Man United vs Man City: What really happened & FA punishments

United vs City: The Manchester brawl

The Times on Tuesday have delved deeper into what actually happened after Man City beat Man United on Sunday in the Premier League.

It’s easy to forget the scoreline in all this. City beat United 2-1 at Old Trafford as the Sky Blues went 11 points clear in the league.

Are Man City shoo-ins for the title? Maybe believe that’s the case as United’s 41-game unbeaten home record is now over.

As everyone now knows, the Manchester rivals got into a brawl after Sunday’s game.

On Monday we learned about Jose Mourinho’s confrontation with Ederson, and how Romelu Lukaku was accused of drawing blood from City coach Mikel Arteta.

Romelu Lukaku vs Mikel Arteta

The Times has now fleshed out more details of Mikel Arteta’s injury and Romelu Lukaku’s behaviour after the City game:

Mikel Arteta’s right eyebrow was cut open by an isotonic drink bottle thrown into the Manchester City dressing room during Sunday’s post-match bust-up at Old Trafford.

Arteta, the City assistant coach, needed treatment after his eyebrow was cut by the bottle, which is alleged to have been thrown by a United player. A United spokesman denied that Romelu Lukaku, who was said to be one of the aggressors, had thrown it at Arteta.

The Times have also claimed that a Manchester City physio “was punched in a confrontation that involved about 15 people in a narrow corridor close to the dressing rooms.”

Having spoken to Man United about this accusation, the Times also report that United flatly deny that happened.

What will the punishments be?

The FA have opened an investigation into the Manchester brawl.

But will United and City be punished? That’s looking unlikely, mainly due to a lack of evidence.

It’s been confirmed that the match officials were not witnesses to the fracas, meaning they couldn’t report on it.

And there also seems to be a distinct lack of video evidence, as the Times report:

Football’s governing body can fine both clubs, although its investigation may be hindered by a lack of CCTV footage.

There are no cameras in the corridor where the trouble occurred, which, in effect, means the case will be one side’s word against the other’s.