THE QUADRUPLE CITY DID NOT WANT
AS CITY chase down an unprecedented four trophies in one season, they also have four of the biggest authorities in world football demanding answers. Here are the four investigations and the possible sanctions they could face...
INVESTIGATION ONE
THE most-serious threat to City is their alleged breach of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. UEFA began to assess clubs in 2013 on rules that restricted the losses clubs in UEFA competitions could make. Their intent was to reduce unregulated inflation in football, though many said that it was driven by traditional clubs to stave off the threat of Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain and City. Initially, rules said clubs could only lose €45million over two years but they are now allowed a maximum loss of €30m over three years. Clubs are required to provide accurate information. What could the sanctions be? The worst offences result in Champions League exclusion. What would that mean for City? Exclusion would be a huge dent to City, who earned €64m in TV money alone from the Champions League last season. But isn’t FFP illegal under European Law? It was approved by the EU in 2012 and is modelled on their own laws. The EU Court of Justice and the Court of Arbitration for Sport have both ruled in its favour. What do City say? ‘Manchester City welcomes the opening of a formal UEFA investigation as an opportunity to bring to an end the speculation resulting from the illegal hacking and out of context publication of City emails. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false. The Club’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record.’
INVESTIGATION TWO
THE Premier League are ‘currently investigating’ City because of issues regarding ‘financial regulations… academy player recruitment and 3rd-party ownership’. Why are they investigating? The PL have their own separate FFP rules. While they allow greater losses, you can only increase wages if you are increasing income outside of TV money. What could the sanctions be? Points deductions are a potential sanction. What else is there? Player recruitment: you can’t pay inducements to anyone under 16 to change club. Der Spiegel say that emails show that City paid £200,000 to Jadon Sancho’s agent, Emeka Obasi, when he moved from Watford aged 14 for a scouting contract. Obasi hasn’t commented.
Third-party ownership: Banned in the PL. City signed Bruno Zuculini in 2014 part-owned by a company, MPI. As he was loaned to Valencia, it wasn’t against the rules. But according to Der Speigel, when the Premier League asked who was behind MPI, City said it was venture capital fund called Mangrove Capital Partners and went on to say that as far as they knew the funding came from Mangrove’s owners. Der Spiegel says Mangrove was funded by a €30m cash injection organised by City CEO Ferran Soriano. What are likely punishments? If found guilty, fines and a ban on signing academy players. INVESTIGATION THREE THE FA have similar rules of youth player recruitment and say they are ‘investigating the allegations’ on Sancho. They have rules on thirdparty ownership and said: ‘We are aware of the allegations raised in Der Spiegel and will consider them.’ What could the sanctions be? The FA can ban clubs from making academy signings if found guilty, but will dovetail their investigation with the PL. INVESTIGATION FOUR FIFA are investigating allegations Manchester City broke third-party ownership rules in their links with Danish club FC Nordsjaelland. What could the sanctions be? FIFA imposed a transfer ban on Chelsea for youth recruitment irregularities last month. Chelsea are appealing.
UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body and the Premier League will have to work through a raft of leaked emails published in German magazine Der Spiegel in order to establish whether Manchester City have broken their respective Financial Fair Play Regulations. The emails — as City have pointed out — are often without their full context and so the meaning isn’t immediately obvious. However, these are some of the key documents that UEFA and the Premier League will be looking into. What do the emails say? One example (printed above) sent in August 2015 from a City financial officer to Simon Pearce, City director and special advisor to Executive Affairs Authority, the government agency of Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed (Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi). It’s an invoice for payments due from City’s main sponsors, the Abu Dhabi airline Etihad. What is ADUG? The Abu Dhabi United Group is the private investment vehicle of Sheik Mansour. Wh Why is i it important? i It appears to be saying that in 2015-16 City owner Sheik Mansour’s ADUG provided £59.5m of the £67.5m Etihad sponsorship money. Why does that matter? UEFA’s rules make it clear that direct equity funding from an owner is limited. In 2015-16 the maximum losses that could be incurred was €30m over three years if covered by equity. Would City have exceeded this break-even figure without such additional funding? Punishment for City would be worse if they had concealed the true origin of funding from UEFA. Why does the date matter? Der Spiegel say this email was sent in August 2015 and it make references to the 15-16 season. Most of the City emails leak are between 2010 and 2013. Though those earlier emails could still be subject to disciplinary action, City accepted a deal with UEFA in 2014 where they agreed they had breached the FFP rules up to that point and promised to abide by them thereafter.
If they had then circumnavigated the rules after the 2014 agreement, UEFA’s CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber is likely to take an even harsher view of the breach.