Manchester City’s strategy in their bid to clear their name after being found guilty of breaking more than 100 of the Premier League's rules has been brought into question by a statement their main sponsor Etihad Airways submitted to the US government in 2015. Sky Sports News understands that City are expected to argue as part of their appeal that the extra funding for their sponsorship deals came from the Abu Dhabi government and not the club's majority owners, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG). However, a statement Etihad submitted to the US Departments of Commerce, Transportation and State in May 2015 appears to contradict this explanation.
"The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad's sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false," Etihad's submission read. "In 2011, Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City's stadium. "Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity.
It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues." Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player The 60-page filing from 2015 is a response by Etihad to claims that it received market-distorting state subsidies. Etihad, whose sole shareholder is the Abu Dhabi government, added later in the submission: "We are government-owned and have been since our founding. "We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans.
"Our shareholder's equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model." An independent disciplinary commission this week found that City broke financial rules by disguising £830m of owner funding as sponsorship income for nine seasons between 2009 and 2018. City's lawyers are already believed to have put forward the defence at the original 2024 hearing that the extra funding was provided by the Abu Dhabi government and not the owners despite the links between the two. This explanation was rejected by the commission in the judgement that was published on Tuesday.
The three-person panel "concluded it was an explanation that the club had concocted well after the event in an attempt to conceal the realities of the Disguised Funding Scheme". City's defence that the extra funding was funded by the Abu Dhabi government was something they argued was not the case during their Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing in Lausanne when they appealed against their two-year ban for breaking UEFA's financial fair play rules. Witness evidence at that hearing from former Etihad Airways chief executive James Horgan stated that sponsorship obligations to City had been paid "out of Etihad's own funds".
The club confirmed their appeal on Friday and continue to deny any wrongdoing. "The appeal went in on Thursday at 7pm and so, according to the Premier League's rules, the appeal has to be done and dusted in 12 weeks from then, which takes us into the week before Christmas. "The appeal can only last five days and those five days can only be in one block.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
