Andy Burnham has pledged to publish all of his dealings with Manchester City during his time as Manchester mayor after saying he would be “really concerned” if the club’s owners had to sell up.
Downing Street issued two clarifications on Mr Burnham’s position, prompting calls from politicians to come clean and publish all meetings with people at City.
The Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch, was asked by GB News whether the Prime Minister should share what he discussed with City officials.
She said: “He should. I’m surprised he hasn’t done that already.”
When asked what specifically, Mrs Badenoch said: “Everything. The Freedom of Information requests should get those things out. Otherwise, what’s being hidden?
“I think that the comments he made showed that he still thinks he is the mayor of Manchester. He is not acting like the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.”
Lee Anderson, chairman of Reform UK, told the People’s Channel the Prime Minister needs to detail what was said in the meetings with City’s owners.
He said: “It’s important that our Prime Minister is open and transparent.
“I’m a huge football fan and facts are facts, Manchester City have cheated their way to success; therefore, Burnham should publish all the details of his meetings with the owners.
“Our beautiful game must not be held to ransom by people from the highest bidder.”
Mr Burnham has now responded, saying he will “put out there” everything he had done to work with the club’s owners as mayor.
“The football issues are different from the investment issues,” the Prime Minister told the Rest is Politics.
“But I see now people trying to conflate these things. I’ve been asked by the leader of the opposition to publish details of my meetings, which I’m happy to do.
“I will quite clearly put out there everything that I have done working with them in my previous role as mayor of Greater Manchester.
“None of it is recent, actually, in terms of the meetings I had. I only had one significant meeting, actually, and that was in 2021. That is right, and I will put that all out there.
“But the football issues, they are serious and have to be dealt with, and the process is independent, and it has to run its course. But I think everybody should separate the investment issues because they’re not the same thing.”
City were found guilty on September 25 by an independent commission over allegations covering the 2009-10 to 2017-18 seasons.
It found the club had breached financial rules, including through sponsorship arrangements it described as part of a “disguised funding scheme”.
The Citizens confirmed it had lodged an appeal on October 1, writing that its “firm position is that, on multiple grounds, the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”.
A separate Appeal Board will consider its appeal under Premier League rules.
The rules require a hearing within 12 weeks of lodging an appeal, but the final timetable and outcome remain uncertain.
Any question of punishment is being handled separately.
Andy Burnham to Publish All Dealings with Man City During His Time as Manchester Mayor
Andy Burnham has pledged to publish details of his dealings with Manchester City during his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, following growing political pressure over his relationship with the club’s owners and his response to a major ruling concerning the Premier League side’s finances.
The announcement has placed the spotlight on a relationship that was previously discussed largely in the context of Manchester’s economic development and the football club’s contribution to the city. Now, with Manchester City appealing an independent commission’s findings over alleged financial-rule breaches, Burnham’s past contacts with the club and its Abu Dhabi-linked ownership have become a matter of wider political debate.
The Prime Minister has said he is willing to disclose what he did while working with the club in his former mayoral role. The pledge follows calls from opposition politicians for greater transparency about meetings, communications and any hospitality he may have received.
The issue presents Burnham with a difficult communications challenge: explaining his support for investment in Manchester while making clear that the football club must be held to the rules governing the sport.
Why Burnham is facing questions
The controversy intensified after Burnham expressed concern that Manchester City’s Abu Dhabi-linked owners might sell the club following the commission’s findings. He described their investment as a major part of Manchester’s transformation, crediting them with helping build the modern city and turning the club into a global sporting force.
Those comments drew criticism because they came after a ruling that placed the club’s financial conduct under intense scrutiny. Critics argued that the Prime Minister needed to make clear that his appreciation of the investment brought to Manchester would not influence his approach to football regulation.
Burnham has defended the distinction between the two issues. He argues that the investment relationship between Manchester and the club’s owners is separate from the question of whether Manchester City breached Premier League rules. He has also said that the independent process must be allowed to run its course.
That distinction is central to his defence. A football club can make a significant contribution to a city’s economy while still being required to answer questions about its conduct. Equally, scrutiny of a club’s finances does not automatically mean that every aspect of its investment in a region should be dismissed.
The political challenge is ensuring that both principles are respected without creating the impression that powerful investors receive special treatment.
Kemi Badenoch demands transparency
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called on Burnham to publish everything relating to his dealings with Manchester City during his time as mayor. Her demand reflects a broader question about the transparency expected of public officials when they have established relationships with major commercial organisations.
The Liberal Democrats have also sought information about meetings between Burnham and the club’s owners, as well as any hospitality he may have received at the Etihad Stadium. Their concerns focus on whether the public can establish the extent of his contacts and whether those relationships were properly disclosed under the relevant rules.
