The FA says it is ready to act after Manchester City were found guilty in the Premier League's financial case, but it is not moving ahead of the appeal process. City have until Friday 2 October to submit an appeal, and that deadline is shaping the immediate response more than any fresh public statement. For now, the governing body is watching closely rather than stepping in early.
The FA, quoted by independent.co.uk, said it would "take action where appropriate" and "continue to monitor developments closely". That is a careful line, but a logical one. The governing body is acknowledging the scale of the verdict without pretending the process is finished.
The case itself relates to serious breaches of financial regulations between 2009 and 2018. Independent.co.uk also reported that the Independent Commission found City had created sham commercial contracts to inflate revenue and conceal costs by more than £900m over nine years.
The FA's position
The immediate point is that City have not reached the end of this process. The club are still in the appeal window, and the FA has avoided saying more than it needs to before that stage plays out.
That restraint matters here because the governing body is not being asked for a view on a minor disciplinary issue. It is reacting to a verdict with implications well beyond one competition. Even so, it has stopped short of announcing any action of its own.
On the pitch, City have opened the season with five straight league wins. They are top of the Premier League with 15 points and have scored 13 goals while conceding 5. They also won their opening Champions League match. None of that changes the case, but it does explain why the pressure around it is only going to build if the appeal drags on.
The wider fallout beyond football
The arguments around scale are not being framed in exactly the same way everywhere. Independent.co.uk reported the commission's finding as more than £900m concealed over nine years. SPORT1 described the issue as around one billion euros, while the Mirror reported that City claimed commercial income of £949.94 million across the nine seasons from 2009/10 to 2017/18, with only £119.25 million coming from sponsors.
Those figures should be treated carefully because they come from different reports and describe the issue in different terms. Still, they point in the same direction: this is not a case the authorities can brush off as a standard football dispute.
Meg Hillier, quoted in German by SPORT1, said: "I would welcome an assurance from HMRC that you are aware of the significance of these issues and the public interest in this case."
One report has already suggested tax authorities could examine whether the sham contracts affected income tax and social security contributions. That would widen the fallout beyond the Premier League and the FA, which is why the governing body's caution looks sensible even if supporters wanting instant clarity will find it unsatisfying.
City's appeal deadline is Friday 2 October, and the FA's line has not shifted before then: monitor the case, wait for the next legal step, then decide whether to act.
FAQ
What has the FA said about the Manchester City verdict?
The FA has said it will "take action where appropriate" and will "continue to monitor developments closely" after the guilty verdict. It has not announced any sanction of its own and is waiting for the appeal process to move forward before saying more.
When is Manchester City's appeal deadline after the verdict?
Manchester City have until Friday 2 October to submit an appeal. That deadline is central to the current situation because the FA is holding its position while the Premier League case and any appeal continue.
What period does the Manchester City financial case cover?
The Premier League case relates to serious breaches of financial regulations between 2009 and 2018. The Independent Commission's findings are the reason the FA has framed the matter as one with serious implications for the game.
Could the Manchester City case lead to HMRC scrutiny?
Possibly. One report said tax authorities could examine whether the sham contracts affected income tax and social security contributions. Meg Hillier, quoted in German by SPORT1, also called for assurance that HMRC understood the public interest in the case.
Written by Jack Mercer with AI-assisted research, cross-checked against 6 outlets. How we work →
