Hmm, the process is not the same then the result is not the same.
PSG came in with a big sign saying QTA is 200 M a year. UEFA said no, it is worth 100. Then no, it is worth 50. Same for all the Qatari contracts and that has been adjusted in FFP accounting. PSG had to balance the accounts by selling players. Which means at the end of the day, they complied with the break even rule.
The last attempt of that portuguese judge overseeing the adjudicatory chamber was to further decrease it, after the last transfer window had passed, despite the reached agreement. This would have effectively put us out of the break even rule and made us a target of sanctions. However, UEFA didn't respect their own procedures and CAS had to rule in our favour, making the last ruling (the one stating we were in full compliance of UEFA rules) definitive.
Now, in City case, they must be arguing that the leaks are showing your owner is the one pumping the money through those sponsors. Which means they consider that those sponsors were inflated by the said channeled money. That would make you not compliant with the break even requirement when they substract that sum. On top of that, they are accusing you of lying or not truthfully reporting your financial situation which is a requirement for the UEFA Licensing and FFP with those alleged backdoor deals.