Rival clubs demand a Manchester City punishment that goes beyond a one-year relegation

Manchester City were found guilty of more than 100 financial rule breaches and their Premier League rivals now want a punishment that leaves a lasting mark. Several clubs believe a single-season drop to the Championship would not be enough and are calling for a prolonged absence from the top flight. The club continues to deny any wrongdoing and is preparing its appeal.

• A number of Premier League executives believe a one-year demotion to the Championship would be insufficient.
• The independent commission described a disguised funding scheme and sham commercial deals.
• City artificially inflated their income by £900m between 2009 and 2018.
• A final ruling on the sanction could arrive by the end of January next year.
• The club says it is innocent and has irrefutable evidence to support its case.

What punishment rival Premier League clubs want for Manchester City

The prevailing view among Premier League clubs is clear: the sanction must reflect years of deliberate sporting advantage. They feel that dropping down a division for one season and returning the next would not compensate for the damage done or act as a meaningful deterrent against future breaches.

Relegation to the Championship for one season would be insufficient. The commission has to arrive at a punishment that is proportionate for years of sustained and deliberate cheating, as well as providing a strong deterrent to it happening again.

Although clubs have no direct role in the sanctioning process, the level of ill-feeling towards City illustrates how difficult it is for the Premier League to close a case it began investigating almost eight years ago. The same independent commission that found City guilty will determine the punishment once the appeal has been resolved.

How the Premier League appeal deadlines work

New Premier League rules introduced this season set specific timescales for appeals. The appeal must be submitted by Friday and the hearing has to conclude within twelve weeks. After that, the independent panel has a further thirty days to deliver its judgment, which would put the ruling at the end of January.

The sanctions hearing could take place during that same period, although its outcome will not be published until the appeal is resolved. City could also appeal against the sanction imposed by the commission, which would extend the process even further.

There is another route by which the club could buy more time: arguing that the new expedited timescales should not apply because they were only introduced this season while the charges are historic. City have already succeeded in delaying the publication of the commission's core decision, which finally came out this week.

Who decides the final Manchester City punishment

The Premier League, as prosecutor, can request a specific sanction during the hearing, and City will also present their case. The final decision rests with the independent commission, which has a wide range of options available: points deductions, transfer embargoes or even expulsion from the competition.

The position on the sanction is set by the Premier League board, not the clubs. It is chaired by Alison Brittain and includes chief executive Richard Masters plus three independent non-executive directors: Mai Fyfield, Dharmash Mistry and Matthew Ryder. Their stance will be crucial in determining how hard a punishment is requested.

Previous Premier League financial fair play sanctions

The first successful prosecution under the profitability and sustainability rules involved Everton three years ago. The club had overspent by £19.5m and the Premier League asked for a twelve-point deduction. The independent commission imposed ten points, which was later reduced to six on appeal.

The City case has no comparable precedent, according to the independent panel, because of the scale of the offences. The commission concluded that without the massively inflated income, the club would have breached Premier League and UEFA spending limits in multiple seasons. That is why many clubs are demanding a far more severe punishment and pressing for the whole process to be finished before the end of the season.

The compensation claims that threaten Manchester City

The Premier League is in a difficult position because it also wants to prevent a wave of litigation against City from clubs seeking financial recompense. The precedent was set by Burnley, who were awarded £35m in arbitration after suing Everton over their financial fair play breach, claiming it led to their relegation at the end of the 2021-22 season.

Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool reserved their right to sue City two years ago in the event of a guilty verdict. They have already held informal talks about whether to pursue a claim now that the judgment has been published. Each club will make its own decision, but the severity of City's final punishment could prove decisive.

How the Chelsea settlement is shaping the City case

The anger towards City is also fuelled by previous Premier League decisions. Many top-flight clubs remain unhappy with the agreement reached this year with Chelsea, which was settled with a £10m fine after the club self-reported unlawful payments to players and agents during the Roman Abramovich era.

That sanction, widely seen as lenient by much of the league, raises the bar for the City case. Clubs believe that if the response to the most serious breaches in recent Premier League history is not firm, the credibility of the entire financial control system will be called into question.