchester City were found guilty of all the financial charges laid against them by the Premier League, a development that emerged in the week before 2 October 2026, Jonathan Liew wrote, arguing for restitution rather than punitive erasure.
Public reaction has been immediate and often mocking: a Sainsbury’s Instagram post reading “114 unexpected items in the bagging area”, Domino’s Pizza claiming to have “irrefutable evidence that pineapple is the best pizza topping”, a City caller on BBC 5 Live invoking the suffragettes and the Peterloo massacre and saying “they’re trying to massacre Manchester City”, and Liam Gallagher posting on X that City were like “Jesus prepared to die on the cross”, to which the most popular reply read “Sham Pain Supernova”.
At the same time, Abu Dhabi-aligned responses intensified: Etihad Airways threatened to sue the Premier League for the “damaging implications” of the verdict and unnamed UAE government officials warned the case could threaten diplomatic relations and billions of pounds of investment, a cluster of actions Liew described as effectively the same entity acting in multiple roles.
Liew set out two guiding principles for redress. His first is that relitigating and rewriting the past is an unserious response; as Jamie Carragher said on Sky Sports, "winning is less about the silverware and the trinkets than the moments and the memories, the aura of victory and the hangovers the following morning, and those are gone for ever." He listed specific moments — the Touré goal, the 6-1 at Old Trafford, the Agüero goal, the Kompany goal — as “safe, banked, untouchable.”
His second principle is that punishment should fall hardest on the owners and least on the fans. Liew argued fans were also deceived and quoted their refrain: “We know what we felt.” He warned that measures that dispossess supporters of their club would be both unjust and impractical, noting the commercial consequences of attempting to remove Manchester City from the football economy.
Liew examined restitution options. He noted the new football regulator could strip owners of their positions and force a sale but said market intelligence values City at about £4bn now compared with about £200m when the Abu Dhabi United Group took over in 2008, posing the problem that perpetrators might still realise a 20-fold profit. He proposed an alternative — requisition or nationalisation — and included provocative examples from his prospectus: “Give them some patriotic name such as the Great British Manchester Football Club. Return Phil Foden to the exchequer. Enzo Maresca, you are now an employee of the UK government.”
Liew pointed to recent and existing levers: Chelsea’s operations were briefly controlled by the government after sanctions on Roman Abramovich and his agreement to offload the club; Manchester city council owns the Etihad Stadium; a Tax Policy Associates report suggested City may owe HMRC as much as £12m in unpaid tax over the Roberto Mancini contract; and the cross-party Treasury committee has urged HMRC to scrutinise the Premier League findings. He added that each week under current ownership transfers funds from fans, broadcasters and sponsors to Abu Dhabi and that the ruling regime therefore has a vested interest in prolonging the process.
Liew concluded that, while state control and eventual return to supporters is politically unlikely, the City case should prompt a radical rethinking of English football’s ownership model and its reliance on private wealth. He closed with his final exhortation: "never waste a good crisis."