One year on, Manchester City arbitration over 115 charges remains undecided

It has been a year since the three-month arbitration hearing between Manchester City and the Premier League began, and the panel of undisclosed arbitrators has still not issued an award in a case brought under 115 charges of alleged financial impropriety and evasion.

The dispute, heard at the International Dispute Resolution Centre near St. Paul’s Cathedral, began last September and concluded its oral evidence in the autumn. Since then the panel has taken nine months and counting to reach a decision, a delay that commercial law experts say is long but not unprecedented given the volume and complexity of the material under consideration.

Lawyers who specialise in international commercial disputes pointed to comparable cases involving sovereign actions and large corporate loan disputes that have taken six to 13 months to resolve, underscoring how lengthy arbitration can be when it involves voluminous documentary records, cross-border evidence and intricate valuation issues.

The Premier League’s case against City is separate from a recent settlement reached between the two parties in a different matter, the Associated Party Transaction (APT) dispute, which dealt with policing sponsorship arrangements between clubs and companies linked to owners. That agreement, finalised last week, did not resolve the main proceedings concerning the 115 charges, and league and club spokespeople have made clear the arbitration remains live.

Some commercial litigators speculated privately that behind-the-scenes negotiation or "horse-trading" sometimes explain protracted deliberations in arbitration. Others, however, said that theory is unlikely here given the apparent divergence of positions taken by both sides during the hearing. "With both sides apparently having set their stall out at such diametrically opposing positions, it would be hard to envisage a climb down," one commercial litigation lawyer said. He added that it would be difficult to imagine either side accepting a large-scale concession after the proceedings had concluded.

Kieran Maguire, co-host of The Price of Football podcast, noted the scale of legal fees in the dispute and questioned how rival club owners would react to a narrow outcome. "Given that the legal costs are likely to be in the realms of £100 million to £120 million, can you imagine how the other club owners are going to react to, 'In the end, it's a misunderstanding. We'll just give them a fine'?" Maguire said on air.

City has denied wrongdoing and has mounted an extensive legal challenge. The club’s chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, who has overseen the club since the Abu Dhabi ownership group acquired it in 2008, has been described by insiders as personally committed to defending the club in financial investigations. Al Mubarak has been quoted as telling executives in earlier proceedings that he would prefer to mount a legal fight than accept penalties, a stance that has shaped the club’s approach to regulatory challenges stretching back to UEFA inquiries that began in 2014.

Those close to the case say the reputational stakes for Manchester City and its owners are significant. A ruling against the club in the 115-charge arbitration could have reputational consequences for Abu Dhabi-linked ownership and affect how regulators and commercial partners view club governance. The stakes help explain why City has invested heavily in legal teams and in challenging the case in detail.

Arbitration differs from ordinary court litigation in one key respect: an award issued by arbitrators is binding and, in most cases, final. Unlike a judgment from a national High Court, there is generally no appeal on the facts and merits of the case, meaning whatever the panel decides is the terminal determination of the dispute unless parties agree otherwise or successfully challenge the award on very limited procedural grounds.

That finality both raises the pressure on arbitrators and limits the options available to either side once an award is delivered. Experts said the binding nature of arbitration may have encouraged exhaustive preparation and arguments, adding to the time required for a deliberative award.

Rumours that an outcome could arrive imminently have circulated periodically over the past months, but those involved in the process cautioned against reading too much into speculative timelines. Commercial arbitrations routinely require detailed analysis of witness testimony, complex financial models and cross-border documentary reviews. Those tasks, practitioners say, become more time-consuming when the parties put forward competing expert evidence on accounting, valuation and industry practice.

The Premier League and Manchester City have so far remained publicly circumspect about the arbitration timetable. Both parties declined to comment in detail when contacted by news outlets as the panel continues to consider the evidence. The identities of the arbitrators and the full content of submissions are not publicly disclosed under the rules governing the private arbitration process used in this dispute.

The arbitration is one of the highest-profile regulatory disputes in English football, coming amid a period in which Manchester City have dominated the domestic game on the pitch, winning the Premier League six times in nine years under manager Pep Guardiola. The club’s sporting success and commercial footprint have amplified attention on the outcome of off-field proceedings.

As the anniversary of the hearing approaches, the arbitration remains ongoing and binding. Industry observers say the decision, when issued, will bring finality to a lengthy chapter of litigation and could have lasting implications for club regulation, owner conduct and the relationship between football’s governing bodies and the sport’s most successful commercial organisations.