Manchester City have been found guilty of the majority of the 115 charges brought against them by the Premier League, and the verdict has thrust one question to the centre of the debate: should the club be stripped of the eight trophies they won between 2009 and 2018, the period in which they were accused of breaking financial rules?
City have always denied wrongdoing, but the charges centre on claims that they inflated sponsorship revenue from connected companies and made other “off the books” payments designed to circumvent football’s financial rules. Judging by social media, many fans of rival clubs are now hoping that outcome extends to the record books.
It is understood, however, that there has been little appetite from within the Premier League — both the organisation and its clubs — for past titles to be stripped from City. That does not entirely settle the matter. The decision will be made by an independent panel that has yet to hold the “sanction hearing”, so a retrospective punishment cannot be completely ruled out. A points deduction, a huge fine or possibly even expulsion from the Premier League are thought to be more likely.
The prospect of stripping titles is not written directly into the rulebook. Premier League rules list a fine, points deduction or expulsion among possible punishments and make no direct reference to such a sanction. But they also allow a disciplinary commission panel to impose a penalty “as it shall think fit” — wording that could, in theory, cover retrospectively applied points deductions or the removal of honours.
The idea has an unlikely origin. Almost two years ago, Jose Mourinho mischievously raised the possibility that his former club Manchester United could be handed the 2018 Premier League title held by City, suggesting the medal and bonus could yet come his way. Under Mourinho, United finished second to City by 19 points in 2018, his final full campaign in charge at Old Trafford. If titles were reallocated, the list of beneficiaries would be clear: the Premier League runners-up were Manchester United in 2011-12 and 2017-18, and Liverpool in 2013-14; in the FA Cup it was Stoke City in 2010-11; in the EFL Cup it was Sunderland in 2013-14, Liverpool in 2015-16 and Arsenal in 2017-18; and for the Community Shield it was Chelsea in 2012-13.
Such a move would open a much wider set of questions. There is now scepticism towards the various trophies Chelsea won in the 2010s, after the club were found to have made a catalogue of secret payments to agents over transfers between 2011 and 2018. Some will ask that if retrospective action is applied to City, the same should follow for Chelsea.
The scope of any sanctions is further complicated by the period between December 2018 and February 2023, when City stand accused of a failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations. Jurgen Klopp’s Liverpool finished runners-up to Pep Guardiola’s City twice during that time, and last year the German coach joked he would host a party in his garden if his former club were suddenly awarded those titles. It does not have to end there either: some will conclude that the breaches between 2009 and 2018 helped lay the foundations Guardiola later built on, culminating in the Treble triumph of 2023.
For some, the mass reallocation of titles over such a long period would risk making a mockery of Premier League history, jeopardising its reputation and commercial viability. Others would argue that some 17 years after the first alleged breach, and with City accused of distorting the competition across multiple seasons, serious damage has already been done to the league’s standing. While there is no Premier League precedent, comparable punishments have been applied elsewhere in football. Juventus had the Serie A titles they won in 2005 and 2006 revoked as a result of the Calciopoli match-fixing scandal, in which five Italian teams were penalised for attempting to influence results by picking certain referees; the first title was left blank by the authorities and the second was reallocated to Inter Milan. In Britain, Elgin City won the 1992-93 Highland League but were later stripped of the title after being found to have fielded ineligible players. There are examples from other sports too: in 2012 Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the UCI, cycling’s governing body, for doping, and the reallocation of medals has become commonplace in athletics as a result of positive drugs tests that can emerge long after an event.
Former City midfielder Rodri dismissed the talk of titles being taken away. “What we did, they cannot take out of us,” he said. “It’s something that is not paid by money. It’s paid with effort, with the damage, with, you know, being shoulder to shoulder every day. I can tell you that everything was deserved, and I’m glad that I could live one of the best eras of English football in here.” Others, however, will insist the rewriting of history is the only way of restoring the competition’s official record and rewarding clubs that competed within the rules.
In practical terms, retrospective action may not be the most likely route at all. The compensation claims for lost earnings that several clubs are known to be considering launching against City are viewed as more probable than the stripping of titles. “The question isn’t whether the clubs can take legal action… it’s: Where does the line of people who have a case actually end?” a lawyer said. “The clubs who didn’t win or qualify or stay up; the players who didn’t get bonuses, contract extensions; the staff who missed out on bonuses; the agents who didn’t get their uplift on their player deals… It’s endless and potentially so destructive to the whole ecosystem.” Whatever the panel decides, more division and disruption appear guaranteed.