Man City and 114 Financial Charges: MU, Arsenal, Liverpool Demand Their Share Back

The man in the corner of the hotel lobby did not look at me once in forty minutes. He only looked down at his phone, typed a few lines, put it down, and picked it up again. I sat two sofas away, pretending to read a newspaper. Outside, the Manchester rain fell steadily, the kind that is not heavy but leaves everything wet enough that nobody wants to step out.

It was the night before a meeting I was not invited to. In my coat pocket was a slip of paper with four initials — MCFC, MUFC, LFC, AFC — and a string of digits whose meaning I did not fully grasp at the time: 115.

Eighteen months later, that string became the centre of the biggest case in Premier League history. And the silence in that hotel lobby, I now understand, was the truest sound of a financial trial. Nobody shouted at anybody. Nobody slammed a table. There were only men in suits, tapping phones, and waiting.

In my trade, silence is stronger evidence than any contract.

I once believed in numbers, until Barça called. I once thought everything on earth could be converted into pounds, euros, or some index. But a case like this taught me the opposite: the biggest numbers always sit inside closed rooms, not on the news ticker.

---

115 charges, nine years, and an internal assessment

The Premier League has accused Manchester City of 115 breaches of financial regulations, spanning from 2026 to 2026. This was the period in which the Etihad club transformed from a mid-table side into the dominant force of English football. From what I have pieced together, 114 of those 115 charges have been confirmed as breaches.

Those 115 charges fall into several groups. Discrepancies in financial reporting. Remuneration of the coaching staff. Player contracts. And the most important group — compliance with UEFA's financial fair play rules during a period when the club consistently reported profits from sponsorship deals linked to its ownership.

Each group is proven differently. Financial reporting is simple on paper but extremely complex when intent must be shown. Coaching remuneration is sensitive because it touches specific individuals, men who once sat on the bench and once spoke to the press. In my trade, nothing is more awkward than writing about someone you once interviewed in a press conference.

Manchester City has always denied every charge, and according to The Athletic, the Etihad club is expected to appeal immediately. That is the obvious move. No club accepts a sanction without trying one last time.

What caught my attention was not Manchester City. It was Manchester United.

The United board has conducted an internal assessment of the economic losses that might stem from City's breaches. That assessment does not only count the seasons in which United finished behind their city rivals. It also counts the knock-on effects — European revenue, sponsorship appeal, and commercial standing eroded year by year.

Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool and United all filed for the right to claim compensation from the early stage of the proceedings. Four clubs, four calculations, but one question: if City had not been allowed to spend that money, what would the table of the past decade have looked like?

I once sat in a café near the stadium before a European Super Cup in 2026, listening to two agents discuss "55 and 60" — weekly wage figures for a transfer about to happen. I left immediately, called three separate sources, and filed within 90 minutes. The biggest lesson from that night: every major financial story begins with a call that was not in the plan, and ends with a number nobody wants published.

The City case is the same. Those four filings are not symbols of justice. They are invoices.

---

Four seasons, four invoices

Start with 2026/12. United finished second behind City, and the gap was decided on goal difference. Sergio Agüero's goal at 93:20 against Queens Park Rangers is a moment written into history. If City are stripped of the title, that crown goes to Sir Alex Ferguson's side.

Then 2026/18. Once again United finished second, this time under Jose Mourinho. Pep Guardiola's City reached 100 points, an unprecedented mark. Once again, if the sanction is enforced, the title could change hands.

And 2026/16, the season few mention but which I find the most interesting legally. United finished fifth and missed out on the Champions League. City finished fourth, ahead of United on goal difference alone. A Champions League place is not a trophy, but it is worth tens of millions in revenue, prize money and sponsorship. That is the kind of damage that is hard to prove but easy to calculate.

I once sat in a car for three hours outside the La Masia training ground to verify a young player rejecting a contract over a 500-euro weekly gap. Five hundred euros. At that level, everything is money. At Premier League level, the figure multiplies a thousandfold.

A Champions League place for a big club brings direct UEFA revenue, pooled broadcast money, matchday income and, most importantly, negotiating power with sponsors. When you are not in the Champions League, your shirt deal loses value. When your shirt deal loses value, your transfer budget shrinks. When your transfer budget shrinks, you buy lesser players. It is a domino chain no financial report ever captures fully.

Let me be clear: compensation is not sentimental. When a club calculates damages, it does not talk about the disappointment of supporters. It talks about signed sponsorship deals, projected budgets, players it could not sign because there was no Champions League. That is the language of the balance sheet, not the language of the stands.

