Andrew Evans

The central pillar of the Premier League's case against City is that Sheikh Mansour secretly funded substantial portions of the Club's sponsorship agreements with Abu Dhabi-owned companies, artificially inflating City's commercial revenue. City denies this, maintaining that the financial support came from the Abu Dhabi government—the sponsoring companies' shareholder—not from City's owner. That distinction matters. Mansour privately owns City through ADUG. The Abu Dhabi government owns the sponsoring companies. They're not legally the same entity, even though Mansour is well-connected with the government. And it bears repeating that state-owned sponsorships are hardly unusual. For example, Arsenal's principal sponsor, Emirates Airline, is wholly owned by Dubai's government. Arsenal also received millions from Visit Rwanda. Manchester United's sponsors include state-owned Malaysia Airlines and Visit Malta. There's nothing inherently improper about a government providing financial support to companies it owns. So if, as City insists, the sponsorship money at issue came from the Abu Dhabi government, not ADUG, the foundation of the Premier League's disguised owner-funding allegation collapses. So did the anonymous commission get this right? What's so frustrating is that the media and punditry seem almost entirely uninterested in this question. Instead, we get relentless calls for severe punishment before City's appeal has even been heard, based on blind faith in an anonymous Premier League panel citing undisclosed and unexplained evidence. That's why City supporters need to keep asking the questions everyone else seems determined to ignore. #mancity #mcfc #premierleague