Multi-Club Ownership in Football: The Peril and the Promise
Multi-club ownership (“MCO”) refers to a structure where a single investor or group owns and/or exerts influence over more than one football club. This is not a new ownership structure, with its earliest conception dating back to the 1990s. The most notable example of an MCO group is the City Football Group. It currently controls 13 clubs worldwide, including Manchester City in the Premier League and Melbourne City in the A-League. Proponents argue that it enables resource sharing, talent development, and financial efficiency, while critics warn of conflicts of interests, distorted competition, and the erosion of club identity.
Recent developments have brought these issues into sharp focus. This article considers both sides of this debate. It examines recent controversies such as Crystal Palace’s demotion from the Europa League, before reflecting on the potentially lucrative opportunities available to MCO groups. These developments highlight the tension between innovation and integrity in modern football governance.
The Rules: Regulation of MCO Groups
MCO groups are highly regulated and subject to many different integrity and transparency requirements. It is clear, at least in the UK, that MCO cannot exist within the same league. The Premier League rules state that ‘no Person may either directly or indirectly be involved in or have any power to determine or influence the management or administration of more than one Premier League club’.[1]
At the European competition level, similar rules apply. UEFA Regulations’ Article 5 prohibits MCO by ensuring that no individual, entity, or club can have any ownership stake, management role, or decisive influence over more than one club participating in the same European competition.[2] Essentially, no one person can be involved in the running or decision-making of two or more clubs within a single UEFA competition.
The Ugly: Crystal Palace’s Demotion
On 17 May, Crystal Palace qualified for the UEFA Europa League by defeating Manchester City in the FA Cup. This marked their first ever qualification for a major European competition. However, their triumph was short-lived. UEFA determined that Palace owner, namely John Textor through his company Eagle Football Holdings, exercised influence over both Crystal Palace and French club Lyon. Because Lyon had also qualified for the Europa League, Palace were deemed non-compliant under Article 5 of the UEFA Regulations.[3] The punishment was harsh, with Palace being demoted to the UEFA Conference League qualification stage.
The club had their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected, with the panel claiming that the “UEFA Regulations are clear and do not provide flexibility to clubs that are non-compliant on the assessment date”.[4] Many fans have been left outraged and confused by this decision, especially considering that Manchester City and Girona were both allowed to compete in last season’s Champions League despite being part of City Football Group.[5] To ensure both teams could participate in the competition, City Football Group was required either to lower their ownership stake in Girona to below 30% by selling shares to an unrelated party, or to place their holdings in a blind trust managed by an independent UEFA-approved panel.[6] City Football Group opted for the latter, placing their shares in Girona into an independent blind trust for the full financial year. Crystal Palace, however, was not afforded this opportunity.
The key difference between the Crystal Palace case and the City Football Group case was the deadline for compliance. The City Football Group were allowed to restructure their ownership in Girona and remain compliant with Article 5 if done so by the relevant deadline. Had John Textor done something similar with either of his Palace or Lyon stakes, then Palace likely would have been allowed to compete in the Europa League. This technical explanation offers no comfort to Palace supporters, given UEFA’s compliance deadline fell on 1 March, two months before Palace secured Europa League qualification on 17 May.[7] This mismatch meant that Palace was effectively punished for a conflict that only became relevant after they had qualified.
This decision highlights the risks of MCO, where clubs and their fans may be punished for decisions taken by owners whose wider business interests extend far beyond the local pitch. Furthermore, it highlights the inadequacy of the current MCO rules, given Crystal Palace was not afforded the opportunity to become compliant upon their qualification into the Europa League.
The Opportunities: BlueCo (Chelsea and Strasbourg)
If Palace shows the risks, then BlueCo’s operations with Chelsea and Strasbourg show the potential rewards of MCO, alongside the controversy it brings. Chelsea’s ownership group, BlueCo, acquired French side Racing Strasbourg in 2023, enabling them to build a transnational development pipeline. Players can be signed by the group, allocated to Strasbourg to gain experience, and later transferred within the network.
The summer ‘25 transfer of Brighton’s Julio Enciso showcases BlueCo’s approach. Strasbourg acquired Enciso from Brighton with the view that he would play for Chelsea after a year in France. Chelsea had already exhausted their quota of three loan slots to Strasbourg, meaning that if Chelsea themselves signed Enciso, they could not send him to Strasbourg on loan for the season.[8] By routing Enciso through Strasbourg first, BlueCo effectively preserved the player’s development pathway without breaching Premier League restrictions. This strategy is not without risks. The Premier League rules require that intra-group transfers must occur at “fair market value” to prevent manipulation and unfair dealings.[9] If Enciso excels at Strasbourg during his time in France, Chelsea could be forced to pay significantly more next year for Enciso than if they had signed him themselves this summer.
Not all arrangements between Chelsea and Strasbourg have been universally welcomed. Chelsea’s agreement to sign star Strasbourg player Emmanuel Emegha in 2026 has sparked protests against the ownership model and its control of player development. Banners at Strasbourg’s stadium have denounced Emegha as a “pawn of BlueCo”.[10] For Strasbourg ultras, the club’s independence has been hollowed out, with its destiny now subordinate to Chelsea’s needs. Still, this past season under BlueCo, Strasbourg delivered their best result in decades, including qualification for European competition for the first time in 20 years.
Regulators are closely watching BlueCo and other ownership groups. However, experts suggest the model is too embedded as an ownership structure to be unwound.[11] Unless new legislation is introduced by UEFA or FIFA, MCO appears here to stay.
Conclusion
Multi-club ownership represents both a challenge and an opportunity for modern football. The Palace demotion shows the harshness of the rules, while the Chelsea-Strasbourg dynamic shows both the promise and peril of exploiting the rules. Somewhere between these poles lies the future of football governance, but exactly where remains to be seen.
References:
[1] https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/a-guide-to-multi-club-ownership-how-does-it-work
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.