The number is the single cleanest figure in one of the most tangled cases in English football history. On Tuesday, 29 September 2026, the independent commission’s verdict concluded that Manchester City had arranged “sham” contracts with several of its commercial partners over nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18, and used them to make the books look compliant.
It is the concrete price tag that will drive every subsequent argument about what proportionate punishment should look like.
What the panel actually called ‘sham’
The commission’s language was blunt. Manchester City, it found, arranged “sham” contracts with a number of its sponsors as part of a disguised funding scheme. Those companies were required to pay only a portion of the headline sponsorship fees. The rest was funnelled in by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), the vehicle through which Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan owns the club.
The commission also identified a “sham” circular arrangement with a separate entity, Fordham, which purchased the club’s players’ image rights.
Read also: Man City could face staggering 100-point deduction after guilty verdict
The stated aim, per the panel, was straightforward.
“By its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.”
Alongside the sponsorship scheme, the club filed misstated accounts and concealed the true state of its finances from its auditors and football regulators.
114 of 115
Of the 115 charges the Premier League brought in February 2023, 114 were upheld. The categories cover failure to provide accurate financial information, misreporting of player and manager payments, breaches of the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules, breaches of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, and, on the panel’s finding, “concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the PL investigation”.
Read also: 'Health is the priority': UAE blocks Pogacar's home Euros push
Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said the ruling details how the club “systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade”.
Man City call the ruling ‘unsafe’
Manchester City continue to reject the findings. In a statement, the club said it is “disappointed and surprised” and maintained that it is “innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League”. Its lawyers argue that the ruling “contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe”. An appeal has been trailed and, per current reporting, must be lodged by 2 October.
Sanctions have not been decided. Those will be handled in a separate process and can range, on the Premier League’s own tariff, from fines and points deductions to relegation and the annulment of past titles.
Why the £900m matters beyond the fine
The size of the alleged benefit is the number the rest of the league will be quoting. Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur have already preserved their rights to claim compensation for lost titles, missed Champions League places and other revenue effects. Analysts and legal commentators cited in industry reporting suggest successful claims could together be worth more than £200m, though nothing has been ordered and every figure at this stage is projected rather than fixed.
Read also: Luka Doncic is the Lakers now. But media day belonged to the man who left
There is a precedent to weigh those numbers against. In June 2026, Everton were ordered to pay Burnley £35.1m after a panel accepted that Everton’s breach of profit and sustainability rules had contributed to Burnley’s relegation. Any Manchester City claims would operate on a very different scale, but the £35.1m ruling is the closest reference point the game has for putting a price on a financial breach.
Combined legal bills for the club and the league in the underlying case are, on current reporting, expected to top £100m.
Appeal window closes on 2 October
The finding of guilt on 114 charges, the panel’s use of the word “sham” and the £900m-plus figure attached to the sponsorship and cost-suppression scheme are now on record. The punishment is not: no points have been deducted, no fine has been ordered, and no title has been annulled. The next milestone in the process is the appeal window, which closes on 2 October.
Read also: Djokovic accepts a Grand Slam council seat at 39, in a move that only fits an active player
Read also: De la Fuente reveals ‘conflict’ fear behind Eric García decision
