Criminal investigation? Relegation or expulsion? The key Man City questions

Manchester City have been found guilty of breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, a verdict that has triggered a series of pressing questions about the club’s immediate future and the broader implications for English football. The club maintains its innocence and has signaled its intention to appeal. The deadline for submitting that appeal is Friday. In previous cases involving Everton and Nottingham Forest, appeals were heard and decided before sanctions were announced, suggesting City’s appeal will be considered and ruled on prior to any punishment being imposed. The appeal will be examined by a newly constituted three‑person panel, though the timeline for that process remains uncertain. City cannot take the matter further to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but could potentially challenge the impartiality of the proceedings in the High Court. The Premier League’s statement, released on Monday, said it wants the process to be “concluded as soon as possible.” The independent commission that reached the verdict noted, “It has taken us much longer than we would have wished, and much longer than we had anticipated would be the lawsuit when the proceeding concluded, to reach our decision. That is regrettable.” Observers note the language reflects a desire to wrap up the matter swiftly. Should the appeal and any subsequent sanctions extend beyond the end of the season, teams that finished below City, were relegated, or were knocked out of domestic cups by the club could conceivably pursue legal action, arguing that the true standing of City would have been known earlier. Two primary scenarios have been outlined for possible sanctions. First, a points deduction large enough to drop City into the Premier League’s bottom three, resulting in automatic relegation to the Championship. Second, expulsion from the Premier League, which would require fifteen of the club’s rivals to vote in favour of a resolution to that effect. If expelled, City would need to apply for re‑entry through the Football Association; the EFL and National League, being separate entities, would not be obliged to accept such an application, and even if the EFL considered it, its 72 clubs would have to vote on admission. The prospect of City beginning a rebuild in League Two—or lower—has therefore been raised. Historical parallels are often cited. When Juventus were relegated to Serie B after being found guilty of match‑fixing in 2006, they retained world‑class players such as Gianluigi Buffon, Pavel Nedved and David Trezeguet. After winning Serie B and returning to Serie A, they finished third and qualified for the Champions League. Analysts suggest that if City faced only a single season outside the top flight, players on long, lucrative contracts might be more inclined to stay, and the financial damage from losing Premier League TV revenue would be markedly reduced. The possibility of the case escalating into a criminal investigation has also been raised. The Fraud Act 2006 stipulates that dishonestly making a false representation with the intent of gaining or causing loss can lead to up to ten years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine if proven. Lord Cruddas, a banker and businessman, declared, “Surely the Man City findings are now a police matter,” adding, “If accounts have been falsified and auditors have been misled then it is possibly a criminal matter. The auditors will call in the police, directors are personally liable for any fraud of a UK institution even if it is foreign‑owned.” For the matter to move from sporting misconduct to a criminal probe, an investigation by the appropriate authorities would first be required. Bodies capable of analysing potential financial crime in the UK include local police forces, the National Crime Agency, HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office. BBC Sport contacted each agency; none indicated that an investigation had begun, although some do not routinely confirm inquiries due to confidentiality. Former City president David Bernstein, who left the club five years before the current owners took control, raised the issue on BBC Radio 5 Live, stating, “This is very serious and I wonder whether some of these issues might need to be referred to authorities outside of the league,” and added, “My immediate thoughts are – can the committee of directors proceed and should the people involved be suspended immediately?” Kieran Maguire, a football finance expert, suggested a wider probe is unlikely, noting, “HMRC might look at it but there is not a lot for them to go on,” and, “There is surely no corporation tax to recover. Football clubs lose money and City would have lost more money had it not been for the activities it undertook.” Questions also persist about the future of the club’s ownership. Fans and commentators have argued that if City deliberately flouted rules over a nine‑year period, the current owners may not be fit to steward the club moving forward. The Independent Football Regulator (IFR), established in 2025 to protect the integrity of English football, ensure financial soundness and promote resilient ownership, issues licences to the 116 clubs operating in the top five tiers of English football. Club owners, directors and senior executives are subject to an enhanced suitability test—a strengthened version of the traditional “fit‑and‑proper” assessment. Under the Football Governance Act 2025, the IFR can suspend or revoke licences in cases of wrongdoing. Another conceivable route is governmental intervention. In 2022, Roman Abramovich was compelled to sell Chelsea by the UK government following Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine; his assets were frozen and a full seizure threatened, leading to new ownership within three months. While Manchester City’s owners are not presently exposed to UK government action, the precedent exists for the state to participate in a process that removes a club’s proprietor. Relations between the UK and the UAE—whose royal family controls City’s ownership—have weakened in recent years, meaning any move to oust the owners would pose a significant diplomatic test.