Rivals say single-season relegation would not suffice for Manchester City after commission ruling
On 30 September 2026, rival Premier League clubs told the Guardian they would consider relegating Manchester City to the Championship for a single season an inadequate punishment after an independent commission found the club guilty of more than 100 charges of financial rule‑breaking. The commission described a "disguised funding scheme" and "sham commercial deals" that it said enabled City to inflate their income by £900m between 2009 and 2018.
The case has been the subject of an investigation that began almost eight years ago and the same independent panel that found City guilty of the vast majority of 115 rule breaches will now determine sanctions at a hearing pending the club’s appeal. Under new Premier League rules introduced this season, the appeal hearing must be concluded within 12 weeks of the deadline on Friday for it to be submitted, with the panel then given a further 30 days to deliver its judgment, meaning a decision should be reached by the end of January next year. The sanctions hearing could run concurrently in that period but its outcome will not be published while the appeal is outstanding and City could subsequently appeal against any sanctions imposed.
As prosecutor, the Premier League can petition for its preferred punishment at the sanctions hearing while City will also present its case before the commission takes a decision. The Premier League’s board will take a position independently of member clubs and comprises chair Alison Brittain, chief executive Richard Masters and three independent non‑executive directors: Mai Fyfield, Dharmash Mistry and Matthew Ryder KC. The commission has a range of possible sanctions, including points deductions, transfer embargos and expulsion from the Premier League.
Several clubs told the Guardian that a points deduction sufficient to relegate City for one season would not match the scale of the panel’s findings. "Relegation to the Championship for one season would be insufficient," a club source told the Guardian. "The commission has to arrive at a punishment that is proportionate for years of sustained and deliberate cheating, as well as providing a strong deterrent to it happening again."
Clubs are also conscious of past sanctioning precedent: in the first successful profitability and sustainability rules prosecution, of Everton three years ago for a £19.5m overspend, the Premier League pushed for a 12‑point deduction at the sanctioning hearing, with the independent commission ultimately docking them 10 points, which was reduced to six on appeal. Many top‑flight clubs remain unhappy with the Premier League’s agreed sanction this year with Chelsea — a £10m fine after the club self‑reported previous owners making unlawful payments to players and agents during the Roman Abramovich era.
The potential for litigation and compensation claims is a further complicating factor for the league. Burnley were awarded £35m at an arbitration hearing earlier this year after suing Everton, alleging that the PSR breach led to their relegation at the end of the 2021‑22 season. Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool reserved their rights to sue City in the event of a guilty verdict two years ago and have already held informal conversations about whether to pursue a claim now the judgment has been published.
City have responded to the commission’s findings by insisting they are "innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case". The independent panel also said the scale of City’s offences left no comparable precedents.
The next formal step is the appeal hearing under the Premier League’s expedited timetable, with the panel given 12 weeks plus a further 30 days to reach a judgment and a decision expected by the end of January next year.
