How does an Everton supporter end up in trouble for defending Manchester City? For Andy Burnham, the answer lies in being Britain’s prime minister—and speaking out just a day after delivering a major speech to the Labour Party conference.
Burnham’s address had earned broad praise for its structure, substance and confident delivery.
- Advertisement -
But within 24 hours, carefully chosen political messaging risked being eclipsed by a few ill-judged remarks about football.
The prime minister has supported Everton throughout his life.
He has described the club as one of three institutions that shaped him, alongside the Labour Party and the Catholic Church—“in that order”.
The Premier League probe found Manchester City got too much cash from its Abu Dhabi owners
That made it almost inevitable that the BBC’s Political Editor, Chris Mason, would ask him about one of football’s biggest recent stories: the Premier League’s confirmation that Manchester City had breached numerous rules governing club finances.
The alleged breaches involved concealing the level of financial support the club received from its owners, assistance that helped fuel its rise to Premier League and Champions League success.
In Soccernomics, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski examined vast amounts of data and argued that football had an iron rule: the club with the biggest wage bill wins the Premier League and the Champions League.
That may have been the prevailing formula in the mid-2000s.
Since then, football authorities have tried to limit the influence of wealthy owners buying success and preserve at least some competitive balance within the sport.
Those are the regulations Manchester City has been accused of breaking.
The club is owned by Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity firm controlled by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family.
Etihad Airlines, also based in Abu Dhabi, is Manchester City’s stadium sponsor.
The Premier League investigation concluded that the club received excessive funding from its Abu Dhabi owners and concealed it, giving City an unfair advantage over rivals.
The sum was substantial: £830 million (€976m), equivalent to just over $1 billion in the United States.
That came on top of the £1.4 billion (€1.6bn) spent building the club’s playing squad.
The purchase of Manchester City itself cost £200m (€235m).
The Premier League said the club ‘systematically broke Premier League rules for nearly a decade’
An independent panel found, among other allegations, that Manchester City had arranged “sham contracts” with several commercial partners to disguise more than £830m (€976m) in secret funding.
The Premier League said the club had “systematically broke Premier League rules for nearly a decade”.
Manchester City rejects the case and has appealed against the Premier League, arguing that the findings contain “clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe”.
Before that appeal was filed, however, Burnham expressed sympathy for the club and its owners, appearing to take their side against football authorities and the broader financial-fair-play campaign.
Supporters and commentators have questioned whether Manchester City’s owners can remain in charge after the findings.
Mason asked the prime minister whether he expected them to sell, particularly if the club were relegated to the lower divisions.
“I would be really concerned to lose them,” Burnham replied.
“They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is,” he said.
Andy Burham said he previously stood up for Everton during its run-in with the Premier league
Manchester City’s owners have played a major role in the development of the area surrounding the Etihad Stadium.
Burnham, who served as mayor of Greater Manchester until June, added: “I do actually thank the City Football Group and the wider ownership for the money that they didn’t just put into the Etihad [Stadium] and the campus around it but also into the city”.
He insisted that his own dealings with the group would “of course” withstand scrutiny.
He also pointed to his record of defending Everton during the club’s dispute with the Premier League a decade ago, when it was punished for less serious breaches with a 10-point deduction, later reduced to six on appeal.
“Everton was in this position a few years ago and you might remember that I fought for Everton in that situation because I still hold the view very firmly that they weren’t fairly treated in that process,” he told the BBC.
Comparing Everton’s experience with Manchester City’s current situation, he said: “I remember people proclaiming Everton guilty at the time and with hindsight, I think more people would say that wasn’t fair, the way that was handled.
“So, it would be wrong of me to leap to one side given the experience that I’d had before becoming prime minister.”
Burnham acknowledged that “a lot at stake” for Manchester City supporters, the club and the city itself.
But he said it would be inappropriate for him to intervene.
His comments nevertheless seemed out of step with the tone of his conference speech the previous day, which had repeatedly echoed Labour’s “for the many, not the few” message.
Manchester City may command a large following, but its control and ownership remain concentrated in the hands of a small group.
According to the Premier League, that wealthy group created a series of “sham sponsorships” to hide hundreds of millions of pounds used to fund the players who delivered the club’s trophies.
