The Telegraph has this to say in an email this morning:
Andy Burnham's first three months in Downing Street have been, by and large, smooth sailing. He has now hit his first proper, full-blown diplomatic crisis. Oddly enough, it has come as a result of bad behaviour in the game he loves: football.
As we report, Abu Dhabi is threatening to pull the plug on billions of pounds of investment in Britain. All because the Premier League has found Manchester City guilty of breaking financial rules.
The problem for the Prime Minister is Manchester City is owned by Sheikh Mansour, who also happens to be the United Arab Emirates' vice-president, while Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the club's chairman, is also chief executive of one of Abu Dhabi's largest wealth funds.
Correspondence obtained by The Telegraph under freedom of information laws shows that Britain has been courting Abu Dhabi for funding, not least for a hi-tech corridor between Oxford and Cambridge that is being vaunted as this country's answer to Silicon Valley.
The email is free to anyone, so I have copied it on that basis, and becasue this issue matters.
As I noted earlier this week, the issues raised as a consequence of the findings, now confirmed by the Premier League that Manchester City is guilty on all the charges it raised against it, subject to their appeal, are absolutely fundamental to the questions that we need to ask about how this country is governed.
If Manchester City did not play on the level playing field that the rules of the Premier League were intended to create, what we will know is that we are living in a world of decidedly unfree markets where the power of money creates a situation where those who can command it can create control, and so additional rewards for themselves, at cost to everyone else.
If it was additional funding that was inappropriately disclosed, as the Premier League allege, that provided Manchester City with the opportunity to win so many trophies whilst dominating football in this country, and in the most viewed league in the world, and there is no appropriate penalty imposed which reflects the severity of the allegations raised, then we can only abandon the concept of sport, but we can also abandon the concept of competition, markets, and even a free society.
If it transpires that we are living in a new Gilded Age, where those with access to funds can have what they desire untrammelled by the rules that have been created to enable all to participate, then the last hopes that we have for justice will disappear, because we will know there is none.
This might sound melodramatic, but in truth, I think I seriously understate my case.
I note the threats that have been raised, to which the Telegraph refers. They are what people possessed of money beyond any reasonable need, which provides them with power beyond that which any person should reasonably possess, resort to. Threat is the ultimate bargaining chip that money enables, and it is unsurprising to see it might be used.
I have a simple response, but it is the only one that is tenable. What this government, this country and our society, as well as football, must say is:
“Take your threats and your money elsewhere. We do not need them here. We do not want them here. We believe in opportunity, fairness, justice, openness and accountability. We think those are the characteristics on which real wealth is created.
And what is more, we understand that if there is opportunity in this country which requires funding, then our government can create the funds in question to put the resources that can create those outcomes to use because, as Lord Keynes once said, anything we can do, we can afford.”
Am I expecting to hear those words from Andy Burnham? I would love to answer that question affirmatively, but I very much doubt I can. I expect deals, backroom discussions, and appeals to be made for moderation to the Premier League, with Manchester City being punished enough to prevent it from winning the title this year, but nothing more.
But if that is what happens, expect consequences. Expect every club that has not achieved the outcomes that they would wish for in the Premier League, and that has been beaten by Manchester City on the way, resulting, most especially, in their relegation and loss of profits, to sue the Premier League as a consequence.
Expect, too, that the crowds will turn away. There is no entertainment when the fear of match-fixing exists.
Expect also the international crowds who spend small fortunes on subscriptions to watch the Premier League to look elsewhere.
Expect, too, that international competitions will review participation by English clubs.
For football, this is not an issue that is resolved by being lenient to Manchester City.
For the wider country, and for the world at large, the same is also true.
We are at a moment when the world can pivot. We can move towards economic, social and sporting justice, or we can undermine it.
