02/10/2026
Manchester City will argue the so-called 'tagged' sponsorship payments (totalling ยฃ830m) came from the Abu Dhabi Government not their owner (ADUG). This applies to State-controlled entities such as Etihad and Etisalat. Yet Etihad has previously refuted AD Government funding as "false".
City can point to an internal report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi in 2010 which concluded the Abu Dhabi Government did indeed cover the sponsorship of Manchester City. The report was not intended for external publication.
In their UEFA case, City denied the Etihad (or any other) sponsorship funds came from any other source other than a direct payment. Sheikh Mansour provided a letter which read: "I have not authorised ADUG to make any payments to Etihad, Etisalat or any of their affiliates in relation to their sponsorship of MCFC."
In 2015, the 'Partnership for Open and Fair Skies' wrote to the US departments of Commerce, Transportation and State arguing Etihad gained a competitive advantage due to receiving huge sums from the Abu Dhabi Government. They allude to the internal report referenced above, which appears to confirm this.
Yet Etihad's response was: "The assertion that the Abu Dhabi Government paid for Etihadโs sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false.
"In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester Cityโs stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues."
Etihad's denial the Abu Dhabi Government helped pay for their sponsorship goes against City's core argument, according to the verdict, that "AD Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees."
Due to redacted names, multiple sponsors, and the phrase 'from time to time', City could ma
