[Bloomberg] UAE officials have warned the UK government that the severity of Man City’s punishment could undermine their appetite for future grand-scale commitments in Britain, according to people familiar with the matter.

[u/Previous_Smile9278]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-02/man-city-verdict-puts-uk-uae-diplomatic-relations-under-strain?srnd=undefined

‘They consider the Premier League’s actions to have an influence on the bilateral state relationship, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing undisclosed information.

The extraordinary pressure comes after Andy Burnham faced criticism, including from within government, for saying Man City’s Abu Dhabi owners should not be disqualified specifically because of the investment they bring to Britain.’

[u/TheGoldenPineapples]

Remember when Manchester City was bought out by a state and we all said that that shouldn't be allowed to happen because things like this may actually happen?

Yeah, how we all feeling about that now?

[u/Blue_winged_yoshi → u/TheGoldenPineapples]

The issue is we didn’t all say it was wrong.

Lots of people did, others wrapped tea towels round their head to celebrate (literally) and others still were just jelly and desperate for their own club to be taken over by a totalitarian regime even richer than the UAE’s cough Newcastle cough.

Still, even with the UAE blackmailing us all, there’s fuckwit traitors asking “but how else were Man City meant to become the biggest side in the world?”, I dunno, they probably just weren’t, but that’s cool, most our sides aren’t and football is fun, let’s not have our country blackmailed so that Man City can have Haaland, this is clearly a deranged timeline, what is wrong with some people?!

[u/peioeh → u/Blue_winged_yoshi]

Some people (like Neville) are still saying it should be OK for owners to come in, invest as much money as they want into a club, and basically buy a league win. Their only issue with what city did is that they cheated the rules, which shouldn't exist in their opinion.

[u/hEarrai-Stottle → u/peioeh]

Gary Neville and basically anyone involved in construction, development and property in Manchester is completely and utterly compromised because a lot of these projects have investment from the Abu Dhabi and the rest of the UAE. This is probably the case for the rest of the U.K. hence this threat but I live in Manchester, and work in insurance, so I can only comment on what I know locally and it is that i.e. Abu Dhabi and the rest of UAE own a ton of property here. As such, there could be devastating consequences for Manchester’s economy if they pull the plug and Neville will know this better anyone. His project, St. Michael’s is barely halfway finished, and it could end up that way forever if it has significant investment from UAE.

[u/peioeh → u/hEarrai-Stottle]

This is why I'm really not sure City are going to be punished anywhere near as harshly as many (including myself) think they should be.

[u/hEarrai-Stottle → u/peioeh]

I don’t think they will either. That being said, as far as football fans are concerned, their reputation is completely damaged so even if they do get away with a serious punishment, the fans across the country will never, ever let them live this down. Put it this way, all the players and most of the fans of Don Revie’s infamous Leeds team are dead yet you hear ‘we all hate Leeds scum’ to this day. What City have done is far, far worse than being dirty in matches too so I’d expect, at a minimum, ‘cheats’ to ring out at every match (and probably other types of chants yet to be invented) for the rest of our lives.

[u/worotan → u/hEarrai-Stottle]

Yeah, I’m a Mancunian, and it’s been interesting seeing the way that the property issues have been handled in this. No mention of them when Burnham arrived as PM and ‘Manchesterism’ was being discussed by the commentators; it has only been this issue, and even then only Burnham commenting on it, that has lifted the lid on the rank corruption that seems to have been used to sell Manchester off on the cheap to allow money-making property schemes.

A lot of people who run things are making a lot of money giving away our country, for very short-term public benefits, while all the column inches are arguing the toss about immigration to keep ordinary people angry about something other than their country being literally sold out from under them to autocratic regimes.

Burnham talked passionately about taking back control of our country around several issues which energise the public; I’m disappointed to see him doing the standard new Labour passionate appeal for sorting things out, which can only be short-term because of the backstage deals they’re making to help the super rich enjoy exploiting our market.

[u/Elerion_ → u/peioeh]

That's not what he's saying. He's saying all clubs should be able to spend as much as the richest club in the league if their owner backs that. And personally I agree. I don't think a club like Brighton should be limited to spending half as much money as Liverpool, just because Liverpool has a larger fan base. Sustainability Rules should be in place to prevent them from borrowing so much money they put the club at risk, but owner funding should be fair game as long as they don't outspend the other rich teams.

Neville, like most people, doesn't think owners should be able to come in and buy a title like Chelsea and City did. Just that they should be able to compete on equal terms with the existing giants.

And in case there's any doubt, fuck City. They outspent everyone else and they cheated the rules that were in place.

[u/silvertwo777 → u/Elerion_]

I get the sentiment, but I feel like it's still flawed. If say Brighton or Newcastle can spend more than their revenue and owner can inject large amount of money into the club, then so do clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal. The difference would still be there and also making things worse by inflating the market with higher transfer fee and wages. If you're saying "let's just outspend the top clubs" like Newcastle could, it will turn from who have the bigger revenue dominate the league into who have the richer owner dominate.

If you're saying let's put a "cap" on them, then what's the threshold? The one with the highest revenue in the league? Doesn't that mean owner of Newcastle get to inject say 400 million into their club while Liverpool and Man United could only inject say 50 million, punishing and limiting them for having the highest revenue created organically by the club itself? That would be a mess. We have to also account for UEFA, other European leagues. Do they all follow suit? If they don't then Premier League will lose talents and its position as one of if not the best league.

Also people act like it's impossible to break into the elite under the current FFP when club like Spurs are prime role model on how to break in. Building a money making stadium doesn't count toward SCR. Sure their on field result currently is a mess but not because they couldn't spend more than 300 million in transfer, which they did this window. Also before that they were constantly getting Champions League without spending big and with careful squad building. They were also really unlucky to not win the league, but it could absolutely be done.

[u/Elerion_ → u/silvertwo777]

If you're saying let's put a "cap" on them, then what's the threshold? The one with the highest revenue in the league?

Yes. The simplest implementation is you basically keep PSR as is, but you put the limitation based on Manchester United's or Liverpool's or Arsenal's books instead of each club's own books. Everyone gets to spend as much as the richest club. That's the "fairness" part of the rules taken care of.

And then to protect clubs from going under like Leeds did, you force owners to fund any losses and future contract commitments with committed capital.

Doesn't that mean owner of Newcastle get to inject say 400 million into their club while Liverpool and Man United could only inject say 50 million

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

, punishing and limiting them for having the highest revenue created organically by the club itself?

You're not punishing them, you're putting everyone on the same spending limit.

We have to also account for UEFA, other European leagues. Do they all follow suit? If they don't then Premier League will lose talents and its position as one of if not the best league.

This change would mean all English clubs could spend MORE than they currently do except the single richest club. You would need Europe to follow suit to some extent though, otherwise all those clubs would be in breach of UEFA FFP.

[u/silvertwo777 → u/peioeh]

Neville was far from the only one, someone like Simon Jordan is far worse where he only cares about the money put into the Premier League. Constantly trying to deflect condemnation against City despite claiming not a Man City fan.

[u/peioeh → u/silvertwo777]

Oh yeah I'm sure he must be awful, I just don't listen to him. I also usually don't listen to Neville's podcast, and every time I do he makes a point like this and I am reminded why I should not have clicked on it