体育 · 财务规则

曼城£900m以上裁决：调查结果如何转化为处罚？

委员会认定，虚假安排扭曲了九个赛季的账目。曼城否认有不当行为；在调查结果与任何体育处罚之间，还有上诉程序和独立的制裁程序。

播出 文字 阅读需 7 分钟136 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 5 天

1 篇报道75 家媒体136 个来源2 个视频

  • 暂无标注日期的事件
  1. 第 1 次更新曼城£900m以上裁决：调查结果如何转化为处罚？当前位置

一项认定涉及超过£900 million财务失真的裁决，如何才能转化为足以改变曼城未来的处罚？这是此案如今的核心问题。案件已不再停留于指控阶段，但尚未产生最终且可执行的体育处罚。

一个独立委员会认定，曼城在2009/10至2017/18的九个赛季中，利用虚假商业安排夸大收入、少报成本。调查结果于2026年9月29日星期二公布，维持了所有有关严重违反财务规则的指控。曼城坚持认为自己无罪，并打算在10月2日星期五前提出上诉。处罚尚未作出决定；截至9月30日上午，也没有官方确认上诉已经提交。19 53

关键事实

  1. £900m+虚增收入与少报成本合计 19
  2. 9个赛季财务违规：2009/10至2017/18 19
  3. 10月2日对调查结果提出上诉的截止日期 19

这些区别很重要。这些是英超联赛监管程序中的调查结果，并非刑事定罪。超过£900 million的数字不是罚款、偿还令，也不是认定这笔钱被盗。它描述的是相关安排在多大程度上改变了用于评估俱乐部是否合规的财务状况。19

委员会认定，曼城提交了失实账目，向审计师和监管机构隐瞒其真实财务状况；其“严重违反”英超联赛和欧足联的支出限制，并且“显然意在规避英超联赛规则”。这并非单纯争论富有的所有者能否投资足球。裁决认定，所有者资金和俱乐部负债被伪装，使支出规则得以在一套具有误导性的账目基础上适用。19

资金的真实来源

赞助是最大组成部分。曼城在涉案赛季记录了£949.94 million的商业赞助收入。委员会的明细显示，其中£119.25 million是赞助商实际支付的基本费用，£830.69 million则是由所有者出资、被列作赞助收入的“标记款项”。这些数字相加恰好等于账面总额。3

所有者出资方为阿布扎比联合集团（Abu Dhabi United Group，简称ADUG）。商业合作伙伴与阿布扎比有关联，但在所审阅的公开材料中，具体赞助商的身份均被隐去。将所有者资金归类为商业收入，使曼城看起来拥有大幅增加的独立收入，可据此评估其支出。资金的来源，而不只是资金进入俱乐部银行账户这一事实，才是关键区别。3 124

曼城辩称，英超联赛误解了赞助协议。委员会“驳回了这一说法，认定其不属实”，并表示，这种说法“是在事后很久才编造出来，企图掩盖和隐瞒被伪装资金安排的真实情况”。委员会还认定，某些证人明知证词不实，且曾不诚实作证。这些调查结果针对本次程序中的特定证人，其身份未予披露，并非针对曼城传唤的所有证人。3

第二种机制涉及球员肖像权以及一项名为Fordham的安排。ADUG为Fordham提供资金，使其以人为抬高的价格购买俱乐部对这些权利享有的权益，并替曼城支付球员肖像权费用。委员会称，Fordham“几乎只是ADUG的幌子”，用以掩盖资金来源，并使俱乐部能够将这些款项列作营业收入。3 6

会计影响包括：£24.5 million被错误记作营业收入，£49.414 million被错误排除在费用之外。Fordham是Project Longbow的一部分；其他部分大多被认定为真正的增收或减亏尝试。不利裁决不能被公正地扩大解释为对Longbow所有项目的谴责。3 124

另外三笔薪酬款项——£8.866 million、£7.4 million和£0.5 million——通过由ADUG出资的第三方安排支付，而未计入俱乐部负债。媒体报道将£8.866 million的主教练方面顾问安排与前主教练罗伯托·曼奇尼联系起来。但已公布的裁决隐去了身份，曼奇尼并非案件当事方，裁决针对的是俱乐部，而非对他的个人裁定。另外两笔款项所涉收款人的姓名尚未确定。3 80 124

总额并未完全吻合

金额规模很明确，但已发表的重构数据中的确切总额并不一致。BBC News 9月29日的明细给出的总额为£920.68 million。然而，其列出的六项——标记为赞助收入的款项、Fordham两笔款项以及三笔薪酬款项——合计为£921.37 million。两者相差£690,000，原因未作解释。3

The Athletic的重构数据显示，虚报收入为£855.2 million，少报支出为£66.2 million，合计约£921.4 million。这些四舍五入后的数字与所列各项的算术总和相符：£855.19 million加£66.18 million。一般的四舍五入无法解释BBC较低的总额。没有记录证明两者存在重叠、项目剔除、期间调整或更正，足以说明差异原因。可以稳妥引用的官方总额仍是超过£900 million。14 19

