FA’s inaction on Manchester City’s 115 charges: Was decision fair?
Manchester City Head coach, Pep Guardiola. Photo Credit- Agency Report/Punch Online
The Premier League’s handling of Manchester City’s 130 alleged financial breaches, ongoing since February 2023, has drawn criticism for its lack of resolution by June 2025. With no punishment despite a December 2024 hearing, fans and rivals question the FA’s integrity, especially when compared to other clubs with swift penalties. This piece is set to explore how the FA’s delay undermines football’s fairness and exposes inconsistent governance.
The prolonged Manchester City case
City face 130 charges for breaching financial rules from 2009-2018, including false accounting and inflated sponsorships. Despite a 12-week hearing ending in December 2024, no verdict has emerged, allowing City to compete unpunished, including in the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. The case’s complexity justifies some delay, but the lack of interim measures fuels accusations of leniency, as seen in social media posts, criticizing the Premier League’s inaction.
Comparison with other clubs
To best understand the controversy, permit me to draw references of clubs who have faced sanctions on similar cases of financial breach. Juventus faced a 15-point deduction in January 2023 for inflated transfer capital gains, later reduced to 10, plus a €17.4 million UEFA fine and a 2023/24 European ban. The FIGC acted within months, unlike the Premier League’s slow process. Juventus’s 2006 Calciopoli relegation further highlights Italy’s decisive approach, contrasting with City’s unpunished status despite graver allegations.
Asides Juventus, Olympique Lyonnais is a more recent example of a club facing sanctions from league authorities over financial mismanagement. Lyon were relegated to Ligue 2 in June 2025 for a €500 million debt, as ruled by Ligue 1’s DNCG, which enforces strict financial checks. This swift action, backed by Bundesliga-style licensing, contrasts with City’s case, where no sanctions have been imposed. Fans and analysts have praised Ligue 1’s firmness, while highlighting the FA’s perceived softness.
RELATED STORIES
Manchester City vs FFP: Could the judgment jeopardize football?
Guardiola’s Dilemma: Is it Time to Leave Man City or Football?
Man City name Bernardo Silva as new captain over Dias, Rodri
Was the FA’s delay and decision justified?
The complexity of City’s 130 charges, involving intricate financial data, partly explains the delay. Unlike Juventus’s clear fraud or Lyon’s debt, City’s case is harder to prove, and their 2020 CAS victory over UEFA may embolden them. However, the lack of interim sanctions, unlike Everton’s 8-point deduction for a single breach, suggests inconsistency and potential favoritism toward a club with City’s influence. Italy’s FIGC uses criminal probes to trigger rapid sanctions, as seen with Juventus, while Ligue 1’s DNCG enforces annual financial reviews, leading to Lyon’s relegation. The Premier League’s independent commission, while impartial, lacks urgency, allowing City to operate freely. This disparity risks encouraging other clubs to test financial rules, knowing enforcement is slow.
Moreover, the FA’s delay is defensible given the case’s scale, but the absence of interim measures undermines credibility. Juventus’s ban and Lyon’s relegation show decisive action deters financial misconduct, while City’s unpunished status erodes trust, as football enthusiasts on social media have begun to post questions. The FA’s flexibility in punishments: fines on charges that reflects expulsion, only lacks precedent for a giant like City, highlighting systemic flaws.
Conclusion
The FA’s inaction on City’s charges, though procedurally complex, contrasts poorly with Juventus and Lyon’s swift penalties, exposing a flawed system. To restore faith, the FA must deliver a timely verdict, consider interim sanctions, and set clear timelines for financial cases. Without reform, the perception of favoritism toward powerful clubs will persist, tarnishing English football’s reputation.
