Over three years have passed since the Premier League announced it was charging Manchester City for breaching a long list of rules related to alleged wrongdoing. Most of them relate to actions taken to circumvent financial regulation, from false accounting to making payments off the books to failing to cooperate with investigators. City deny the charges.

Depending on the number of charges on which they are found guilty (if any) City could face a range of sanctions, from fines and points deductions to being stripped of titles to outright expulsion from the Premier League. If they’re found guilty — depending on the nature and number of the charges — they also run the risk of having to pay damages via the league’s arbitration process as other clubs could seek compensation for lost revenue. A three-person independent panel is tasked with issuing a verdict.

“While the complexity of the Manchester City case is undeniable — and unique in a sporting context — similar commercial cases have reached decisions in far less time than the 15 months we’ve seen here,” Stefan Borson, head of sport at London-based law firm McCarthy Denning, tells ESPN. “There are few legitimate excuses, and there is an urgent need for progress.”

Let’s start with the obvious: Why is this taking so long?

To some degree, we can only speculate because the whole process is shrouded in secrecy. This is partly due to the fact that the Premier League’s own rules allow defendants to request confidential hearings, and partly due to British law and safeguards that protect defendants in certain situations.

One example illustrates this well. The investigation into City began in Dec. 2018 following the publication of the “Football Leaks” documents by the German magazine “Der Spiegel.” But we only found out that there even was an investigation in March 2021 after a High Court judgement ruled against City, who had tried to block investigators’ access to documents. The start date of the investigation was later confirmed in official documents, but there wasn’t even confirmation from the Premier League that City were even under scrutiny.

It’s a similar story with the hearings themselves, which are confidential and held in private. We know they started on Sept. 16, 2024, at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London because this was leaked, and media photographed lawyers for both sides arriving and leaving the venue. We know the hearing concluded in Dec. 2024 because Manchester City mention it in their 2024-25 annual report and because, in Feb. 2025, Pep Guardiola, the City coach, said the verdict would come out “in one month.”

One month? Wow, it’s been 12 months and counting…

Yes, and that tells you the degree to which everybody’s lips have been sealed in this process. There is so little that we know about it, other than the charges. For example, we don’t even know for certain the identity of the three members of the independent commission that will sit in judgement. The trio was assembled by Murray Rosen, chair of the Premier League’s judicial panel at the time. Some reports suggest Rosen named himself to the panel, but that is unconfirmed.

Anyway, if the hearing concluded in Dec. 2024, why it is taking so long for the panel to issue a verdict?

Correct.

We’re in the realm of speculation here, but there are several reasons cited by sports lawyers.

The first is that this is a massive, hugely complicated case. We’re not even certain of the exact number of charges. It came to be known as the “115 charges” case because that’s the number of bullet points in the original document, but according to multiple reports, the number of individual rule breaches in the document is 130, though it’s possible that some are overlapping (i.e. one action violates multiple rules).

It’s also possible, as some reports have suggested, that since the original document was issued, more charges were added, most likely relating to failure to cooperate. Whatever the number, each of the charges must be proved individually with specific evidence.

Furthermore, many of the charges in practice allege deliberate intent to mislead regulators and/or obstruct investigators. The panel isn’t just deciding whether City breached spending regulations, but whether they intentionally breached them and then covered it up to violate the spirit of the rules and, later, knowingly withheld evidence. To make an analogy, it’s the difference between speeding on the highway and speeding on the highway while remotely manipulating the police officer’s radar gun and then spewing a bunch of sovereign citizen nonsense to intentionally screw up your traffic stop. The burden of proof is far higher in the latter case.

Bear in mind that the panel won’t just be issuing a verdict and a sentence. It will be issuing what are known as “written reasons” detailing how it arrived at its conclusions. These “written reasons” could form the basis of any appeal — whether by City or by the Premier League — and therefore need to be “bullet-proof” when it comes to scrutiny.

Still… They’ve had more than a year to issue a verdict since the hearing concluded in Dec. 2024 and, presumably, they have staff to help them…

That’s where another factor comes in. It’s highly likely that the panel members aren’t working on this full-time. You’d assume all three have day jobs and other commitments; presumably, the panel allocated a certain amount of time to hear and deliberate on the case, but it proved to be far more complex than anticipated, and so they members have had to work around their calendars, finding time as and when.

