Andy Burnham says he is “not getting directly involved in the process”. (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been accused of potentially applying “political pressure” in the Manchester City saga because of the owner’s investments in Manchester. The Prime Minister said he “would be really concerned” if Manchester City’s owners sell the club, following a guilty verdict for breaching Premier League financial rules.
The Prime Minister, a former mayor of Greater Manchester, thanked the club’s holding company City Football Group for the money it had invested into Manchester and said he would not want them to stop owning the Premier League club. But Shadow Sport Minister Louie French MP said: “Andy Burnham’s intervention in support of Manchester City’s owners is frankly extraordinary.”
Football transfer news and rumours plus selected offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Mr French said: “The club face unprecedented allegations and fans are horrified by what they are reading in the papers. Yet Burnham is publicly backing the owners even as the investigation continues. Fans will rightly ask whether political pressure is being applied here and how it relates to the owners’ well-reported investments in Manchester.
“Football must be governed independently, with the rules applying equally to everyone. Fans deserve confidence that no club or owner is above those rules. Burnham’s comments are therefore completely out of touch with fans and the wider public.
“The Government must keep politics out of football and ensure the Premier League’s independent commission can do its job free of outside influence.”
Mr Burnham’s comments came after the chair of the Independent Football Regulator said the Premier League’s ruling “raises serious issues” and pointed out the body has the power to assess the suitability of club owners and executives once proceedings come to a close, with City having already indicated their intention to appeal.
City’s main sponsor Etihad Airways released a statement on Wednesday saying it was assessing its legal options following an independent commission’s ruling.
That commission had concluded City “clearly intended to circumvent Premier League rules” by inflating revenue and hiding costs through a series of “sham” commercial deals over a nine-season period.
But when Mr Burnham was asked by the BBC if he was worried about the club being sold, he said: “I would be really concerned to lose them.
“They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.”
Asked if all his dealings with Manchester City while he was mayor will stand up to scrutiny, he said: “Oh indeed. I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad and the campus around it but also into the city, but yes of course.”
Mr Burnham said he is “not getting directly involved in the process”, adding: “I have to keep my distance from it. It would be wrong for me to do anything else. It’s an independent legal process that has to play its course through…There’s a lot at stake. Let’s be honest about that, for the football club, for city supporters, for the city of Manchester.”
The club were found by the Premier League’s commission to have operated a “disguised funding scheme” whereby companies from Abu Dhabi paid a fraction of the sum recorded on the club’s books, with the balance settled by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the company through which Sheikh Mansour owns the club.
That scheme was found to have inflated revenue by more than £830million between 2009-10 and 2017 to 18.
Labour has been contacted for comment.
Andy Burnham accused of ‘political pressure’ after ‘extraordinary’ comment in Man City row
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of an unexpected political storm after comments about Manchester City and the club’s Abu Dhabi-based ownership prompted accusations that he could be exerting political pressure on an independent football process.
The controversy comes at an awkward moment for the Prime Minister. Burnham is only months into Downing Street after serving as mayor of Greater Manchester, and Manchester City remains one of the most internationally visible institutions associated with the region.
His comments were made after an independent Premier League commission found Manchester City guilty of serious financial-rule breaches. The club denies wrongdoing and has appealed the findings.
Asked by the BBC whether he would be concerned if City’s owners ultimately sold the club, Burnham replied that he would be “really concerned to lose them”, describing the ownership as a major partner in the development of modern Manchester and in turning Manchester City into a global football force.
That statement quickly became the focus of political criticism.
Shadow sports minister Louie French described Burnham’s intervention as “frankly extraordinary” and questioned whether political pressure was being applied to the football process. The Conservative politician argued that football’s regulatory procedures should be allowed to operate independently.
Burnham, however, also stressed that he was not attempting to intervene directly and that the case remained an independent process.
The resulting dispute raises a wider question: how should a prime minister respond when a major sporting institution, a foreign investor and a city with which he has deep political connections become entangled in the same controversy?
