How Manchester City Received Illegal Money Disguised As Sponsorship Fee

UEFA’s investigation into Manchester City revealed that two payments totaling £30 million made through a broker constituted finance from the club’s owners that were misrepresented as sponsorship money.

The decision to suspend City from participating in European competition for two years was made public in February 2020, and the report from the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) of UEFA’s adjudicatory committee acted as the formal reason for that decision.

The report was received by the authors of a YouTube video that was made public on Thursday and was also seen by The Times, but it was never made public due to the club’s appeal of the decision and the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) subsequent overturning of the CFCB judgment.

The Times quoted the adjudicatory committee of the CFCB as saying: “Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour) but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat to disguise the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totaling £30million.

“The management of the club was well aware that the payments totaling £ 30 million made by Jaber Mohamed were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.”

According to the publication, City’s attorneys stated at a UEFA hearing that Jaber Mohammed got two sponsorship payments from Etisalat totaling £30 million in 2012 and 2013 and that Etisalat then returned the money to City’s owners in 2015.

CAS overturned the two-year sentence in July 2020. According to CAS, the five-year deadline to punish a club for such illegal payment has passed, and UEFA shouldn’t have processed the Etisalat-related allegations.

The payments from Etisalat may or may not be connected to City’s ongoing legal dispute with the Premier League, in which they are charged for breaking 115 financial regulations and refusing to assist with an investigation. But if they are, the statute of limitations would not apply to the Premier League.