Bloomberg Television 9月30日所称的超过$1 billion（也表述为约$1.2 billion），是以美元表达英镑金额的规模，并非另一项裁决，也不代表超过£1 billion。不得将其与英镑金额相加。该美元表述所采用的确切汇率尚未确定。2

熟悉的“115项指控”标签中还存在一个独立的计数陷阱。在涉及合作及最大诚信义务的第4项指控中，四项子指控有三项成立。第4(B)项未获证实；第4(A)项在被指控的大多数方面成立，而第4(C)和第4(D)项在被指控的方面成立。这并不能证明准确裁决是115项中有114项成立。所有严重违反财务规则的指控均获支持，但并非所有有关合作的指控都得到证实。19 124

曼城的否认如今将面临上诉

俱乐部还质疑监管机构的公正性，并表示正在进行的程序限制了其公开发言的内容。首席执行官费兰·索里亚诺告诉员工，银行对账单、资金转账、证人及其他证据表明，赞助款项并非来自所有者。在另一次面向员工的讲话中，他称此案是“英超联赛的阴谋论”。这些是曼城提出的、有争议的主张，并非能够取代委员会裁决的调查结论。俱乐部必须通过上诉寻求改变该裁决。53 1 36

无需编造有关个别比赛的说法，便可看出其竞争层面的影响重大。曼城在涉案期间赢得了三次英超冠军：2011/12、2013/14和2017/18。球队还赢得了四项主要国内杯赛——一座足总杯和三座联赛杯，并非ITV 9月29日报道所说的六项。若计入2012年社区盾杯，则共为五项。1 64

曼城在涉案赛季期间参加了七届欧冠，从2011/12赛季至2017/18赛季。球队在这些年份的联赛排名使其连续八个赛季获得参赛资格，延续至2018/19赛季，但第八个赛季不在会计审查期间内。这些成绩说明了竞争对手和球迷为何关注财务调查结果。但它们并不能证明某场比赛的结果是由某项会计安排造成，也不能证明奖杯已被剥夺或重新分配。71 69 19

责任认定与处罚是两个不同的决定

如果这些调查结果经上诉程序后仍然成立，英超联赛将提出处罚建议，随后由一个独立的制裁委员会在另行举行的非公开听证会上作出决定。规则允许处以罚款、扣分及其他体育制裁。扣分仍是一种可能性，并非已经实施。其他俱乐部可以提出赔偿索赔，但此处尚未确定任何赔偿裁决或经核实的竞争损失金额。1 19

这种程序分离是必要的，但也留下了令人不安的空白：委员会已认定存在蓄意违反财务规则的行为，球迷和竞争对手却仍不知道实际补救措施是什么。曼城的否认不能抹去调查结果；调查结果本身也不能确定处罚。

已知

  • 委员会维持了有关严重违反财务规则的指控。曼城对裁决提出异议，并打算在10月2日前上诉。 1953

未知

  • 截至9月30日上午，尚无官方确认正式提交了上诉。上诉裁决日期、制裁听证日期或处罚均尚未确定。

后续

  • 曼城是否会在周五前提交上诉、公开哪些上诉理由，以及是否会安排上诉听证或制裁听证。

英超联赛希望剩余程序“尽快”完成，但这是一项目标，并非时间表。下一项确定的步骤是10月2日。曼城提交什么材料，以及其质疑能否成功，将决定如何从不利的财务调查结果走向可执行的后果。19

