Manchester City and the price of a long legal fight

I suspect many football supporters have now heard more about sponsorship accounting than they ever wished to. What interests me about Manchester City's dispute with the Premier League is something more familiar: the price of a legal fight that keeps finding another stage.

On 29 September 2026, the League published a commission decision finding serious financial-rule breaches over nine seasons, including arrangements which inflated revenue and understated costs. Most cooperation allegations were also upheld. City denies wrongdoing and lodged an appeal on 1 October, alleging errors of law, principle and fact. Sanction is a separate question; the process is still ongoing.

The appeal goes to an independent Premier League Appeal Board. It is separate from City's successful challenge to its UEFA competition ban at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2020. Different proceedings, different rules.

The commission describes a 42-day hearing, millions of documents searched and a hearing-bundle index exceeding 750 pages. When the index alone is that long, nobody should expect a modest invoice.

Reporting has put the League's overall legal expenditure at £48.1 million for 2023/24 and £44.6 million for 2024/25. Those are wider legal costs, rather than a bill for City's case alone. Even so, they give some sense of the financial pressure involved.

Very wealthy individuals, and companies backed by them, can fund substantial legal teams for years. That buys the resources to test arguments and pursue available challenges. Whether those arguments succeed still depends on the evidence and the law. Meanwhile, the other party has to keep paying for its response.

My concern is the effect on a governing body with a competition to run and rules to enforce for all its clubs. A prolonged legal fight consumes money and staff time. Even an organisation with substantial resources has to decide how much it can commit, and for how long.

Arbitration is already part of this story. The League's rules allow limited arbitral review of disciplinary decisions, including serious jurisdictional or procedural defects. That is a restricted review route, rather than an unrestricted rerun of the case.

There is an obvious lesson here for anyone who assumes that a private tribunal will automatically make a dispute quick or inexpensive. The process still needs to be controlled.

Commercial arbitration offers room, within the agreement and applicable rules, to choose an appropriate tribunal and shape the procedure around the dispute. A narrow disagreement about a contract may need limited disclosure and a short hearing. It should not acquire the machinery of a case about nine years of football finances simply because the parties can afford it.

The Arbitration Act 1996 puts fairness and avoiding unnecessary delay or expense at the centre of the process. I would want a frank assessment early: which arguments have substance, what evidence is missing and what the next stage is likely to cost.

Settlement can remain open while a case is being prepared firmly. City and the League demonstrated that themselves: in September 2025 they settled their separate dispute over associated party transaction rules and ended that arbitration. That settlement did not resolve the financial disciplinary case.

For a commercial client, a deal might provide payment arrangements, revised contractual terms or an agreed exit from a business relationship. Those outcomes can be more useful than spending another year arguing about who was right.

Confidentiality can protect sensitive information and settlement terms, but it has limits. In Manchester City v Premier League [2021] EWCA Civ 1110, the Court of Appeal upheld publication of judgments connected with private arbitration. Court involvement can bring open justice into play.

Confidentiality provisions need proper exceptions for required disclosure and advice. They cannot override legal duties or bind people who have never agreed to them. In football disciplinary matters, the League's publication rules and the interests of other clubs also have to be respected.

For me, the value of arbitration is in a carefully prepared case and a process suited to what is actually at stake. Being able to afford every possible argument does not make every argument worth pursuing.

At RWS, I can help with arbitration advice, strategy and preparation, including reviewing agreements and evidence and exploring settlement. You deal with me directly. Whether you are considering arbitration, responding to a notice or want a second opinion, you are welcome to get in touch. The scope will be assessed against the applicable rules and agreed before work begins.

Call 020 7243 5475 or email [email protected] for a free initial, no-obligation discussion about your matter.