In pure prize-money terms, the Premier League distributes by finishing position. The gap between first and second in a single season is not large — a few million pounds. But multiply that across seasons, add the European revenue attached to it, add the sponsorship deals signed while winning, and you get a real gap. That is why United's internal assessment cannot be a simple spreadsheet.

Agents sit inside this equation too. A club that is winning pays higher wages, attracts more, and applies more pressure in negotiations. When your rival has one more trophy, your agent knows it. They use it as leverage. And that leverage, compounded over ten years, is an enormous sum nobody writes into the books.

I followed City and United throughout that period, and what I remember most is not the derbies. I remember the transfers. City bought players United had targeted. City paid wages United did not want to match. Step by step, the gap was built with money, and that money — according to the charges — came from sources that were not permitted.

Kagawa's handshake in an empty car park says more than any contract. I witnessed that during the pandemic, when a Japanese player accepted halving his salary just to leave on a free. In football, when money becomes the issue, dignity becomes a line item too.

With City, the question is reversed: if money is no longer the issue, where does the dignity of the league sit?

---

What happens next: points deduction, stripped titles, or both?

If City's appeal fails, they face a raft of heavy sanctions. The most discussed option is a severe points deduction. The most controversial is the stripping of Premier League titles. A huge fine is predicted, potentially up to 100 million pounds. And expulsion from the Premier League is not a possibility that can be ruled out.

Of those four options, I believe a points deduction is the most feasible and stripping titles the most complex. The reason is simple: stripping titles sets a precedent the league does not want. If you strip one club's title, you must decide who receives it. You must handle sponsorship deals, broadcast rights, the memories of millions of fans. You must rewrite history, and nobody in an administrative machine wants to sign off on that.

A fine is simpler. A points deduction is less controversial administratively. Both solve the league's problem without touching the past.

But here lies the paradox. If City are deducted points in the future, clubs like United get nothing for the past. If City are stripped of titles, those clubs receive them — but a title handed over two or three years later no longer carries the commercial value it had on the night of triumph.

Compensation, therefore, becomes the most practical path. And it brings us back to those four filings from Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool and United.

---

The blind spot: a late ovation is not an ovation

There is a detail here that I think few notice. When clubs file for compensation, they are not only asking for money. They are betting on an outcome they do not control.

After nineteen years of following the transfer market, I have learned one thing: big clubs never want to reopen seasons that have closed. Every reopening forces them to confront questions about themselves. If City are stripped of the 2026/12 title, why does United not claim back the 2026/16 Champions League place? If United claims, why do others not claim? The logic spreads like a chain, and nobody wants to be the first link.

The truth is that clubs want money, not history. Money can buy players next season. A late-awarded title is only good for a photo.

And there is another blind spot: the appeals process. City deny everything and will appeal. A financial case with 115 charges can drag on for years. During that time, the clubs seeking compensation must still negotiate transfers with each other, still sell each other tickets, still sit in the same stands. Football is an industry where people argue in court and shake hands in the tunnel.

I saw that in Zaragoza. A sporting director and a player sat five metres apart in two separate cars, negotiating a contract termination in an empty car park. Neither looked at the other. But they reached a deal in the end, because both needed it.

The dressing room is the only place that bankrupts the transfer market's price tags. I have seen players worth tens of millions sit silent in a corner, and free transfers become heroes. A financial verdict is the same: it only matters if it changes something in the dressing room. Otherwise, it is just a document.

Fans are the slowest to understand this. They will celebrate a late-awarded title for one afternoon, then forget it by evening. They will forget faster than anyone on the inside.

That is why I do not believe in the story of perfect justice. I believe in agreements. And every agreement has a plan B.

---

Takeaway: the question is not about City

If City are found guilty on 114 of 115 charges, and if the sanction is enforced, the Premier League will enter an unprecedented era. But what is really on trial is not a club. What is on trial is whether financial rules truly exist when the offender is rich enough to appeal.

United benefit if titles are stripped. Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho could gain titles on their records. But both men have retired.

A late-awarded title is a currency nobody can spend. Compensation can be spent.

So as I follow this case, I will not be looking at the historical table. I will be looking at next summer's transfers. If a club suddenly has extra budget without selling anyone, I will know where the money came from. When that happens, the transfer market will be where the real verdict is delivered.

That is how I work. Do not trust the numbers. Trust the agents. Trust the handshake in the empty car park.

In Manchester, the man in the hotel lobby still has not put his phone down. He is waiting for another call. And in football, the next call always matters more than the last one.