Fallout from the independent commission’s decision to find Manchester City guilty on 114 charges of breaching Premier League financial regulations continues to ripple through English football.
While much of the immediate commentary focuses on potential sporting penalties for Man City, an equally significant narrative could be yet to unfold across town at Old Trafford.
Man United chief executive Omar Berrada was headhunted by Sir Jim Ratcliffe in early 2024, brought in as a shining example of operational leadership. However, Berrada’s extensive corporate history at the Etihad Stadium brings him under an awkward spotlight as regulators prepare to examine the wider implications of the commission’s findings.
Manchester United’s uncomfortable Man City guilty verdict overlap
Berrada joined Manchester City in September 2011 as Head of International Business Development before rising up the club’s corporate ladder.
He was appointed Director of Partnership Sales in 2013, Senior Vice President and Group Commercial Director in 2015, and ultimately Chief Operating Officer in 2016 – a position he held until 2020 before moving into football operations.
Berrada’s career timeline overlaps with the nine-year period in which Manchester City were found to have broken Premier League rules.
According to figures in the independent commission’s findings, Manchester City’s sponsorship income rose exponentially between 2009 and 2018, rising from £27 million to over £145 million per season. The commission concluded that over £830 million of the £949 million recorded during this era was artificially inflated through direct ownership funding rather than authentic commercial revenue.
Due to the fact Berrada led partnership sales and commercial strategy during these years, the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) could feasibly ask questions of Berrada’s role in the mechanics of those deals.
The independent commission’s ruling was delivered strictly against Manchester City Football Club as a corporate entity, and not specific individuals. The findings do not represent a judicial or regulatory finding of personal wrongdoing against individual employees, past or present, and there is no allegation levelled at Berrada as things stand.
Nevertheless, the IFR has made it clear that its remit covers individual governance alongside institutional compliance. Following the announcement of the verdict, IFR Chair David Kogan explicitly confirmed that the statutory body possesses powers to evaluate the ‘suitability of owners, directors and executives.’
Kogan noted that the regulator will exercise these powers “where appropriate” to protect the honesty and integrity of English football if evidence implicating individuals comes to light.
For Man United and INEOS, the optics present a delicate management challenge. When the club recruited Berrada in early 2024, the Premier League‘s charges against Manchester City had already been public knowledge for a year. The Old Trafford hierarchy undoubtedly conducted rigorous due diligence prior to finalising the appointment, relying on his reputation as one of European football’s most capable executives.
While Berrada continues managing Manchester United’s daily operations, the ongoing legal fallout ensures his past role remains part of the conversation. Whether regulatory authorities choose to examine historical executive oversight in secondary proceedings remains unconfirmed. However, English football’s most far-reaching financial verdict has cast an uncomfortable shadow over Old Trafford.
