We're not owned by the Malaysian government.
The issue people have previously had with City's Etihad and PSG's Qatar Tourism Authority sponsorships isn't that they are state owned companies in itself, but that these companies are owned by states that also own the clubs. Most other clubs have to follow a market based approach to securing the highest possible sponsorship deal for their club.
PSG and City on the other hand are effectively sponsored by their owners, creating a vehicle to enhance their revenue base that isn't available to most other clubs/owners.
Are PSG going to fail FFP on the back of the Mbappe and Neymar signings? No, because the owners are quite obviously just going to increase the Qatar Tourism sponsorship until their revenue covers it, and UEFA have set the precedent to allow it.
Still don't understand how either deal passes the Related Party Transaction clause under FFP, but they did, so there you go. I look forward to the games' first €500m player 2 years from now.
Whether people believe it or not, we are a privately owned club, not a state owned club. That was stated pretty clearly when the takeover happened and long before FFP was invented to stop us.
Secondly, Sheikh Mansour has no direct influence or control over any of our sponsors, and as such they are not related parties according to international accounting laws and FFP regs. He doesn't have a significant ownership of any of them and doesn't sit on the board (or have his board members sit on the board). People will choose to believe what they want I guess and I'm sure many people believe that he runs every business in Abu Dhabi. I would't know what his influence there is, but according to the rules it's not a related party transaction.
Perhaps most importantly related party sponsorships are not banned under FFP. Bet365 sponsor Stoke. King Power owns Leicester. As long as the sponsorships are fair market value there isn't a problem. Perhaps the biggest pointer of the legitimacy of our sponsorship with Etihad is that 7 years down the track it hasn't been renegotiated, and right now is hugely undervalued. And even if it was deemed that the Etihad sponsorship was a related party transaction there's nothing UEFA would do about it because we get the same (almost certainly less) than we would if we were sponsored by someone else.
FWIW in the first FFP monitoring period UEFA accepted the Etihad sponsorship fully. They ruled that we couldn't add any more second tier sponsors from Abu Dhabi, or increase the value of those sponsorships. As far as I know we haven't.
PSG I think lost some of their sponsorship because it was backdated.
As for the first €500m player, that'll happen I'm sure. But our record signing is just over £50m. Probably less than you'll pay for Keita. People seem to be keen to throw us in with PSG since Neymar though.