The Tory’s Louie French said government should ‘keep politics out of football’
The Conservative Party quickly seized on the controversy.
Louie French, the party’s sports spokesperson, accused the prime minister of “publicly backing the owners even as the investigation continues” and asked whether “political pressure” was being brought to bear on the Premier League.
He said the government must “keep politics out of football and ensure the Premier League’s independent commission can do its job free of outside influence”.
French said: “The club face unprecedented allegations and fans are horrified by what they are reading in the papers, yet Burnham is publicly backing the owners even as the investigation continues.
“Fans will rightly ask whether political pressure is being applied here and how it relates to the owners’ well-reported investments in Manchester.”
The criticism painted a picture of a city mayor appearing overly close to major property investors—investors who also happen to own one of Manchester’s two major sporting franchises.
But Burnham is no longer mayor. He is now prime minister, a role that brings considerably greater scrutiny.
The Liberal Democrats added to the pressure. Their sports spokesperson, Anna Sabine, told the Guardian that “Andy Burnham must come clean and publish details of every meeting and conversation he has had with City Football Group, Abu Dhabi United Group or UAE government representatives, going back to his time as mayor and that includes any hospitality freebies received”.
She added: “When the prime minister leaps to the defence of a club’s owners within hours of a verdict, people are entitled to ask what their relationship is.”
Downing Street was forced into damage-control mode, with a spokesperson stressing that the prime minister had made clear “the initial judgment is serious and there can’t be any suggestion that anyone is above the rules”.
The spokesperson added: “He also stressed that it is an ongoing independent process.
“It is essential that it is allowed to run its course and the outcome respected.
“Wherever wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences.”
The Independent Football Regulator is waiting until the league’s process is over before deciding what to do next
That same day, one of Burnham’s Labour backbenchers, Meg Hillier, chair of the Commons Treasury Committee, wrote to the Revenue Commissioners to ask whether they understood the potential tax implications of the Manchester City case.
Another public body also entered the debate.
David Kogan, chair of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), established by the Labour government in 2025, said the case had raised “serious issues”.
Kogan said the IFR “has powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate”, while also “taking account of the findings made by the leagues”.
The regulator will wait for the Premier League’s own process to conclude before deciding how to proceed.
That means the Manchester City controversy is unlikely to disappear quietly—and nor is the political scrutiny now following Britain’s football-loving prime minister.
David Bernstein, a former chairman of both Manchester City and the Football Association, told the BBC’s Newsnight programme that he was “concerned” by Burnham’s comments about the club’s alleged breaches.
Bernstein, who chaired Manchester City from 1998 to 2003, said: “It is absolutely vital that this independent regulator can perform independently and without political interference.”
Asked what advice he would give Burnham, he replied: “I would suggest he’s got other fish to fry and this is something that politicians should be seen to be staying well away from.”
The situation is complicated by the property and infrastructure projects Manchester City’s owners have helped develop across the city.
The largest is Manchester Life, a £1 billion development of 6,000 homes in east Manchester.
The agreement was signed in 2014, three years before Burnham became mayor of Greater Manchester.
The council has a profit-sharing arrangement with Abu Dhabi United Group for the project.
Abu Dhabi United Group also co-developed the Co-Op Arena, a £365 million music venue.
In June, it secured planning permission for a £300 million entertainment district at the Etihad complex.
Abu Dhabi has been a central partner in Manchester’s redevelopment, helping reshape a city whose skyline is now marked by gleaming residential towers rather than the smokestacks of its industrial past—a transformation Burnham has both encouraged and benefited from.
The word “Manchesterism” has even emerged to describe a significant part of the prime minister’s domestic political programme.
It refers to partnerships between local authorities and corporations designed to deliver major projects.
Public bodies retain control, though not necessarily ownership, while private companies still have opportunities to profit.
That is the Manchester model Burnham appeared to champion in his conference speech, suggesting it could soon be applied to Britain’s privately owned water companies, electricity networks and transport systems.
But the Manchester City dispute has demonstrated how complicated such private-sector relationships can become for public institutions—and particularly for politicians.
They may be easier to manage from the town hall of a major city. At Downing Street, however, the same relationships face a national opposition, a relentless media and a much brighter political spotlight.