播出原貌 11 行
  1. Manchester City distorted its finances by more than £900 million through sham commercial arrangements. The independent commission’s finding covers nine seasons and opens the way to possible points deductions, fines and other sporting sanctions. City denies wrongdoing, and no punishment has been decided. What has been established, and what still stands between these findings and an enforceable punishment?
  2. All the serious financial-rule charges were upheld for the seasons 2009/10 through 2017/18. The findings were published on September 29, 2026. They establish responsibility in the Premier League’s regulatory process, not criminal convictions. The £900 million-plus figure combines inflated revenue and understated expenses: it is not a fine, a repayment order or a finding that this amount was stolen. The club filed misstated accounts that concealed its true finances from auditors and regulators. It was significantly in breach of Premier League and UEFA spending limits. The findings also establish an intention to circumvent Premier League rules and concerted efforts to stop and frustrate the investigation. But the cooperation outcome was not complete. Three of four sub-charges were upheld. Charge 4(B) was not proven; 4(A) was proven in the majority of the respects alleged; 4(C) and 4(D) were proven in the respects alleged. That does not establish an exact result of 114 guilty findings out of 115. The familiar 115-charge label describes the original case; the decision deals with well over 100 individual breaches grouped into four categories.
  3. Owner funding accounted for £830.69 million of the £949.94 million City booked as sponsorship income. Sponsors themselves paid £119.25 million in base fees. Those figures add exactly to the booked total. Abu Dhabi United Group, known as ADUG, supplied the owner-funded amounts described as tagged sums. The commercial partners were Abu Dhabi-linked, but their individual identities are redacted. The central issue is not simply that an owner invested in a football club. Ownership money was represented as commercial earnings, making City appear to have substantially more independent revenue against which spending-rule compliance could be assessed. Sham contracts misrepresented the true agreements between the parties. City maintains that the sponsorship agreements were misunderstood. That explanation was rejected as untrue and as having been constructed after the event to obscure the disguised funding scheme.
  4. Certain witnesses knowingly gave untrue evidence at the hearing. Several important factual witnesses called by City gave evidence that was false in key respects. Their identities are withheld, and these findings do not justify calling every City witness dishonest. The public core decision is redacted and described as 40 pages; names and its appendix identifying the people involved are withheld.
  5. Fordham wrongly added £24.5 million to operating income and removed £49.414 million from expenses. ADUG funded the vehicle to buy City’s entitlement to player image rights at an artificially inflated price, then meet the club’s image-rights payments to players. The arrangement concealed the money’s origin and allowed owner funding to appear as operating income. Fordham was little more than a front for ADUG, operating with the knowledge and approval of individuals whose names are redacted. Fordham was one strand of Project Longbow. Other Longbow strands were largely accepted as genuine attempts to raise revenue or reduce losses. The adverse finding cannot be extended indiscriminately to every project.
  6. Three further remuneration amounts were kept outside the club’s recorded liabilities: £8.866 million, £7.4 million and £500,000. ADUG funded these manager- and player-related payments through third-party arrangements. The £8.866 million manager-side consultancy involved contract-reporting Rules P.7 and P.8 over four seasons. It has been linked to former manager Roberto Mancini, but the decision redacts identities. Mancini was not a party, and the finding is against City, not a personal ruling against him. The recipients associated with the £7.4 million and £500,000 amounts have not been established by name.
  7. The six component amounts add to £921.37 million, not £920.68 million. The difference is £690,000, and ordinary rounding does not explain it. Sponsorship and Fordham income together total £855.19 million. Excluded Fordham expenses and the three remuneration amounts total £66.18 million. Rounded, those become £855.2 million and £66.2 million, or £921.4 million combined. Approximately £920.7 million is a different total, not another rounding of that exact sum. Replacing £830.69 million with £830 million in the addition would produce £920.68 million exactly. But that numerical fit does not establish how the lower total was calculated. No documented overlap, exclusion, period adjustment or correction resolves the gap. The defensible official aggregate remains more than £900 million. The dollar description of about $1.2 billion is a rendering of that sterling scale, not an additional finding. It does not mean more than £1 billion, cannot be added to the pound amount, and has no established exact exchange rate.
  8. City rejects the findings and intends to appeal. It describes itself as disappointed and surprised, asserts innocence and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence, and challenges the decision as unsafe because of errors of law, principle and fact. The club promises to pursue appropriate regulatory and legal forums relentlessly. It also questions the regulator’s impartiality, describing eight years of respect for due process, and says ongoing proceedings restrict further comment. Those are contested positions, not established conclusions overturning the decision. Chief executive Ferran Soriano disputes the owner-funding finding. His position is that bank statements, money transfers, witnesses and other evidence demonstrate the sponsorship money did not come from the owner. He also characterizes the case as a conspiracy and says lawyers will appeal. Khaldoon Al Mubarak is City’s chairman, and Richard Masters is the Premier League’s chief executive. The institutional findings do not automatically establish personal liability for either official.
  9. City won three Premier League titles during the charged seasons: 2011/12, 2013/14 and 2017/18. Those results give the financial findings competitive significance, but they do not establish that an accounting arrangement caused a particular match result.
  10. The major domestic cup count in that window is four, not six: the FA Cup in 2010/11, and League Cups in 2013/14, 2015/16 and 2017/18. Adding the 2012 Community Shield makes five. Cups won in 2018/19 or later fall outside the charged accounting period. City played seven Champions League campaigns within that period, from 2011/12 through 2017/18. League finishes in the charged years earned entry to eight consecutive campaigns through 2018/19, but the eighth campaign itself was outside the window. Fifth place in 2009/10 did not earn a Champions League place. Third place in 2010/11 earned entry to the first campaign in that sequence; winning the FA Cup did not provide that qualification. No completed decision removes or reallocates trophies.
  11. No punishment has been decided, and no formal appeal had been officially confirmed by the morning of September 30. City’s intention to challenge the findings is not the same as a filed appeal. That is what separates the established liability finding from an enforceable consequence. If the findings survive the appeal process, the Premier League will recommend a punishment and an independent sanctions commission will decide it at a separate private hearing. The rules allow fines, points deductions and other sporting sanctions, but none has been imposed here. Other clubs could pursue compensation claims. No award or verified amount of competitive loss has been established. Supporters face uncertainty over City’s future league position, while rivals face an unresolved question about remedies for breaches during seasons when trophies and European qualification carried competitive value. The remaining proceedings are intended to conclude as soon as possible, but there is no established date for an appeal decision or sanctions hearing. The next fixed deadline is Friday, October 2, 2026, when City must formally appeal the findings to challenge them.

来源

136 个来源71 家媒体2 个视频3 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。