Paul Scholes has said he does not want Manchester United to be handed the 2011–12 Premier League title if Manchester City are stripped of it following their guilty verdict on 114 of 115 financial charges.
Speaking on talkSPORT, the United legend said: “I don’t really want to be given it, to be honest. I think we lost it on the last day of the season to Manchester City. We didn’t do enough to win it.”
Scholes’ comments come after an independent commission found City guilty of the vast majority of the Premier League’s charges relating to the 2009–10 to 2017–18 seasons, though no sanctions have yet been imposed and City plan to appeal.
The verdict has sparked debate over whether past titles should be annulled and, if so, whether runners-up such as United should be awarded the trophy and medals.
The former midfielder’s stance aligns with Wayne Rooney, who said earlier this week he would not accept a retrospective medal because United “didn’t do enough that season to win the league”.
Scholes, by contrast, has been more open to severe future sanctions for City, including relegation, but remains opposed to rewriting history for tactical advantage.
The debate has also spilled into the transfer market. Former Aston Villa striker Gabriel Agbonlahor has urged United to “go and get” two City players—goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and midfielder Elliot Anderson—if City are relegated as a result of the verdict.
Agbonlahor said: “Elliot Anderson – Manchester United wanted you, now you go there. Manchester United – you wanted Elliot Anderson, go and get him for maybe half the price.”
He also suggested Donnarumma would be a major upgrade for United’s goalkeeping options.
The implications stretch beyond trophies. If City’s titles are overturned, the door could swing open for United to target key players from their rivals, but Scholes’ refusal to endorse a retrospective award suggests even United’s players are wary of the precedent.
His stance aligns with the argument that no team should benefit from another’s alleged wrongdoing, even if United’s own financial discipline has been questioned in recent years.
The debate isn’t just about pride or legacy—it’s about the rules of the game.
The Premier League’s FFP framework has long been a battleground, with City’s 2011–12 season serving as a flashpoint.
Scholes’ refusal to endorse a title reversal doesn’t mean he dismisses the allegations entirely, but it does signal a reluctance to rewrite history for tactical advantage.
For United, the question now becomes whether they’ll exploit the uncertainty to strengthen their squad, or if they’ll stand firm on the principle that no team should be rewarded for perceived irregularities—even if those irregularities belong to their rivals.
What remains unanswered is how the league will ultimately resolve this.
The FA and Premier League have yet to deliver a definitive verdict on City’s FFP status, leaving the title’s legitimacy in limbo.
But Scholes’ position offers a rare insider perspective: one that treats the issue as a matter of principle, not politics.
In a sport where trophies are everything, his words carry the weight of a player who knows firsthand the cost of losing—and the value of winning fairly.
