To put it into perspective, UEFA lost Manchester City case. And the bottom line is that no force can now stop City from participating in next year’s Champions League. Yet the weightage of this narrative varies from person to person, with the state-of-affairs questioning the extent, if any, of Man City FFP violation.
Understandably, the recent case that saw City overcome UEFA’s legal challenge witnessed Manchester City present with twelve lawyers against two financial experts and four UEFA Lawyers. At stake in which was the participation of next year’s Champions League, plus an irreversible dent at the reputation for City, while an opportunity for UEFA to set the bar of equality amongst European clubs.
The Violations and Truth
At the head of Man City FFP violation attempts, it is believed that the owner of the club inflated sponsorship contracts and pumped money using different Abu Dhabi entities. And following this reason, in February the UEFA banned Manchester City for two years and fined 30 million euros. The decision that was later challenged and saw ban being uplifted. However, what seemed as closed chapter has opened again, and in pick of the things is a club board member Simon Pearce.
Now, Court of Arbitration for Sports has published 93 pages of verdict. The document shows that the club has not been acquitted. The account of Man City FFP violation also explains statements by auditors as not meaningful. Instead, the CAS decided to believe City’s witnesses rather than UEFA’s few pieces of evidence.
As per CAS, the allegations, if correct, would have not seen the City’s witnesses lying to the court in fear of the law. Yet Manchester City’s approach has been deemed questionable.
As per the old unpublished documents from the Football Leaks, Simon Pearce, the club board member who was invited as a witness, should have been held as the main guilty party.
Der Spiegel, along with media partners from European Investigative Collaborations research network, described the actions of apparent breaches of the rules in Manchester City, which triggered an investigation by UEFA. And the same proofs were used by the European governing body against Manchester City.
Of the records obtained by Football, the major Man City FFP violation lies with transfer of fund towards Etihad. The Football leaks violations state that the state-owned airline Etihad only paid £ 8m of the almost £60 million for sponsorships. The rest amount was paid by the other entities from Abu Dhabi.
In front of the CAS, when the club director Simon Pearce and former Etihad boss James Hogan were interviewed as witnesses, the former called transfers as some confusion within the club. He exclaimed the move merely as employees’ misunderstanding that Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group paid for sponsorship. UEFA found this explanation “completely implausible”.
However, in the email written by Pearce to Peter Baumgartner it can be seen that he said: “I didn’t transfer enough to you!”. Further explaining that Etihad will pay the club £ 99m (for two seasons) and the airline will have to pay eight million itself. “I should have forwarded you £ 91m so I only sent you 88.5m. So I owe you 2.5m,” he can be seen as quoting.
In these emails, concerning Man City FFP violations, it can also be seen that Simon Pearce maintains a very high rank in the Emirati positions. This is conclusive since he writes from the accounts of government agency of Abu Dhabi and maintains contact with the board levels of the companies, controls the cash flows and instructs his financial colleagues in Manchester when they have to send which invoices.
Implicated in a financial crime, the testimonies at the CAS were plausibly false, and if it was for fear of law, City would not have inflated sponsorships at the first place. To be precise, during this witness hearing, when City called attesters in front of the CAS, the UEFA made no objection. This was, thus, used as counter by City to convince the judges with their statements. Further, the European body also had to withdrew its request to cross-question since City did not agree to it. And with Man City FFP violations in the hiding, the club completely disagreed to provide documents stating it would prolong the process until the new season.
So with “no conclusive evidence”, because it was not provided and false testimonies despite emails, Man City FFP violations remain behind doors that are well open to the world and speak lengths about club’s financial frauds.
