Manchester City and the 115 charges: When English football stands at an unprecedented line

On the night of February 6, 2026, I sat in a small apartment in Incheon, my laptop screen glowing at two in the morning Korean time. A notification from the Premier League had just dropped like an unstoppable long-range shot: Manchester City were charged with 115 breaches of financial regulations, stretching from 2026 to 2026. I read it three times. Not because I didn't believe it — but because I knew this moment would reshape how we understand power in modern football.

Three years later, the story still has no ending. And that is precisely the problem.

I am not writing this to predict how many points City will be deducted. I am writing to point out that the right question is not "how much will they be punished" but "does English football have the institutional capacity to enforce the punishment it has declared it may apply."

CONTEXT: WHAT IS CERTAIN

Let's start with what is real, not what is sensational. The Premier League issued an official statement. In it, they confirmed the case would be heard by an independent commission, and that commission holds "wide discretion" in determining sanctions. The statement also referenced a "non-exhaustive list of sanctions" — meaning that beyond fines and points deductions, the commission could devise any form of punishment it deems appropriate.

This is the most important detail, and also the most overlooked in the coverage.

When a governing body writes that its list of sanctions is "non-exhaustive," it is doing two things at once. First, it is protecting its own authority against any claim of "exceeding jurisdiction." Second, it is sending a signal to all parties that no scenario is excluded in advance. That is deliberate legal language, not the language of hesitation.

But at the same time, the Premier League itself acknowledges that nobody knows what the final punishment will be. They state clearly: the decision belongs to a separate procedure, made by an appointed commission. In other words, the very body bringing the charges does not control the outcome. That is a legal structure deliberately separating "prosecution" from "adjudication" — a fundamental principle of the rule of law, applied to football.

So why has the story become so tense?

Because a journalist — Ben Jacobs — has made claims about "unprecedented punishment." According to that framing, the worst-case scenario could include Manchester City being excluded from professional football entirely. And according to Jacobs, the English Football League (EFL) — the body governing the divisions below the Premier League — is reportedly prepared to block City from entering their system if the club is pushed down.

That is a shocking claim. And it is also the only claim in the entire story that comes from a single source.

CORE: THE STRUCTURE OF A SYSTEM

To understand why the "erasure" scenario is so frightening, you need to understand the structure of English football. It is a pyramid unlike any other in the world.

England's fourth tier — League Two — is a professional division. The fifth tier — the National League — is the highest semi-professional league. That means if a club is expelled from the Premier League and then blocked from the EFL, it would fall straight into the National League — where players still need second jobs to make a living. And if it is blocked from the National League too, that club would vanish from the professional football map.

That is why the original Goal.com headline used the phrase "erase its name for good."

But wait. Before you get swept up in that scenario, look at what has actually happened in recent history.

Everton were deducted 10 points for breaching the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). After appeal, that was reduced to 6. Nottingham Forest were deducted 4 points. Juventus — in a comparable case in Serie A — were deducted 10 points and excluded from European competition for one season. All of these punishments were shocking. But none of them was "erasure" in the literal sense.

So what makes the City case different?

There are three factors.

First, the scale of the charges. 115 breaches stretching across nearly a decade is an unprecedented number in English football history. For comparison, Everton were charged with a single breach. City face 115.

Second, the nature of the charges. One of the top charges concerns the contract of Roberto Mancini — City's former manager from 2026 to 2026. Specifically, the allegation is that City concealed payments to Mancini through an overseas company, in order to avoid financial obligations and league regulations. This is the category known as "fictitious sums" — and historically, breaches of this type have attracted heavier sporting penalties than pure accounting breaches.

Third, the concentration of power. Manchester City are not just a club. They are an empire. They have won the Premier League 8 times in the last 13 seasons as of this writing. They have commercial revenue among the highest in the world. They have a global network of affiliated clubs. A punishment against them is not just a matter for one club — it is a matter for an entire system of power.

And here is the point I want to emphasize: the real story is not how much City will be punished, but whether the Premier League has the institutional capacity to enforce the punishment it has declared it may apply.

Think about this seriously. An independent commission with "wide discretion." A "non-exhaustive" list of sanctions. An appeal process with a specific deadline. All of these elements create a system in which the final punishment cannot be predicted in advance — not because the system is weak, but because it is designed to be flexible.

But that flexibility is also its greatest weakness. Because when you declare that you can do anything, you raise the question: do you actually dare to do it?