What Burnham actually said
The most important part of the controversy is the distinction between Burnham’s expression of concern and any formal intervention.
The Prime Minister said he would be concerned about losing Manchester City’s owners because of their contribution to Manchester. At the same time, he acknowledged that the case was ongoing and contested.
He said it would be wrong to jump to conclusions before considering all the details and that he could not intervene further in the process.
That qualification has become central to the government’s defence.
Burnham was not announcing a government decision about Manchester City’s ownership. He was commenting publicly on a matter involving an independent football disciplinary process.
But the political sensitivity comes from his previous relationship with the club.
Before entering Downing Street, Burnham spent a decade as mayor of Greater Manchester. During that period, he developed close links with businesses and institutions involved in the city’s economic development, including Manchester City and its owners.
He has previously praised the investment associated with the club’s Etihad campus and wider regeneration activity.
That history makes his comments more politically significant than those of an ordinary football supporter.
The findings against Manchester City
The controversy cannot be separated from the seriousness of the independent commission’s findings.
The Premier League’s disciplinary case concerns more than 100 alleged breaches of its financial rules covering a period stretching from 2009 to 2018.
An independent commission found Manchester City guilty of multiple breaches, including findings concerning what it described as disguised funding arrangements involving sponsorship revenue. Reporting on the judgment has put the disputed financial impact at more than £900 million.
The commission’s findings are contested by Manchester City.
The club has rejected the allegations and has argued that the judgment contains material errors. City has also indicated that it has evidence supporting its position and has taken the case to the appeal stage.
That means the legal and disciplinary process is not finished.
This is an important distinction because a finding by an independent commission is significant, but the existence of an appeal means the final outcome and sanctions remain subject to further proceedings.
The club’s owners therefore remain in place while that process continues.
Why the ownership issue matters
Manchester City’s transformation over the past two decades has been closely associated with its Abu Dhabi-based ownership.
The club has become one of the most successful teams in English football and a major global sporting brand. The ownership group has also invested heavily in infrastructure surrounding the Etihad Stadium and in Manchester more broadly.
Burnham’s argument is essentially that the relationship between the club and the city’s economic development cannot simply be ignored.
That does not determine the disciplinary question.
A club’s economic contribution and a regulatory body’s responsibility to enforce financial rules are separate issues.
A business can be an important investor in a city while still being subject to the same rules as every other participant.
That distinction is precisely why Downing Street moved quickly to clarify the government’s position.
Downing Street draws a line
Within a day of Burnham’s remarks, Number 10 issued a statement stressing that Manchester City was not above the rules.
The spokesperson said the initial judgment was serious and that the ongoing independent process had to be allowed to run its course.
Crucially, the government said that if wrongdoing was established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.
The clarification appears designed to establish a clear separation between Burnham’s personal political comments and the formal regulatory process.
It also addresses the central criticism from opponents.
If the Prime Minister had attempted to influence the disciplinary process, that would raise serious questions about the independence of football regulation.
But expressing concern about the potential economic consequences of an ownership change is not itself a formal intervention.
The difficult issue is therefore not simply what Burnham intended.
It is how his words are perceived while an important case remains unresolved.
The Everton comparison
Burnham’s comments became even more controversial because he referred to his previous criticism of the Premier League’s treatment of Everton.
Everton, the club Burnham supports, was previously punished over breaches of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules.
Burnham had strongly criticised the process at the time.
In his BBC interview, he recalled that people had proclaimed Everton guilty and said that, with hindsight, he believed the club had not been treated fairly. He argued that this experience meant he should not immediately take one side in the Manchester City case.
The comparison has attracted criticism because the circumstances of the two cases are different.
Everton admitted a breach of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules, while disputing the extent of the breach and the sanction.
Manchester City’s case involves a much larger collection of allegations and findings, including financial reporting and alleged disguised funding arrangements.
