One of Manchester City’s key defences in their appeal against the Premier League has been contradicted by title sponsor Etihad Airways.City will argue commercial revenue totalling £830million was paid by the Abu Dhabi Government.Man City’s 61,000-capacity stadium is named after principal sponsor Etihad AirwaysPAThe independent Commission concluded Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) instead made the payments over a nine-year period spanning from 2009 to 2018.City are therefore guilty of disguising equity as commercial revenue, but have lodged an appeal.City also maintain Abu Dhabi government funding is within the Premier League rules because Etihad, and fellow sponsor Etisalat, are State-controlled.Yet the club’s arguments are undermined by Etihad as well as Man City’s own arguments to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in July 2020.Evidence that undermines Man City’s defenceIn 2015, the ‘Partnership for Open and Fair Skies’ – a lobbying coalition formed by American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines – wrote to the US departments of Commerce, Transportation and State, arguing Etihad gained a competitive advantage due to receiving huge sums from the Abu Dhabi Government.A 2010 internal report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahya, is cited, which does indeed claim the Abu Dhabi Government, or ‘Executive Council’ as it is phrased, did cover the sponsorship of Manchester City. City may be able to use this to their advantage in their appeal.Yet Etihad’s response was to flatly deny any government funding in relation to their deal with Manchester City.“The assertion that the Abu Dhabi Government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false,” Etihad argued. “In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues…City won three Premier League titles during the nine-year period in which their offences took placeGetty“We are government-owned and have been since our founding. We are and have always been clear that we do not receive any subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, and that we are financed through a combination of equity, shareholder and commercial loans.“Our shareholders’ equity and loans are not subsidies under any applicable definition; they are the means by which the Abu Dhabi government has sensibly invested in a successful business model.”Etihad’s comments go firmly against City’s argument, as stated in the verdict, that ‘AD Sponsors had from time to time applied for financial assistance from the AD Government towards their liability to pay the Recorded Sponsorship Fees.’Due to redacted names, multiple sponsors being involved, and the phrase ‘from time to time’, City could make a case for other sponsors, but Etihad’s on-record denial doesn’t help the club’s position, according to multiple legal sources talkSPORT has spoken to.Man City sources do not believe Etihad’s statement undermines their appeal. They will argue Etihad got funding from the Crown Prince Court for the purpose of promoting Abu Dhabi and that this became part of the airline’s liquidity.Etihad Airways made a statement in 2015 that undermines Man City’s current appealGettyHowever, City have also changed their argument made to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2020.A CAS witness statement from former Etihad chief executive James Hogan makes clear, “Neither [Sheikh Mansour] nor his private investment vehicle ADUG, nor any entity on their behalf, has funded or reimbursed the sponsorship obligations of Etihad under the sponsorship agreements. The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds.”Man City maintains a “firm position, on multiple grounds, [that] the opinion contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. “The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions, relating to this case.”However, the fact that their title sponsor refutes one of their leading arguments, and the club offered a different explanation to CAS in successfully overturning their UEFA charges, all provide clear inconsistencies.The independent Panel, which considered the explanation that so-called ‘sham’ commercial deals were paid by the Abu Dhabi Government, not ADUG, concluded the argument was “concocted well after the event”.