Chelsea have been handed a £10million ($13.3m) fine, a one-year transfer ban suspended for two years, and a nine-month restriction on registering academy players previously registered to another club.
It provides a conclusion to one of football’s outstanding cases relating to breaches of financial rules during Roman Abramovich’s time as owner. However, this is not the only issue facing football clubs and the governing bodies that oversee them.
The Athletic’s Jacob Whitehead and Dan Sheldon take a look at the other ongoing cases that are still awaiting an outcome.
Manchester City’s 115 charges
There has been no formal movement in the Premier League’s case against Manchester City for over a year.
Following a four-year long investigation, City were originally charged with 115 breaches of the league’s financial regulations in February 2023 — depending on classification, it could even be understood as 130 breaches.
City deny all charges, but broadly, the Premier League allege that the club breached profit and sustainability rules (PSR) by disguising payments from ownership as sponsorship, and providing undeclared salary or bonuses to players and managers.
The in-person hearing began on September 16 2024, finishing almost three months later on December 6. The three-person independent panel then retired to reach their decision. Fifteen months have now passed without an update.
“I really can’t comment, and there are very good reasons for that,” Premier League CEO Richard Masters said before the start of the season. “As you know, our rules are very clear. I can’t talk about the process in any aspect between the period when allegations and charges are announced until a decision is handed down.”
Richard Masters has been Premier League CEO since 2019 (Tom Dulat/Getty Images for Premier League)
Though it was always understood that this was an exceptionally complex case — for example, charges of a single profit and sustainability regulations breach brought against Everton and Nottingham Forest, eventually leading to points deductions, two seasons ago still took multiple months to conclude — the length of deliberations are unprecedented, surprising other teams in the Premier League.
According to sources on both sides of the case, speaking anonymously because they are not authorised to comment publicly on the proceedings, they have received no update from the independent panel on the timings.
The lack of clarity provided by either party on the exact process of the hearing has led to further questions over what happens when the panel’s decision is reached. For example, it is unclear whether they will recommend any potential punishments or merely decide the question of guilt, while it is also not known whether that potential punishment would be suspended until after any appeal, itself likely to be at least a year-long timeline.
Because of the levels of secrecy, little news has emerged from what was actually debated during the hearing, but The Athletic revealed last March that a mysterious ‘Person X’ at the heart of the alleged wrongful sponsorship payments was Jaber Mohamed, a key aide of Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MBZ), now the ruler of Abu Dhabi.
Chelsea and the FA
The Football Association (FA) charged Chelsea with 74 alleged breaches of its regulations between 2009 and 2022 in September 2025, which is separate from the Premier League investigation that was resolved today (Monday).
As The Athletic reported at the time, the charges centred on a period of time when the club was under the ownership of Roman Abramovich and “primarily relate to events that occurred between the 2010-11 to 2015-16 playing seasons”, the FA said.
The alleged breaches are in relation to the governing body’s agent regulations, regulations on working with intermediaries, and third-party investment in players regulations.
An FA statement in September read: “The Football Association has today charged Chelsea FC with breaches of Regulations J1 and C2 of the FA Football Agents Regulations, Regulations A2 and A3 of the FA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries, and Regulations A1 and B3 of the FA Third Party Investment in Player Regulations.
“In total, 74 charges have been brought against Chelsea FC.
“The conduct that is the subject of the charges ranges from 2009 to 2022 and primarily relates to events that occurred between the 2010-11 to 2015-16 playing seasons.”
In September, Chelsea insisted the charges related to the Abramovich era only. The FA refused to clarify when asked to do so by The Athletic.
Chelsea added that they were “pleased” that the issue “self-reported by the club is now reaching a conclusion”.
“During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the (current) ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions and other potential breaches of FA rules,” the statement continued. “Immediately upon the completion of the purchase, the club self-reported these matters to all relevant regulators, including The FA.”
Chelsea said they had “demonstrated unprecedented transparency during this process, including by giving comprehensive access to the club’s files and historical data”.
The club added: “We will continue working collaboratively with the FA to conclude this matter as swiftly as possible. We wish to place on record our gratitude to the FA for their engagement with the club on this complex case, the focus of which has been on matters that took place over a decade ago.”
The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s uncertain future
Earlier this year, Europe’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), published Advocate General Tamara Capeta’s opinion on the dispute between Belgian club RFC Seraing and FIFA, world football’s governing body.
You can read about the nuances of that long-standing dispute here, but, in short, it has led to the possibility of athletes and teams being able to appeal against the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) rulings in a national court.
If the CJEU rules this way in the coming months, then it will most likely become the final arbiter for the most serious future cases that involve athletes, sports governing bodies, leagues or teams that are in the European Union (EU).
Any change to that effect would mean UEFA (European football’s governing body), for example, could theoretically be afforded the opportunity to appeal a CAS verdict, such as the one that cleared Manchester City of breaking its financial fair play (FFP) rules in 2020.
It is worth noting, however, that UEFA chose not to appeal against the Manchester City ruling in the Swiss courts, which its own statutes permitted them to do.
FIFA vs agents
On October 1, 2023, FIFA overhauled its agent regulations to cap intermediaries’ earnings from transfers and require agents to pass an exam to become licensed.
However, these agent regulations have been subject to multiple legal challenges from across Europe, eventually leading to FIFA issuing a worldwide suspension of the most controversial elements of its new rules.
Although agents still need to pass the exam, the fee cap, dual representation and, among other guidelines, the player pays principle have all been suspended, pending a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The ECJ, following courts across Europe, including in Germany and England, deemed the new regulations are not compliant with European competition law. CAS, however, has ruled in FIFA’s favour, saying the regulations are legal.
But it will be up to the ECJ, which is still examining the matter, to determine whether FIFA’s agent rules are applicable in Europe from a competition law standpoint.