The requests do not, by themselves, demonstrate that Burnham acted improperly. They do, however, show why publishing a clear record could be politically important.
A comprehensive disclosure could help establish when meetings occurred, who attended them, what subjects were discussed and whether any hospitality was provided. If documents are incomplete or certain information cannot be released, explaining those limitations would also matter.
For the government, the issue is not simply whether Burnham has promised to publish information. It is whether the eventual disclosure is sufficiently clear and comprehensive to answer the questions that prompted the controversy.
What could the disclosure reveal?
Burnham has indicated that he will publish details of his work with Manchester City and its owners during his mayoral tenure. He said that his meetings were not recent and identified one significant meeting in 2021.
The records could provide a clearer picture of how the mayor’s office worked with the club and its ownership during a period when Manchester City had become a major international sporting brand.
They may also help distinguish between contacts relating to football matters and discussions about investment, regeneration, employment or the wider Manchester economy. These are not necessarily the same conversations, even when they involve representatives of the same organisation.
However, the scope of the promised disclosure will be important. Opposition figures have called for details extending beyond formal meetings, including correspondence with Manchester City Football Group, Abu Dhabi United Group and relevant representatives of the United Arab Emirates. Questions have also been raised about hospitality and whether further information should cover contacts made since Burnham became Prime Minister.
Burnham’s initial pledge specifically concerns his previous role as mayor. Whether the eventual publication also addresses every contact since he entered Downing Street remains a separate question raised by critics.
Manchester City’s financial case remains unresolved
The controversy surrounding Burnham is unfolding against the backdrop of a major dispute over Manchester City’s financial conduct.
An independent Premier League commission found the club guilty of breaches relating to its financial reporting and commercial arrangements between 2009 and 2018. The findings included arrangements described as sham sponsorship deals, which the commission concluded formed part of a scheme involving disguised funding. Manchester City has denied wrongdoing and challenged the decision, arguing that the commission’s conclusions contain material errors.
The distinction between a commission’s findings and the club’s appeal is important. The ruling is a serious development, but the club disputes the conclusions and is pursuing the available process to challenge them. The final consequences will depend on the relevant proceedings and decisions.
Burnham has said the football issues must be dealt with independently. That position will be tested by how he responds to questions about the club and how clearly he avoids any appearance of intervening in the regulatory process.
As Prime Minister, he must also consider the wider public interest in ensuring that sporting rules are applied consistently. The government’s position cannot be determined solely by the economic value of an organisation or the influence of its owners.
The wider question of political influence
The case has implications beyond Manchester City itself. Major sporting organisations can be significant economic partners, attracting visitors, investment, jobs and international attention. Governments and local authorities routinely work with such organisations on development projects and public events.
Yet close cooperation can create difficult questions when a partner becomes embroiled in a serious regulatory dispute. Public officials must be able to explain their relationships with those organisations and demonstrate that their decisions are based on proper considerations rather than personal loyalty or commercial pressure.
Burnham’s long association with Manchester and its football culture gives the story a particularly local dimension. His supporters may argue that acknowledging the club’s contribution to the city is compatible with insisting that the rules be followed. His critics may contend that his public defence of the owners risked sending the wrong message at a sensitive moment.
Neither interpretation removes the need for a transparent account of his dealings. The relevant evidence will be the documents, disclosures and explanations he provides, rather than assumptions about his motives.
The controversy also raises a broader question about how the government should engage with foreign-backed investment. Economic cooperation can bring benefits, but those benefits do not eliminate the need for accountability. Equally, a regulatory dispute involving one organisation should be handled through established procedures rather than political pressure.
A test of credibility for the Prime Minister
Burnham’s promise to release the details gives him an opportunity to address the questions directly. Publishing a clear record could help separate legitimate cooperation with a major local institution from the unresolved questions surrounding its financial conduct.
The next stage will be the actual disclosure. Its timing, scope and level of detail will determine whether it satisfies the demands for transparency or generates further questions about omitted information and the boundaries of the review.
For Badenoch and other opposition figures, the issue is likely to remain a test of the Prime Minister’s accountability. For Burnham, the priority will be explaining his past dealings without undermining the independence of the football disciplinary process. Manchester City, meanwhile, continues to dispute the findings against it.
Ultimately, the promise to publish the records is a commitment to transparency, not a verdict on Burnham’s conduct. The disclosure should allow the public to assess the available evidence for themselves.
The central question is straightforward: can a political leader acknowledge the contribution of a major investor while demonstrating that no organisation is above the rules? Burnham says the investment relationship and the football case must be treated separately. Whether his forthcoming disclosures convince critics that he has maintained that distinction will depend on what the records show.