“The members of the independent commission have undoubtedly had other commitments since the hearing ended and they will be acutely aware of making the decision as robust against appeal as possible, given the unprecedented scrutiny this ruling will attract,” said Borson.

Why wouldn’t more time have been allocated to the deliberations?

That’s another mystery. I guess if you want top-notch legal and financial experts to deliberate, you have to accept that they will be in demand elsewhere. This isn’t a jury that’s being sequestered in a room; these are senior figures who handle very important cases in their everyday lives. They can’t just check out indefinitely.

There’s another potential explanation here. While it’s a remote possibility, it would help explain a number of the mysteries surrounding this case.

What’s that?

What if, separate from the arbitration proceedings, the Premier League and City are trying to hammer out some sort of settlement deal? After all, the Premier League is nothing more than its 20 member clubs. If they all agree on an outcome, that’s that. Now, I think it’s unlikely, partly because clubs are notoriously leaky (and there hasn’t been a peep) and partly because it would be extremely difficult to agree to something all sides could accept.

What might it look like? City would need to admit to some level of wrongdoing and take some level of punishment, while rival clubs would need to drop threats of legal action to recover damages.

How would one even do this? Maybe by dumping the blame on the people running the club and arguing that City’s owners were entirely unaware and were, in fact, duped by the folks they employed. And then negotiating a sanction severe enough — massive fine? Some vacated titles? — that the “victim clubs” accept it, but not so severe that it ruins City’s chance of being competitive in the medium term. Why? Because otherwise, they’re not going to accept it and will take their chances with the commission and, possibly, the appeal.

Again, I think it’s highly unlikely, but it would explain why deliberations are taking so long. And it would give the Premier League closure and allow it to move on. Because even when the verdict does come in, it’s highly likely that the losing side will appeal. And this will only drag the process out further, which is not good for the Premier League.

After being loudly booed, Vinícius Júnior danced again. This time in front of Real Madrid supporters while leading his team to the round of 16 of the Champions League, a week after accusing a Benfica opponent of racially insulting him.

The Brazilian scored in the 80th minute to clinch a 2-1 victory for the record 15-time European champions in the second leg of their playoff tie to progress 3-1 on aggregate.

Vinícius celebrated by dancing by the corner flag just like in the first leg — then in front of Benfica fans — which ignited a confrontation with the Portuguese team’s players and the accusation that Gianluca Prestianni called him a racist slur.

“I’m glad Vini dances and keeps dancing, that means he’s scoring goals,” said Madrid goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois.

“That’s our Vinícius,” added midfielder Aurélien Tchouaméni, who scored Madrid’s first goal in the 16th, a couple of minutes after Benfica had taken the lead through Rafa Silva.

Prestianni, who has denied racially insulting Vinícius and has been defended by Benfica, was provisionally suspended one match by UEFA and did not play Wednesday even though the Argentine traveled to the Spanish capital. UEFA earlier Wednesday rejected Benfica’s last-minute appeal against the provisional suspension.

Last week’s match was halted for nearly 10 minutes after the referee installed the anti-racism protocol following Vinícius’ complaint to him.

On Wednesday, Vinícius scored on a breakaway, calmly sending a low shot past the goalkeeper for his sixth goal in his past five matches for Madrid.

The more than 3,000 Benfica fans at the Bernabéu jeered nearly every time Vinícius touched the ball. They celebrated when he lost control of the ball early in the game. The Benfica supporters also booed emphatically when the name of the Brazilian player was announced in the starting lineup ahead of the match.

The boos gradually lost force as the match went on and Madrid took control of the game.

Vinícius also participated in the buildup of what would have been Madrid’s second goal, but it was disallowed for offside.

Before Wednesday’s match, Madrid fans displayed a banner saying “No To Racism.” A “respect” banner also was shown behind one of the goals at the Bernabéu.

Real Madrid said in a statement after the match it “urgently requested” the club’s disciplinary committee to open a procedure to expel a fan who was caught by television cameras performing a Nazi salute before the match.

Madrid said the supporter appeared to be part of its organized fan group behind one of the goals at the Bernabeu.

“This member was identified by the club’s security staff moments after appearing on the broadcast and was immediately expelled from the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium,” the club said. “Real Madrid condemns this type of gesture and expression that incites violence and hatred in sports and society.”

Madrid fans also jeered when Benfica central defender Nicolás Otamendi touched the ball. Otamendi, who is also Argentine, was one of the players that confronted Vinícius after the Brazilian’s celebration by the Benfica flag.

