Roberto Mancini has brought one of the most intriguing parts of Manchester City's financial case back into the spotlight by openly referring to the “double contract” he had during his time as manager of the club.
Speaking before Italy's Nations League match against Türkiye, Mancini was asked about the financial allegations surrounding his former club and the arrangement that has followed him since it was first reported by Der Spiegel in 2018. Rather than disputing the existence of two agreements, the Italian dismissed the controversy as an issue for Manchester City and insisted that the club were not guilty.
“It’s not a problem that concerns me,” Mancini said. “Anyhow, it’s not something new, because every four or five years this comes up. Manchester City is not guilty and the fact of having a double contract isn’t my problem but theirs, probably.”
The wording immediately attracted attention. But what exactly was Mancini's “double contract”, how much money was involved and why has an agreement made more than 15 years ago become relevant again?
What was Roberto Mancini's Manchester City ‘double contract’?
Mancini became Manchester City manager in December 2009, little more than a year after Sheikh Mansour's takeover transformed the club's financial power and ambitions. According to documents originally reported by Der Spiegel as part of the Football Leaks investigation, Mancini's remuneration involved two separate agreements.
The first was his Manchester City managerial contract. Reports based on the leaked material said Mancini received a basic annual salary of approximately £1.45 million from City, excluding bonuses and other incentives.
The second agreement was not technically with Manchester City. Mancini was reportedly employed as a consultant by Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club in Abu Dhabi, another club controlled by Sheikh Mansour, and was due to receive approximately £1.75 million a year under that arrangement.
That meant the value of the second agreement was actually greater than Mancini's reported basic salary for managing Manchester City.
The consultancy arrangement was particularly unusual because of the connection between the two clubs. Der Spiegel reported that the agreement was made when Mancini joined City and alleged that money ultimately moved through the Abu Dhabi structure before being paid to the manager through an offshore company called Sparkleglow Holdings.
The existence of two contracts is not, by itself, proof that any football regulation was broken. The key issue is whether Manchester City accurately disclosed the full remuneration being paid to their manager and whether the second agreement represented genuine, separately contracted work or effectively formed part of what Mancini was being paid for managing City.
That distinction sits at the heart of why the arrangement matters.
Why does Mancini's contract matter to the Manchester City case?
When the Premier League announced its case against Manchester City in February 2023, one group of alleged breaches specifically concerned the club's obligation to provide full details of manager remuneration.
The relevant period covered the seasons from 2009/10 through 2012/13. Mancini was City's manager throughout essentially that entire period, taking charge in December 2009 and leaving in May 2013.
The allegations therefore were not simply a general argument about Financial Fair Play or sponsorship income. One part of the case dealt directly with whether all payments connected to City's manager had been properly declared in the relevant contracts.
That is why Mancini's latest choice of words is significant. He did not say that reports of a second agreement were invented. Instead, he referred himself to “the fact of having a double contract” while arguing that any problem associated with it belonged to Manchester City rather than him.
His comments do not establish whether the arrangement breached Premier League rules, nor do they reveal precisely what the independent commission concluded about his remuneration. But they represent a rare public acknowledgment from the man at the centre of one of the most specific allegations in the entire City case.
What did Mancini supposedly do for Al Jazira?
The second agreement was described as a consultancy contract with Al Jazira, one of the leading clubs in the United Arab Emirates.
According to the original reporting based on Football Leaks material, Mancini was contracted to provide advisory services to the Abu Dhabi club while simultaneously managing Manchester City. The reported annual value of approximately £1.75 million made the arrangement particularly noteworthy because it exceeded his £1.45 million basic City salary.
The controversy has never simply been about a football manager having another professional agreement. The questions concern the relationship between the organisations involved, the source and purpose of the payments and what Manchester City were required to declare to football authorities.
Der Spiegel alleged that the arrangement formed part of a structure that allowed a substantial portion of Mancini's overall remuneration to be paid outside his Manchester City contract. City have consistently denied wrongdoing in relation to the wider financial allegations and have challenged the interpretation of leaked material used in reporting about the club.
There is also an important historical detail. The reported Mancini arrangement was agreed in 2009, before UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules came fully into force. That makes the issue more complicated than simply describing the second contract as a way of avoiding FFP.
For the Premier League case, the more fundamental question is disclosure: whether City's official contractual information contained the full details of what their manager was being paid.
Why is the story back now?
The timing of Mancini's comments is crucial. They come immediately after reports that an independent commission found Manchester City guilty of the overwhelming majority of the financial charges brought against the club by the Premier League.
City continue to contest the case. The club has stressed that the process remains ongoing, while chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak has said City's confidence in proving their innocence remains unchanged. An appeal is expected, meaning the dispute is far from finished and the final consequences are still unknown.
Until the commission's detailed findings become public, it is impossible to say exactly how it assessed the Mancini arrangement or what weight it gave to the evidence surrounding the second contract.
Nevertheless, Mancini's comments have revived interest in one of the easiest parts of an extraordinarily complicated case to understand. Much of the City investigation involves accounting rules, sponsorship valuations, financial reporting requirements and years of disputed documentation. The Mancini allegation is considerably more tangible: City's manager reportedly had one contract worth around £1.45 million a year with Manchester City and another worth around £1.75 million with a club in Abu Dhabi linked to the same owner.
Whether those arrangements were properly disclosed is the important regulatory question.
Did the ‘double contract’ help Manchester City financially?
This is where the distinction between allegation and established fact becomes especially important.
Moving part of a manager's remuneration outside the club's accounts could theoretically reduce the costs recorded by that club. In an era when football's financial regulations restricted losses and linked spending power to reported revenue and expenditure, undisclosed payments could potentially give a club an advantage.
But that does not automatically mean Mancini's Al Jazira agreement had that purpose.
The arrangement reportedly began before UEFA's FFP regime was fully operational, and the amount involved would have been relatively small compared with the enormous revenues and expenditure involved in City's broader financial case. The central issue is therefore not simply whether £1.75 million changed City's ability to comply with FFP.
It is whether Manchester City fulfilled its obligation to provide accurate and complete information about the remuneration of its manager.
That question matters independently of the size of the payment.
What happens now?
Mancini's remarks are unlikely to settle anything. If anything, they have created renewed interest in a part of the case that had largely disappeared beneath the much broader discussion about possible points deductions, relegation, titles and Manchester City's future.
The former City manager also remains firmly supportive of his old club. In the same response in which he mentioned the double contract, Mancini insisted that Manchester City were “not guilty” and portrayed the controversy as an old story that resurfaces every few years.
For City, however, the distinction between the existence of two contracts and the way those contracts were reported is precisely why the issue has persisted.
Mancini was the manager who delivered the first trophies of the Sheikh Mansour era. City won the FA Cup in 2011 and then, with Sergio Agüero's unforgettable stoppage-time goal against Queens Park Rangers, their first Premier League title in 44 years in 2012. His four seasons in Manchester helped establish the club that would go on to dominate English football.
More than a decade after Mancini left the Etihad, the financial arrangements surrounding that period remain under scrutiny.
And after years in which the “double contract” existed largely as an allegation contained in leaked documents and subsequent reporting, Mancini has now used the phrase himself. That does not determine whether Manchester City broke the rules, but it explains why one of the oldest details in the case has suddenly become relevant all over again.
Published by Patrick Jane
28.09.2026