Manchester City verdict exposes how the global mega-rich expect to operate with impunity, Jonathan Liew says
On 29 September 2026 Jonathan Liew wrote that Manchester City, one of English football’s most successful clubs, has been found guilty of more than 100 charges of financial irregularity, a crisis that traces back to a cache of leaked emails first published by Der Spiegel in 2018.
The leaked documents drew attention not only for their content but for the tone of the club’s internal communications, Liew wrote, citing a remark attributed to City chairman Khaldoon al-Mubarak that he would “rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue [Uefa] for the next 10 years” than accept a fine. He also quoted City lawyer Simon Cliff asserting that “Uefa doesn’t respond to anything other than aggression” and warning of “the destruction of their rules and organisation”, and noted how the serious and the trivial at times blurred—citing the example of Jack Rodwell from Everton.
Liew emphasised that the City case has extended beyond sport into diplomacy, noting that the Premier League announced the charges against City in 2023 and that discussions have taken place at a diplomatic level. He cited a Bloomberg report that UAE officials warned an adverse verdict could threaten billions in Emirati investment in the UK, and recorded that bilateral trade between the countries had nudged above £25bn in 2025.
Writing that it had been a mistake for the Premier League to allow entire states to invest in clubs, Liew argued this development made sporting integrity susceptible to questions of diplomacy and hard power. He pointed to a City statement released on Friday night which, while asserting respect for the legal process, also questioned it and invoked the Premier League’s duty “to behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator, free from partisan influence”. He recalled that in 2024 City, in a separate case against the Premier League, described the two-thirds majority required for motions to pass as “the tyranny of the majority”.
Liew cited international human-rights concerns about Abu Dhabi, writing that, according to the UN’s own reports, it is defying arms embargos in Sudan and Libya, and that, according to Human Rights Watch, it is responsible for widespread acts of political repression and rights abuses. He described elements of City’s approach as aimed, in part, at discrediting the capacity of regulators to hold the club to account.
Expanding the scope beyond City, Liew said the top end of English football is now owned by a mix of state-backed and private interests, naming City and the Saudi-run Newcastle United, Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, and opaque private-equity funds that run many rivals. He noted other high-profile stakeholders, writing that Jeff Bezos is part of a consortium that now owns almost 40% of Liverpool FC, and listed Meta, Elon Musk, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump as examples within “an entire class of men who recognise no authority beyond their own”.
Liew framed the verdict as more than a debate over relegation or the stripping of titles, arguing it represents a clash between rule-bound governance and a model of power driven by wealth and leverage. He wrote that, with transnational alliances weakened and the UN sidelined, the case presents a competing vision in which checks on power are diminished.
Liew closed by noting that City continue to deny any wrongdoing and that further legal steps are expected: he wrote that there will doubtless be appeals upon appeals, perhaps even ending in the high court many years hence, accompanied by diplomatic representations, high-level deals to be brokered and realpolitik to be waged.