The prime minister initially told the BBC of his concerns, before later denying his reaction had “downplayed the seriousness of the findings”.

However, some Premier League clubs were so “astonished” by Burnham’s stance that sources told BBC Sport they were “concerned” about political interference in the appeal process.

Burnham’s previous role as mayor of Greater Manchester has led to questions about his relationship with City’s Abu Dhabi ownership.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch demanded all details of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures at the club are released. The government released these details on Monday.

“As far as we, as the regulator, are concerned, we have a very, very clear course of action that is governed by statute and we are going to follow that course of action and no comment by any politician or indeed any individual is going to affect what we do”, said Kogan.

“Process is going to drive what we do. Process will lead us to a conclusion.

“We cannot reach any conclusion at this stage because we don’t know the outcome of any appeal and once we do then we will act accordingly.”

The independent panel will hold a sanctions hearing – which could take months to convene – to decide the punishment.

City can appeal both the guilty verdicts and the sanction, leaving the club and the league in a state of chaos and uncertainty.

City’s punishment could range from a huge fine, being deducted points or being ejected from the Premier League, to being stripped of the eight trophies they won in the affected period.

Asked how crucial it is that it was resolved as soon as possible, Kogan said: “I think it’s very important.”

Kogan added that the case was “raising very serious issues if Manchester City on appeal is found to be guilty of the allegations within those findings”.

“We are waiting like everybody else to see what the independent panel will do… and then we will bring in a view in terms of our own investigation and statutory powers if we need to do so.

“Our powers relate to individual owners, directors and senior executives. They refer to whether people are in a position to run a club in a way that is safe, coherent and done with probity, and we will be examining those things.”

An independent commission held a 42-day hearing in 2024 that led to the verdict announced last month, with City also guilty of all charges except one relating to non-cooperation with the Premier League investigation.

The commission’s report said that “a number of important club witnesses gave false evidence in key respects and that some knowingly gave untrue and dishonest evidence”.

The report says the financial situation is worsening for clubs across the EFL and National League.

Most Championship, League One and League Two clubs hold less than 30 days of cash.

More than 60% of EFL and National League clubs have liabilities exceeding the book value of their assets.

It is a bleak picture for wages, too.

Twenty clubs – primarily in the Championship, League One and National League -spent more than 80% of revenue on player wages.

The majority of League One clubs spend more than 40% of revenue on player wages, including two spending more than 100%.

Wage costs have increased across all leagues between 2021-22 and 2025-26:

Seventeen of 18 (94%) EFL club owners surveyed were in favour of more robust cost controls – as one investor told the report: “the single biggest issue is player wages”.

Average League One losses increased from 6% of revenue in 1992-93 to almost 50% in 2024-25. In League Two, it stands at 40%.

Many clubs rely on owner funding on a just-in-time basis, receiving frequent injections throughout the year.

The majority of EFL and National League clubs do not have a contingency plan if their owner becomes unable or unwilling to continue financing operations.

This leaves them particularly exposed given their limited access to alternative sources of finance.

“League One and the League Two clubs will receive significantly more funding [through a new deal with the Premier League],” Kogan said.

“That funding will be used along with a development fund and a liquidity fund potentially to help them get over the humps they’re all currently facing.”

In respect of both liquidity and solvency, the report says many football clubs “would not currently meet the requirement under the Football Governance Act to hold ‘appropriate financial resources’.”

Clubs are required to meet this standard by May 2030.

“Owners are very well aware of the need now for some sort of coherent structure in which costs are being managed,” Kogan said.

Kogan added that the new financial distribution deal between the Premier League and the EFL is close.

A Hampshire Police investigation into the flashpoint concluded that no further action was needed, with Bielik being issued a Community Resolution Order.

He also sent a written apology to the fan before he was charged by the FA.

Bielik’s disciplinary case was heard by an independent regulatory commission last week, with full written reasons for the verdict revealing the defender’s claim that his family had been subjected to death threats.

The assertion formed part of Bielik’s plea for mitigation, and was described by the commission as “regrettable and to be deplored” but said it did not impact on the sanction “particularly as no supporting evidence had been provided”.

Cardiff boss Brian Barry-Murphy also provided support, describing the 11-time Poland international as a “consummate professional”.

In his own statement, Bielik described how he had expected the ball to be handed to him by the fan and claimed “[I] placed my hand on his shoulder and pushed away as I moved back”, before adding his actions were caused partly by frustration and also by momentum.

That was disputed by the FA, who said the proximity of the contact to the neck risked inflaming the crowd, something the commission agreed with, adding the incident “clearly created the potential for a mass confrontation and could have led to a dangerous situation”.

Bielik admitted his regret and argued that he did not retaliate despite being struck in the face during the incident. The commission said this was commendable but “could not lessen his culpability for his initial action”, although they accepted other mitigating factors in reducing the ban from the three-game starting point.