Etihad executives played crucial role in overturning Man City sanction
Ruling reveals how UAE airline’s executives leapt to defence of club owner Sheikh Mansour over Champions League ban
Etihad Airways played a decisive role in overturning Manchester City’s two-year ban from the Champions League football tournament, with the United Arab Emirates-based carrier leaping to the defence of the English Premier League club owned by a member of the country's ruling family.
On Tuesday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, the body considered the final arbiter of global sports disputes, released the full ruling on its decision to lift the unprecedented sanction imposed on Man City by Uefa, European football’s governing body.
Uefa had sought to punish the club after concluding that more than £200m of sponsorship deals with two Abu-Dhabi-based groups — the carrier Etihad and telecommunications company Etisalat — had been provided by a company controlled by Man City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the billionaire who is also deputy prime minister of the UAE.
Uefa based its case around leaked internal emails obtained by an alleged computer hacker that appeared to show that club executives had discussed ways to skirt so-called “financial fair play” rules intended to ensure clubs do not overspend on players in the pursuit of success.*
The CAS panel found these emails did not provide enough evidence to substantiate Uefa’s findings, especially after Etihad’s top executives, such as chief executive Tony Douglas, provided witness statements to argue the sponsorship deals were genuine.*
It added that Uefa’s arguments would “require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises such as . . . Mr Douglas were false . . . This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence available.”
A majority on the CAS panel was not “comfortably satisfied” that “arrangements discussed in the leaked emails were in fact executed”, and there was not enough evidence to show that Sheikh Mansour “directly” took on any of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations.*
The case highlights how Abu Dhabi’s biggest companies have supported the ambitions of Manchester City since Sheikh Mansour acquired the team in 2008.
Critics alleged the owner, the brother of Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the de facto ruler of the UAE, has used the club to burnish the Middle Eastern country’s soft power through dominating the world’s favourite sport.
Etihad agreed to pay sponsorship and bonuses of more than £220m over three seasons to the end of 2015-16, making it one of the biggest endorsement deals in football history.
CAS determined that the charges brought in relation to the sponsorship contracts with Etisalat were “time barred”, meaning that Uefa had not brought its case within the required five-year time period for the sanctions to apply even if there had been wrongdoing.
However, CAS rejected City’s argument that the financial implications of the pandemic, which has forced clubs to shut fans out of stadiums, should have resulted in a reduction in the size of €10m fine that was imposed for a lack of co-operation with Uefa’s investigators.*