The question is, what will Andy Burnham do?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
In this case there should be serious penalties for Manchester City. If the Premier League, Burnham, and the government, yield to lawfare and threats to disinvest then it’s game over. As you say, there is no point in sport and it’s an acknowledgement that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
But if the authorities are weak what will the players and fans do? The fans will boo (at the least 😉 ) City at every match. It won’t be pleasant for City players or City fans. The players will likely leave; who would want to have their career tainted and play for a club that is universally hated? Even City fans are likely to slowly realise that they have been duped. One way or another I don’t think City can continue, at least not under current ownership. This may be a rare case in which the people do have a say.
I am afraid I don’t agree with Tim Kent. I think you don’t understand football fans. Most Manchester City fans will refuse to believe that their club did anything wrong, or, if they did it was no different from what other clubs have dome (Chelsea, Everton etc). In that they are a bit like Reform supporters who really don’t se that their political company has done anything different from what other political parties have done.
As for the players, they have very little real say in where they play. That is sorted by their agents and has a lot more to do with money than with anything else. Evidenced by Tonelli’s decision to leave Newcastle and play for Spurs.
Sorry to be negative.
I think there are two issues here. One is that too much wealth brings power and accordingly corruption. The government is unconcerned about the ultra-wealthy wielding power , they think they are the people to create wealth. Thats one reason Jim O’Neil was an ‘economic’ advisor to Burnham – and he has followed his advice to remove the triple lock for pensions. A very affluent person influencing policy. The other issue is that Burnham is shall we say obsessed by football. That may not matter if you are an ordinary member of the public, but if you end up being the mayor of a city area where a major club is located and then become Prime Minister it is totally different. You need to step aside from your personal interest otherwise you are undermining the rule of law and democracy. But are we surprised by Mr Burnhams attitude? No not really its one of his fundamental flaws.
Of interest.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2026/1003/1593864-comment-analysis-manchester-city-burnham/
This could be a nice way of demonstrating to the public how wealth inequality is distorting our politics and culture. One of my minimum wage reform voting colleagues has already expressed that this is because “some people just have too much money”.
True
The Premier League is a deeply questionable enterprise. It is a vehicle for wealth extraction and “sportswashing”. I lost interest in it a while ago.
A fine opportunity to show that the the governing of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in the hands of the democratically elected government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and NOBODY ELSE!
Oh, look…a Tamworth doing loops!
The UK under Andy Burnham is now an international pariah. Ian Proud, the Peacemonger, was arrested by five UK Counter-Terrorism police on arrival at Heathrow following a visit to the Valdai discussion club in Moscow. He was searched, interrogated for 3 hours, and had all his electronic devices taken. Ian was a UK diplomat for 30 years. He now dedicates his time to peace. Why do we allow this sort of behaviour, and on whose behalf was this done? As if we don’t know!
I’m not interested in football but I have a friend who is an ardent City supporter. I asked Brave browser AI generated query about supporters’ responses:
Manchester City fans have reacted to the independent commission’s finding that the club committed majority of 115 financial rule breaches with a mix of shock, denial, and anger, largely directed at the club’s ownership rather than the team itself.
Emotional Dissonance: Many supporters feel “gaslit” after years of assurances from owners like Khaldoon Al Mubarak and CEO Ferran Soriano, leading to a sense that their cherished memories of trophies and success are now “profoundly compromised.”
Directing Anger: Commentators and fans argue that supporters should direct their anger at the owners (Abu Dhabi United Group) rather than the club or players, viewing the fanbase as victims of the ownership’s deception and “sham” commercial arrangements.
Loyalty vs. Reality: While some fans remain bullish and plan to support the club through its appeal, others express “shock and stunned” disbelief, with some fearing relegation or title stripping and noting that the club’s actions have “vandalised” the emotional connection between the fans and the institution.
Calls for Punishment: There is growing support among the fanbase for severe sanctions, including points deductions or expulsion, with some arguing that the club’s “egregious acts of non-cooperation” justify the harshest possible penalties to restore integrity to English football.
I have used your blog post as the basis for an email to my (Tory) MP asking him to raise the issue in Parliament.
Why do we need foreign funding to build something in our country with our resources and to benefit our economy?
We do not. Our government seems to not know that.