I think there is another factor to be considered when considering the likelihood of a decent punishment being handed out and that is the spectre of the European Super League.
What most people missed at the time was that the ESL wasn't just a cash-grab by the top clubs, it was also a reaction from the 'establishment' (Barcelona, Bayern, Juventus, Real, United, Liverpool etc...) to the oil/state owned clubs.
Remember how City and PSG were so reluctant to sign up? They basically got put in a position whereby signing-up would mean accepting really tight FFP rules OR sitting out and no longer competing at the top level of European football.
We're going to get to the point whereby if City (and PSG) are allowed to get away with cheating, then the historical 'big clubs' will simply take their ball away - and the Premier League will fear this.
On another note, I was also disgusted that the cheating isn't/wasn't highlighted more. There seems to be this narrative that we shouldn't let off the pitch matters detract from their on-pitch success, or even worse, that 'all teams spend money'....but both completely miss the point.
First of all, the very simple and straightforward response is that cheating is cheating, and they have broken over 100 rules. If a cyclist cheats, they lose their medals and are treated as outcasts. If a runner cheats, they lose their medals and are treated as outcasts. City cheat and the response seems to be 'yeah they cheated but don't they knock it around nicely?'.
Secondly, and the more complex argument, is that people and pundits have short memories and they forget the sheer volume of players City have churned through to get to this mega squad of 23 clones, whereby they all fit perfectly into the system and there's no drop-off in quality when players are rotated.
To get to Haaland, for example, they went through Robinho, Tevez, Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Bojinov, Dzeko, Balotelli, Aguero...and likely more I have forgotten.
You can apply that to every single position on the pitch. Don't let anybody con you into this narrative that they have bought well or been well-managed, they threw £3BN at the wall, some of it stuck and now they have the ultimate luxury of being able to plan 2/3 seasons at a time.
Therein lies the real advantage they have. Every other club, no matter how rich, has a budget. United are rich, but we have a budget. If we sign Maguire for £80m and it doesn't work, we can't just bin him and write off the loss, we have to try and make it work. Same with Fred. Same with Martial. Same with Sanch etc...plus each time we address a position there's an opportunity cost i.e if we sign a CB for £80m, that means we can't also sign a CF for £80m.
City have/had no such constraints. Don't like England's #1? Replace him with Barcelona's goalkeeper. Dont like him? Replace him with a £65m upgrade a season later. In the market for a fullback? Buy three, just incase one or two dont work out.
Simply put, they went on a spending spree the like of which has never been seen in world football and with that bought something more valuable than any one player or manager...the luxury of being able to plan two or three years ahead.
Pundits are dim and easily fooled. They will point to net spend/total spend and fail to see the nuanced difference between spending £1BN over a decade or spending £650m in two seasons and then adding a player or two a season thereafter.
I will always maintain that being able to spend big money is an advantage...but being able to spend 4x or 5x the average several windows running is the REAL golden ticket to almost guaranteed success. See also, Chelsea post-Roman.