Based on my experience watching matches and governance cases over 16 years, I have seen a recurring pattern: governing bodies tend to prefer sanctions they can defend on appeal. They dislike sanctions that could be overturned on procedural or proportionality grounds. And in this case, excluding City from professional football entirely would be an extraordinarily difficult sanction to defend.

Why?

Because it raises the question of proportionality. If Everton were deducted 6 points for one breach, how many points should 115 breaches warrant? 600 points? That is a meaningless number in sporting terms. And if the punishment cannot be expressed as a points total, it must be expressed as exclusion. But total exclusion from professional football is a sanction with no precedent in England — and courts are typically reluctant to uphold unprecedented sanctions.

That is why I believe the central scenario — not the worst-case scenario — is the most likely outcome.

What is the central scenario? A substantial sporting sanction — possibly a large points deduction, possibly a large fine, possibly transfer restrictions — imposed by the independent commission, followed by a lengthy appeal process. It is the scenario both sides can survive. It is the scenario the Premier League can defend. And it is the scenario City can appeal without being seen as trying to overturn the entire system.

But of course, I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, I want you to know exactly where I am wrong.

CONTRARIAN: WHERE I MIGHT BE WRONG

I was wrong at the Russia World Cup, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. In 2026, I predicted South Korea would lose to Germany. They won 2-0. The lesson I took was not "don't predict" — it was "state clearly where you might be wrong."

So where might I be wrong here?

The biggest weakness in my argument is the assumption that governing bodies always act rationally and cautiously. But history shows the opposite. Governing bodies sometimes act under political pressure, under public pressure, or under pressure from rival clubs. And in this case, pressure from rival clubs on City is enormous.

Look at the reality: many Premier League clubs believe City achieved their success through unfair investment. They believe City's dominance is the result of breaking rules that other clubs must follow. If the independent commission delivers a light — or even a moderate — sanction, the Premier League could face a crisis of confidence from its own members.

That is why the "solidarity" claim about the EFL matters so much. If the EFL really is prepared to block City from entering their system, it means the pressure is not coming only from the Premier League — it is coming from the entire English football system. And if the pressure comes from the entire system, the likelihood of the harshest sanction being applied rises significantly.

But I still maintain that the "EFL solidarity" claim is the least substantiated element in the whole story. Why? Because it requires coordination between separate governing bodies — the Premier League, the EFL, and possibly the FA — in a manner that has no precedent. And it requires a specific legal basis for one league to refuse a club's right of entry.

That is why I say this is a story about an ongoing process, not about a predetermined outcome.

An empty stadium is the most honest mirror football has ever had. With no crowd, you are left with the structure of the match — and the structure of the match does not care about your emotions. In this case, the structure of the legal process is the same. It does not care whether you want City punished or not. It only cares whether the punishment can be legally defended.

And that is why I believe the worst-case scenario — excluding City from professional football entirely — is a tail risk, not the base case. It could happen. But it is far less likely than the headlines suggest.

But there is another aspect of the story I want you to think about. The data aspect.

Data whispers while the whole stadium is screaming. I learned to listen.

In this case, what does the data tell us? It tells us there is no data. No revenue figures, no wage figures, no debt figures. All we have is an official statement, a list of possible sanctions, and an appeal deadline. That is all. Everything else — every prediction about points deductions, every scenario about exclusion from leagues, every speculation about City's future — is conjecture.

And that is why I want to end this article with a warning about the danger of letting headlines drive your thinking.

TAKEAWAY: WHAT I PREDICT

I predict the independent commission will deliver a substantial sporting sanction — possibly a large points deduction, possibly a combination of points deduction and fine — but will not apply total exclusion from professional football. I predict City will appeal, and the appeal process will last at least a season. And I predict that whatever the final outcome, it will set a new precedent for how English football handles financial breaches by major clubs.

If I am wrong, I will write about it. Not to apologize, but to understand why I was wrong. Because in football, the only certainty is that I will speak up.

But there is one thing I am certain about: the Manchester City story is not a story about a club. It is a story about a system asking itself whether it has the courage to enforce what it has declared.

And the answer to that question will shape English football for decades to come.

One last thing. When I watch matches in the K League — where I live and work — I notice something interesting. Korean clubs tend to comply with financial rules more seriously than European clubs. Not because they fear punishment more, but because they understand that financial stability is a precondition for sustainable growth. It is a lesson English football could learn from.

But that is another story. And I will write about it another day.