Fan theories of a ‘Red Cartel’ have grown as the club awaits its appeal against 114 financial rule breaches, but no evidence has emerged that the meeting was about City
Manchester City’s leadership has reportedly rejected the explanation given for a 2017 dinner in New York attended by senior figures from Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal. The meeting has become a talking point for some City supporters who believe the three clubs, all of whom play in red, worked together against them. City were found guilty last month of 114 breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules, a verdict they dispute and are appealing. No evidence has been found that the dinner involved planning action against City, and there has been no finding of collusion.
The dinner
A photograph taken by a fellow diner at a New York restaurant co-owned by actor Robert De Niro shows Liverpool owner John W. Henry, United’s Ed Woodward and Joel and Avram Glazer, and Arsenal’s then chief executive Ivan Gazidis. It was taken in October 2017, seven days before a Premier League vote on future broadcast revenue. Tottenham, City and Chelsea were not present. One possible explanation is that the three clubs at the table were American-owned, while City (Abu Dhabi), Chelsea (Russian) and Tottenham (British) were not.
The date falls within the 2009–18 period covered by the investigation, though before the Premier League brought its charges in February 2023. No transcript, minutes or correspondence setting out what was discussed has been identified.
The broadcasting dispute behind it
Records show the clubs had shared aims at the time, and City were among them. Sky Sports reported in October 2017 that City, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham all backed a larger performance-related share of overseas television income. The plan would have shared about £1bn of overseas revenue 35% by league position and 65% equally. Only nine clubs initially supported it, short of the 14 needed, and The Guardian reported that a meeting was called off on 24 October after the proposal failed to win enough backing. Crystal Palace, Stoke City and Swansea City were among the strongest opponents.
A narrower deal was approved on 7 June 2018. Existing overseas income stayed equally shared, with only future increases allocated by league position from 2019-20, and the cap on the gap between the top and bottom earners rose from 1.6:1 to 1.8:1. That suggests the clubs were not simply lined up against City on this issue. It does not establish what was said at the dinner.
A history of friction
ESPN’s investigation on 30 October traced disagreements over City’s spending back to 2009, when Arsène Wenger criticised the club’s financial model. It reported that Henry questioned City’s £400m Etihad sponsorship in 2011, and that United, Liverpool and Arsenal supported tougher financial rules in 2012. It also said City objected to special access given to United and Liverpool executives to Premier League chief executive candidates in 2020. These disputes show a history of disagreement over regulation, not unlawful coordination.
Separately, United, Arsenal and Liverpool were among four clubs that told City in 2024 they had reserved the right to seek compensation if it was found guilty. Reserving a right does not itself establish liability or loss.
The verdict and the appeal
The independent commission’s findings, published on 29 September, said City inflated revenue by about £830m through sponsorship deals in which the owner, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), funded part of the payments. It also found a circular image-rights arrangement involving a company called Fordham. The Premier League calculated that the disputed transactions exceeded £900m over nine seasons. The commission also found City had breached its duty to co-operate. The club disputes the findings.
City lodged its appeal at 7pm on 1 October, alleging material errors of law, principle and fact. A new three-person panel will review the existing record. Under the revised rules, the hearing should finish within 12 weeks, around 24 December, with a decision within 30 days, around 23 January. Those are calculated dates, not a confirmed schedule. A sanctions hearing has not been scheduled, and Sky Sports reported City could challenge the process in the High Court. Expulsion would need a vote of at least 15 of the 20 clubs, and the Football Association said on 2 October it was considering the findings.
Government and tax authorities
The culture department said it had made no submissions to the commission and received no representations on the case, including from the Mayor of Greater Manchester. MPs on the Treasury Committee asked HMRC on 1 October whether it was aware of the findings. HMRC’s chief executive JP Marks said on 14 October that confidentiality prevented him from discussing any taxpayer, so there is no confirmed tax investigation into City.
