Manchester City case
Search the original 2023 referral structure and the separate 2026 Commission charge structure. They are intentionally not forced into an artificial one-to-one “1–115” list.
Original allegations
Five published areas of alleged rule breaches, with the season-specific rule references from the referral.
The Premier League alleged that financial information supplied by the club did not give the required true and fair view, including matters concerning sponsorship revenue, related parties and operating costs.
The Premier League alleged failures to include full remuneration details in the relevant manager/player contracts.
The Premier League alleged breaches of its rules requiring member clubs to comply with relevant UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
The Premier League alleged breaches of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules.
The Premier League alleged failures to co-operate with and assist its investigation, including duties concerning documents, information and utmost good faith.
Decision
The Commission's own charge/sub-charge structure from the published Core Decision.
The Commission found the relevant Abu Dhabi sponsorship arrangements were sham arrangements, or alternatively differed in economic substance from their legal form; the club's reported revenue was substantially overstated and the accounts did not give a true and fair view.
The Commission found remuneration-related arrangements caused club liabilities/expenses not to be fully reflected in the relevant accounts or contracts. Some details are redacted in the published Core Decision.
The Commission found the Fordham arrangements were sham arrangements, or alternatively differed in economic substance from their legal form, resulting in overstated operating income and understated operating expenses.
The Commission found the relevant sponsorship agreements were related-party transactions and the required disclosures were not made.
The Commission found that, when the relevant accounts were restated, the club failed the UEFA break-even requirement by a very substantial amount in every season covered by Charge 2.
The Commission found that, when the relevant accounts were restated, the club failed the Premier League PSR requirements by a very substantial amount in every season covered by Charge 3.
The Commission found breaches in the majority of the respects alleged in Charge 4(A).
The Commission did not find the alleged co-operation breaches in Charge 4(B).
The Commission found all of the respects alleged in Charge 4(C) proven.
The Commission found the respect alleged in Charge 4(D) proven.