The chairman of England’s Independent Football Regulator (IFR), David Kogan, says he would resign if politicians attempted to influence the investigation into Manchester City.
Kogan has the authority to assess whether club owners, directors and senior executives are suitable to hold their positions. If an independent commission’s findings against City are upheld, the regulator could ultimately force the club’s sale.
Manchester City deny wrongdoing and have appealed against the findings, which concluded the club breached Premier League financial rules over a nine-year period between 2009 and 2018.
The club’s Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) owners – a private investment company belonging to United Arab Emirates vice-president and deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour – are alleged to have inflated commercial agreements as part of a “disguised funding scheme” worth up to £830m.
Kogan was asked about comments from Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who said he would be “really concerned” if the case resulted in City’s Abu Dhabi owners selling the club.
“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,” Burnham added.
Kogan told BBC Sport: “The Prime Minister is entirely entitled to make his own observations on anything.
“We are independent. That is in the name. I am the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator and independence absolutely runs through everything we’re doing.
“And no politician has tried to influence and would try to influence anything we do on that.”
Asked what he would do if political pressure was brought to bear, Kogan replied: “I would resign.”
Burnham initially expressed his concerns to the BBC before denying that his response had “downplayed the seriousness of the findings”. Some Premier League clubs were described by sources as “astonished” by his position and “concerned” about possible political interference in the appeal process.
His former role as mayor of Greater Manchester has also prompted questions about his relationship with City’s Abu Dhabi ownership. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called for details of meetings between the prime minister and senior club figures to be published; the government released the information on Monday.
Speaking at the launch of the IFR’s State of the Game report, Kogan said the regulator would follow “a very clear course of action that is governed by statute” and that “no comment by any politician or indeed any individual is going to affect what we do”.
Kogan’s appointment was investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments because of his historic links to the Labour Party. He had donated to the leadership campaigns of former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and culture secretary Lisa Nandy.
Shadow Culture Minister Louie French has raised “concerns about the IFR’s ability to adjudicate this case fairly, free from political interference”. Kogan responded: “I am going to stand by the probity of the organisation that I lead.”
An independent panel will hold a sanctions hearing, which could take months to arrange. City may face a substantial fine, a points deduction or expulsion from the Premier League, although the club can appeal both the verdict and any punishment.
Kogan said it was “very important” for the matter to be resolved promptly and that it raised “very serious issues if Manchester City on appeal is found to be guilty”.
The IFR’s powers concern owners, directors and senior executives, and whether they can run a club “in a way that is safe, coherent and done with probity”. Kogan would not say whether City could be denied a licence when the regulator begins issuing licences next month.
He also said the case did not specifically raise wider questions about state-connected ownership, adding: “We have no powers to prevent state ownership of clubs.”
The independent commission’s hearing lasted 42 days in 2024. City were found guilty of every charge except one relating to non-cooperation with the Premier League investigation. Its report said several important club witnesses had given false evidence and that some had knowingly provided “untrue and dishonest evidence”.