Also missing for Benfica was coach José Mourinho, the former Madrid coach who was sent off late in the first leg for complaining to the referee. Mourinho did not participate in the pregame news conference Tuesday and was expected to watch the match from the stands at the Bernabéu.

Madrid defender Raúl Asencio had to be carried off the field on a stretcher and taken to a local hospital for tests after a hard collision with teammate Eduardo Camavinga in the second half.

The central defender hit the ground hard and had to be attended to for a few minutes on the field. The medical staff immobilized him before taking him off the field.

Madrid coach Álvaro Arbeloa said Asencio apparently injured his neck but “it wasn’t serious.”

Madrid were already without France forward Kylian Mbappé, who missed Wednesday’s game with a knee injury.

“I hope it’s not serious, and he can come back in a few days or weeks,” Arbeloa said.

“Without Kylian, we need [Vini] even more. … He has to be our leader.”

ESPN’s Alex Kirkland and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

• India beat Zimbabwe by 72 runs in Super Eight clash.
• Zimbabwe scored 184/6 while chasing 257-run target.
• Hardik Pandya bags Player of the Match award.

Blistering fifties from Abhishek Sharma and Hardik Pandya, complemented by a clinical bowling performance, steered India to a dominant 72-run triumph over Zimbabwe in their crucial Super Eights encounter of the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup at the MA Chidambaram Stadium on Thursday.

The victory marked India’s first win in the Super Eights stage and kept them in contention to qualify for the semi-finals.

Furthermore, the outcome of the crucial Group 1 fixture also marked Zimbabwe’s exit, confirming South Africa’s qualification into the knockouts.

Consequently, India’s remaining Super Eights match, scheduled to be played against West Indies in Kolkata on Sunday, has now become a virtual quarter-final as both teams have two points in as many games.

Set to chase a daunting 257-run target, the Chevrons’ batting unit could accumulate 184/6 in their 20 overs despite Brian Bennett’s unbeaten half-century.

The right-handed opener waged a lone battle for Zimbabwe against the home side, top-scoring with 97 not out from just 59 deliveries, featuring eight fours and six sixes.

He also shared crucial partnerships with fellow opener Tadiwanashe Marumani and skipper Sikandar Raza, who remained the other notable run-getters for Zimbabwe, scoring 20 and 31, respectively.

Left-arm pacer Arshdeep Singh was the standout bowler for India as he took three wickets for 24 runs in his four overs, while Varun Chakravarthy, Shivam Dube and Axar Patel chipped in with one apiece.

Zimbabwe captain Sikandar Raza’s decision to field first backfired as his team’s bowling unit conceded 256/4 in their 20 overs.

The home side got off to a decent start to their innings as their new opening pair of Sanju Samson and Sharma put together 48 runs at a blazing pace until Blessing Muzarabani got rid of the former in the fourth over.

Samson, who played his second match of the tournament, made a 15-ball 24, laced with two sixes and a four.

Following his dismissal, Sharma was joined by in-form top-order batter Ishan Kishan in the middle, and the duo further strengthened India’s command by knitting a 72-run partnership.

Zimbabwe captain Sikandar Raza eventually broke the threatening partnership in the 11th over by dismissing Kishan, who walked back after scoring 38 off 24 deliveries with the help of four fours and a six.

Sharma was then involved in a brief 30-run partnership with captain Suryakumar Yadav until eventually falling victim to Tinotenda Maposa in the 13th over.

The left-handed opener, who registered ducks in each of his first three T20 World Cup 2026 matches, remained the top-scorer for India with a 30-ball 55, studded with four sixes and as many fours.

Yadav followed suit 11 balls later and walked back after a blazing 33-run cameo, which came off just 13 deliveries, and featured five boundaries, including three sixes.

Tilak Varma and Hardik Pandya then ensured an equally dominant finish with the bat for India as they raised an unbeaten 84-run partnership for the fifth wicket.

Pandya was the core aggressor of the quickfire stand and made an unbeaten 50 off just 23 deliveries, smashing four sixes and two fours.

Varma, on the other hand, was equally impressive, scoring a 16-ball 44 not out, comprising four sixes and three fours.

For Zimbabwe, Richard Ngarava, Maposa, Muzarabani and skipper Raza could pick up a wicket apiece.