Don't really see too much controversy in what he said. He said what we were found guilty of doing. I'm sure he will have said more complementary things which are edited. The British media has no interest in that and will want the sensational side of the story.
He comes across as someone who has a poor grasp on the facts. He started out by saying that the club had gotten too powerful, which while it doesn't carry any legal content, is basically correct with respect to the ruling. But the club was never found guilty of fixing a single match or bribing a single referee.
Now I can well understand that the actual ruling, contrived as it sounds to us, would be even more baffling for the audience of this interview. But if you're going to be on tv as a pundit to explain an event and "bridge a culture gap" then it doesn't help to completely embellish the facts.