Over three years have passed since the Premier League formally charged Manchester City with numerous breaches of its financial rules, yet a verdict remains elusive. The charges, which the club vehemently denies, relate primarily to alleged actions taken to circumvent financial regulation, including false accounting, making off-book payments, and failing to cooperate with investigators. Depending on the outcome, City could face severe sanctions ranging from fines and points deductions to being stripped of titles or even expulsion from the league. Furthermore, rival clubs might seek compensation for lost revenue through the league's arbitration process, potentially requiring City to pay damages.

The protracted nature of this case has drawn significant criticism. Stefan Borson, Head of Sport at McCarthy Denning, notes that similar commercial cases typically reach decisions much faster, emphasizing an urgent need for progress. The entire process is shrouded in secrecy, partly due to Premier League rules allowing confidential hearings and partly due to British legal safeguards. The investigation itself, which commenced in December 2018 following the 'Football Leaks' documents published by Der Spiegel, was only publicly confirmed in March 2021 after a High Court ruling against City's attempt to block investigators' access to documents. Similarly, the confidential hearings, held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, were known to have started in September 2024 and concluded in December 2024 only through leaks and public statements, including Manchester City's 2024-25 Annual Report and comments from coach Pep Guardiola.

Speculation abounds regarding the reasons for the prolonged delay in issuing a verdict, more than a year after the hearings concluded. One primary factor is the sheer complexity and scale of the case. While often referred to as the '115 charges,' multiple reports suggest the actual number of individual rule breaches could be as high as 130, with some potentially overlapping or new charges (like failure to cooperate) added. Each alleged breach requires individual proof with specific evidence. Moreover, many charges imply deliberate intent to mislead regulators and obstruct investigations, significantly raising the burden of proof beyond simply breaching spending regulations to proving intentional cover-ups and knowing withholding of evidence.

Another contributing factor is the necessity for the independent panel to issue comprehensive 'written reasons' detailing their conclusions. These detailed explanations are crucial because they would form the basis for any potential appeal, either by Manchester City or the Premier League, and therefore must be meticulously crafted to withstand intense scrutiny. It is also highly probable that the three members of the independent commission are not working on this case full-time. These senior legal and financial experts likely have demanding day jobs and other commitments, suggesting that deliberations have to be scheduled around their existing calendars, proving more complex and time-consuming than initially anticipated.

A remote, yet intriguing, explanation for the delay is the possibility of ongoing settlement negotiations between the Premier League and Manchester City, separate from the arbitration proceedings. Such a deal, though highly unlikely given the difficulty in achieving consensus among all 20 member clubs and the notorious 'leakiness' of club information, could offer closure to the league. It would likely involve City admitting some wrongdoing and accepting a significant punishment (e.g., a massive fine or vacated titles), while rival clubs drop damage claims. This scenario might involve shifting blame to former club employees, arguing that City's owners were unaware. While improbable, it would explain the prolonged deliberation period and help the Premier League avoid further lengthy appeals processes, which are almost certainly guaranteed once a verdict is announced.

The handling of the case has not only been slow but also