If the Executive Council of the UAE underwrite the Etihad deal, and support their financial obligations, then I find it difficult to see how UEFA can justify a year's ban, in addition to previous sanctions, on the basis of the remaining financial transactions which are small in value.
NYT and BBC stressing that UEFA are focusing not on the value of the deals now, but on how UEFA had been 'misled' as to the source of the funds.
I find this an empty statement.meaningless. Owner investment is permitted, but regulated. We see it all the time in football eg King Power, Sports Direct. I am not expecting Dan Roan or the NYT to spell out exactly what UEFA's objection is, but the vast bulk of the UAE sponsorship is from Etihad Airlines and I find it difficult to see how that can now be questioned.
The problem here is that UEFA are going to look weak after all this talk if they don't follow through and sanction City. They have the to keep the hawks happy (Tebas, major clubs). Their investigation seems to me unprofessional (leaked) and I am failing to see what the smoking gun is. The UAE state underwrites Etihad Airlines, not Sheikh Mansour, whilst Aabar etc are his own companies and everyone knows that. He can up until market value invest what he likes. For my own understanding, it would be interesting to know what UEFA / Dan Roan / NYT really mean when they say 'misled'. How can you mislead UEFA as to the source of the sponsorship money when it's a matter of record as to which companies Sheikh mansour owns, and Etihad is the state airline and therefore controlled not by Sheikh Mansour but by the Executive Authority of the UAE?
I am suspecting that UEFA are just playing this out and they know full well that this case is empty. They have a lot of powerful clubs on one side and a hostile media pressing them on one side so they can't be seen to just drop it.