Premier League
Man City fans claim Premier League erases club after October verdict
On a quiet Tuesday morning in October, Premier League videos uploaded to social media sparked a furious reaction among Manchester City supporters, who say the club has been deliberately omitted from official content after a guilty verdict was announced earlier that week.
Fans spot alleged airbrushing in Premier League videos
Two high‑profile clips – one on X and another on YouTube – showcased league magic moments but conspicuously left out any reference to Man City. A YouTube montage titled ‘goals that sent the stadium into a frenzy’ covered 22 memorable bits from 13 clubs, featuring Michael Owen’s 2009 derby winner and Declan Rice’s first goal for Arsenal, yet omitted Vincent Kompany’s 2019 long‑range strike and Sergio Aguero’s iconic 93rd‑minute winner in 2012.
Supporters also highlighted the absence of Rio Ngumoha, the teenager who netted a Liverpool winner at St James’ Park last season, and pointed out that former City stars Kevin De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva and John Stones had all departed in emotional circumstances over the past two seasons. The Premier League declined to comment on the accusations.
Verdict, appeal and Mourinho’s reaction
City were found guilty of breaching financial rules across a nine‑year period in a judgment revealed last Tuesday, with an appeal process already underway. Both the league and the club have remained bullish, and Enzo Maresca’s side will face Liverpool on Sunday in their first match since the bombshell ruling.
Adding to the controversy, José Mourinho commented on the case, noting that an independent commission had found Manchester City guilty on 114 of 115 financial charges relating to the 2009‑10 to 2017‑18 seasons. He joked, “I prefer to laugh a little because I think an end will come. We are both in our sixties and hope to be here when the final sentence arrives, after the verdict and the appeal.”
The episode has intensified scrutiny of the Premier League’s handling of club content and raised questions about the timing of official media releases in the wake of legal proceedings.