The Manchester City Case as Evidence of Global Mega-Rich Operating with Impunity
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathan-liew. "The Manchester City case shows us how the global mega-rich now expect to operate with impunity | Jonathan Liew | The Guardian." September 29, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Manchester City's alleged financial rule-breaking and its aggressive, threat-laden response to being investigated aren't just about football—they show how the ultra-rich and powerful (from Gulf states to tech billionaires) increasingly believe they can ignore rules and shared standards entirely because they have enough money and leverage to intimidate any authority. The author argues this case matters far beyond sport because it's a real test of whether rules still apply to the powerful in an era of weakening global institutions, and he hopes accountability wins.
Conclusion
The Manchester City financial fair play case demonstrates a broader, dangerous global trend: the ultra-wealthy and powerful (states, oligarchs, tech billionaires) increasingly believe they should face no meaningful checks on their power, and it is vital—for the rule of law itself—that they not succeed in escaping accountability.
Premises
- City's leaked communications and legal strategy (threatening UEFA with destruction, hiring armies of lawyers, calling majority-rule governance 'tyranny of the majority') reveal an approach designed to discredit the very legitimacy of regulation rather than comply with it.
- The case has escalated beyond football into diplomacy, with UAE officials reportedly warning that an adverse verdict could jeopardize billions in Emirati investment in the UK, showing how private wealth can leverage geopolitical power to influence supposedly independent legal/sporting processes.
- City is majority-owned by a senior UAE royal, and the UAE itself has been implicated by the UN and Human Rights Watch in arms embargo violations and human rights abuses, linking the club's conduct to a broader pattern of impunity by its owning state.
- This case is not isolated: it reflects a wider trend across football (Newcastle/Saudi Arabia, private equity ownership) and beyond (Bezos, Musk, Netanyahu, Trump) of extremely powerful individuals and entities treating politics, business, sport, and culture as domains to be dominated by leverage rather than governed by shared rules.
- This pattern occurs against a backdrop of weakened global institutions and alliances (a 'neutered' UN, fraying transnational cooperation), making it easier for concentrated power/wealth to override collective rules.
- The full logical endpoint of City's regulatory-delegitimizing arguments is a world with no legitimate checks on power, where only leverage and power determine outcomes—an outcome the author frames as normatively unacceptable.
Assumptions
- That leaked communications and legal rhetoric accurately represent the club's/owner's genuine institutional attitude rather than just aggressive but standard legal advocacy.
- That regulatory bodies like UEFA and the Premier League are (or should be treated as) legitimate arbiters whose authority deserves deference, despite the article itself noting they were historically designed partly to protect incumbent wealth.
- That the interests of the UAE state and the interests of Manchester City ownership/management are essentially aligned and interchangeable.
- That a shared, universal 'set of values and rules' meaningfully exists or existed prior to this erosion, rather than always having been contested or unevenly applied.
- That the specific case of City's financial charges is representative of a broader pattern rather than an idiosyncratic dispute over accounting rules.
- That preventing City (and by extension, similar powerful actors) from 'succeeding' in this case would meaningfully reinforce rule-of-law norms globally, rather than being a largely symbolic or contained football-governance outcome.