Tebas's 'Scandal' and the City Case: A Mirror on Football's Financial Ledger and the Paper Game

Last week a video clip of a speech reached my phone. LaLiga president Javier Tebas was banging his hand on the desk, his voice barely audible — 'Manchester City must be crushed, this is a scandal.' The clip went viral. But I have covered football for 38 years, and now I only look at tables and numbers. The headline said 'Tebas explodes.' It was not an explosion; it was a ledger built over years. To read it, one must first know who is speaking and on what evidence.

The gap between the media headline and the actual content is the core issue here. Tebas's claim centres on two things: first, undisclosed financial dealings dating back to 2026; second, allegations that sponsorship revenues were inflated between 2026 and 2026. On these two claims he raised the possibility of sanctions ranging from fines to points deductions and even relegation. But remember, Tebas is not a club regulator. He is the president of LaLiga — the chief executive of a rival league. His position should not be seen merely as moral outrage; behind it lies the context of his own league's financial rules.

In 2026, when I first sat in a Khulna room tagging 18,000 events across 24 matches of the Bangladesh Premier League, I learned one thing — football's accounting does not end on the pitch; it ends on paper. The Manchester City case is exactly that kind of paper war. Here, goals are secondary; the value of sponsorship deals, the ownership structure, and compliance with financial rules are central.

The fact carrying the most weight is the claim that 114 of 115 charges were proven. That number has appeared in reporting, but the process is not yet final and appeals remain possible. My habit is to first flag any figure as 'data to be verified' and then request the procedural documents. Because in the 2026 precedent, UEFA's two-year ban on City was later overturned on appeal. That was a big win for City, but the cloud of doubt it created around the rules has not lifted.

Tebas is now scratching at that old wound. He said the verdict must be a deterrent — that is, the punishment must be such that no one dares do this again. Looking at this argument, it is clear he is not just thinking about City's punishment; he wants to create a precedent. If true, it will have repercussions across Europe — especially for the financing models of state-owned clubs. LaLiga's own financial cap and fair play rules are strict, and to maintain their legitimacy, the same standard is expected of others. This is where Tebas's self-interest and football's broader interest converge.

This case involves two layers — money and punishment. The first is direct regulatory sanction: heavy fines, points deductions, even possible relegation. The second is more subtle. Last month British media reported that some rival Premier League clubs are taking legal advice to claim compensation. This is a new possibility — if true, it could create a new chapter in football litigation.

The compensation argument is not simple. Who has been harmed? In which season? Which points? If a club breaches financial rules and wins a title, the runner-up can argue it was taken from them. But proving that is hard, because in football the direct causal link between on-pitch results and financial capacity is not always demonstrable. So if these claims proceed, they could rewrite a decade of football history.

But my biggest doubt lies elsewhere. The headline says 'scandal running since 2026.' But the longer the alleged period, the harder verification becomes. Accounts from 2026 cannot be judged by today's rules, because the rules themselves have changed. Both sides can exploit this complexity to construct their preferred interpretations.

It is here that the comments of a players' organisation official seemed important to me. Maheta Molango, head of the professional footballers' association, said there must be trust in the rules, and decisions must come quickly. His argument is not about the severity of punishment, but about time. This is a different dimension: if a verdict is correct but late, its effectiveness is questioned. Players remain uncertain about contracts, clubs cannot plan squad building, and fans do not know what next season holds. This uncertainty is no less damaging than the punishment itself.

Looking at these events, I always think of one thing — football's financial rules are essentially a moral framework, and if applied unevenly, they lose their legitimacy. The City case is not just about City; it is a test of European football's judicial system. When figures like Tebas turn this case into a tool for their own arguments, the internal weaknesses of football administration become clearer.

I see the biggest risk in a procedural place. The appeal ruling that unsettled European football in 2026 has been questioned again by Tebas. His argument is that the European rules were right, but that ruling did not prove it. This directly pressures a judicial body. If that body itself comes under renewed scrutiny, trust in future rulings may decline.

I recall tracking PPDA and distance covered during the Belgium-Japan match at the 2026 World Cup. Japan led 2-0, but after the 60th minute their pressing began to drop. I published a minute-by-minute data timeline, and it was cited by various outlets before the match ended. The lesson: decisions come, but the pace and process of decisions can alter outcomes. The same applies to City.

At dinner my son asked me — so will City's titles be taken away? I said, no one has the power to take away a title, but many have the power to question its legitimacy. That is a greater damage than any scandal.

In the coming weeks, three areas need watching: first, the text of the independent commission's ruling — where it will become clear which charges were proven. Second, coordinated legal action by rival clubs, which could create new financial liability beyond the sanction. Third, whether anyone formally calls for reform of the European judicial system — because that would show how willing football is to reform its own structures.

The word most circulating in the media is 'crush.' But I am still reconciling which dollar, in which season, in which contract. Amid the noise, the number is hard to find. So today I have used fewer numbers and more methodology. Because without correct process, correct punishment means nothing. The work of reconciling football's accounts does not happen on the pitch. It happens in the ledger.