Burnham’s broader point was about the danger of reaching conclusions before an appeals process has finished.
Nevertheless, opponents argue that the comparison risks understating the scale of the Manchester City case.
The political pressure allegation
The accusation that Burnham was applying “political pressure” remains an allegation rather than an established finding.
Louie French explicitly raised the question, arguing that Burnham’s public support for the owners could cause fans to wonder whether political influence was involved.
There is currently no evidence cited by the government or the Premier League showing that Burnham instructed, threatened or attempted to direct the independent commission.
Indeed, Downing Street has expressly said that the process must remain independent.
That does not mean the controversy is meaningless.
Prime ministers carry considerable political authority. When a prime minister comments publicly on an ongoing regulatory case, particularly one involving an institution with which the prime minister has longstanding regional connections, those remarks can attract scrutiny even if no formal intervention occurs.
The political question is therefore one of perception and boundaries as much as formal authority.
Manchester’s economic interests
There is also a legitimate economic dimension to Burnham’s argument.
Manchester City is not simply a football team in the conventional sense. Its ownership has been connected with substantial investment in the Etihad campus and the surrounding area.
Burnham’s concern about losing that investment therefore reflects his wider political interest in Manchester’s economic development.
But there is a counterargument.
Investment should not exempt an organisation from regulation.
The government itself has now made clear that economic contribution does not place Manchester City above Premier League rules.
That principle is important for the credibility of any regulatory system.
If rules are intended to apply equally to all clubs, their enforcement cannot depend on how valuable a club’s investors are to a particular city.
The Independent Football Regulator
Another important institution in the dispute is the Independent Football Regulator.
The regulator has powers relating to the suitability of club owners, directors and executives, and its leadership has stressed the importance of independence from political interference.
The Guardian reported that IFR chief executive David Kogan has made clear his concern about political pressure and that the regulator will consider the situation once the relevant proceedings have concluded.
This creates an important separation of responsibilities.
The government establishes the regulatory framework.
Football authorities apply competition rules.
Independent bodies deal with disciplinary and ownership questions.
The courts and appeal mechanisms provide further routes for challenging decisions.
The more clearly those responsibilities are separated, the easier it becomes to maintain public confidence.
What happens next?
Manchester City’s appeal is now the immediate focus.
The club has denied wrongdoing and is challenging the commission’s findings. The outcome of that appeal will determine how the case develops and what sanctions, if any, ultimately follow.
For Burnham, the political issue is more immediate.
He must demonstrate that his comments about Manchester City do not translate into government interference with an independent process.
The Number 10 clarification was clearly intended to make that position explicit.
At the same time, Burnham is unlikely to abandon his argument that Manchester City and its owners have played a major role in Manchester’s economic development.
Those two positions can coexist: a government can recognise an investor’s economic contribution while insisting that the investor remains subject to the rules.
The difficulty lies in communicating that distinction convincingly.
A controversy bigger than football
The Manchester City dispute has therefore become a political story as well as a sporting one.
It involves the Premier League, an independent commission, a globally significant football club, Abu Dhabi-linked ownership, Manchester’s economic development and a prime minister who spent years leading the city region.
Burnham’s statement that he would be “really concerned” to lose the owners has created an obvious political vulnerability, particularly because the disciplinary process remains active.
But the available evidence does not establish that he has formally interfered with the case.
What is clear is that Downing Street has recognised the sensitivity of his remarks and moved to emphasise that Manchester City must face the same rules as every other club.
That distinction will matter as the appeal proceeds.
For Burnham, the safest political position is also the clearest one: Manchester City’s contribution to Manchester can be acknowledged, but the independent regulatory process must be allowed to determine the consequences of the commission’s findings.
The club has its appeal.
The regulators have their procedures.
And the government has to remain outside the decision-making process.
That is the line now being drawn by Number 10 — and the handling of this controversy will show how firmly that line is maintained.