Mohammed Sheikh
|09 October 2026
If the Case Is Pursued: More Lessons from the Manchester City Case
pinqDR considers how a faster, arbitrator-led process could have shortened the Manchester City case, before and after the charges.
Where did the years go in the Manchester City case? Our earlier blog found that most of them went before the hearing. If the decision is to pursue the case, how could the decision-making process have been more efficient, and better for both the club and the League? In our view, the answer is procedure: the early fights largely concerned process rather than the merits.
Two and a half years on process
The League opened its investigation in December 2018 and asked the club for documents. The club objected. In August 2019 the League issued a disciplinary complaint seeking them, and a disciplinary Commission was appointed under the League's Rules. The club challenged the Commission's composition, and the disciplinary system, as not sufficiently independent or impartial, and objected to the League's proposal for appointing a new one.
On 22 October 2019 the League then began an arbitration. The club appointed an arbitrator from a panel listed by the League, the League appointed another, and those two appointed a chair. The club challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction and alleged apparent bias. The tribunal rejected the challenge in June 2020 and in November 2020 ordered the club to provide certain documents and information. That order was stayed while the club took its challenge to the Commercial Court, which dismissed it in March 2021.
In July 2021, Males LJ, in the Court of Appeal, called the lack of progress after two and a half years surprising. The fights in that time turned mainly on two questions: who should decide, and whether documents had to be produced. Neither touched the merits.
Three and a half years to a reported decision
On 6 February 2023 the League charged the club, referring alleged breaches of its Rules to a Commission. Its members are appointed by the independent Chair of the League's Judicial Panel, and its proceedings are confidential and heard in private (Premier League, 6 February 2023).
Press reports state that the decision came more than three and a half years after the charges, and more than two years after the hearings began (The Guardian, 25 September 2026). The club says the process is ongoing, and neither side has confirmed the outcome. The Guardian also reports that, under the League's Rules, an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks of the appeal being lodged. We shall see if that timeframe is met. In any event, in our view, the first decision needs a tighter timeframe as well.
What would have helped?
In our view, three features of a legal process narrow fights of this kind.
First, an appointment that neither side controls. The club's bias challenge concerned how arbitrators were appointed to the League's panel and the League's control over their reappointment. The challenge failed, but the Court of Appeal noted that it appeared to have led to a change in the Rules. So long as the panel is independent, there is no need for a convoluted procedure of party appointments.
Second, documents decided inside the case. The League asked for documents during its investigation, before any charge, and brought a separate arbitration to enforce the club's contractual duty to provide them. Documents are important but the search and provision of them can run out of control.
Third, a fixed end date. When the timetable is set at the start, every procedural argument runs against the clock, and so does the decision itself. The right to challenge an award in court for lack of substantive jurisdiction or serious irregularity cannot be excluded by agreement (sections 67 and 68), but the arbitration can continue while a challenge is heard, as it did in the City case.
Where pinqArbitrate fits
pinqArbitrate is pinqDR's expedited arbitration, run end to end on a secure platform, and is built on those three features. The parties do not choose the arbitrator; pinqDR selects one. The arbitrator leads the process, setting by procedural order what information is needed, from whom and by when. Most cases are decided on the documents, and the process will often conclude within 8 weeks of commencement.
pinqArbitrate is also confidential unless both parties agree otherwise. In the City case, the club and the League each opposed publication of the Commercial Court's judgment on the challenge; the judge ordered it published, and the Court of Appeal upheld that order. A confidential arbitration does not stop a court publishing its judgment on a challenge. In our view, the better protection is a process that gives the parties fewer reasons to go to court.
pinqArbitrate is designed for business disputes from £5,000 to £2m; for larger claims, parties can contact pinqDR. The platform's design can serve disputes between a sports league and its clubs.
In short, the City hearing took 12 weeks; the process around it took years. A better-designed process would have brought the decision sooner, and kept the argument private.
To find out more about pinqArbitrate, get in touch at hello@pinqDR.com.
Useful links
Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1110
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1110.html
Premier League, Premier League statement (6 February 2023)
https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/3045970
https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/manchester-city-found-guilty-breaking-153549000.html
Arbitration Act 1996, sections 67 and 68 and Schedule 1
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents
Kaveh Solhekol, Man City Premier League charges explained, Sky Sports (26 September 2026)
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/13591837/man-city-premier-league-charges-explained-what-are-they-what-could-punishment-be-what-happens-next
Guy Pendell, pinqDR: What's in it for law firms? (7 November 2023)
https://pinqdr.com/blog/pinqdr-whats-in-it-for-law-firms
pinqDR, Where Did the Years Go? Lessons from the Manchester City Case
https://pinqdr.com/blog/where-did-the-years-go-lessons-from-the-manchester-city-case
pinqDR, Guidance Notes for Claimants
https://pinqdr.com/resources/guidance-notes-for-claimants