Analysis: As Crystal Palace, Drogheda United and others have discovered, multi-club ownership is now a confusing force reshaping soccer’s future
A few weeks ago, Crystal Palace were bumped from the Europa League to the Europa Conference League. This was not because they finished lower in the table or lost a playoff, but because of multi-club ownership rules. American businessman John Textor and Eagle Football’s interest in both Palace and Olympique Lyonnais meant only one of the clubs could enter the Europa League, with the French side’s higher league position edging out Palace. Textor has since sold his shares in Palace to New York Jets’ owner Woody Johnson.
It feels deeply unfair: Palace had done everything right on the pitch, yet still lost out due to shared ownership rules. It is reminiscent of when Chelsea bought French side Strasbourg. At first, it felt like a clever bit of business, but it begs the questions what happens when both clubs reach Europe? Who steps aside? Who gets favoured? And what does that say about where the game is going?
Welcome to the world of multi-club ownership, a quiet, confusing force reshaping soccer’s future.
What Is multi-club ownership?
Multi-club ownership is when one person or company owns several clubs, often across different countries and, increasingly, within the same competition. In 2012, there fewer than 40 clubs in Europe in this position. By 2023, there were over 230 such clubs.
Some of football’s biggest names are now part of global networks. Manchester City belongs to the City Football Group, alongside Girona and others. Red Bullowns RB Leipzig and Salzburg. Chelsea’s new owners BlueCo have added Strasbourg to their growing portfolio.
It’s smart business. Clubs can share scouting, staff, even players. But football isn’t just business – and this is where the problems begin.
What happens when business clashes with matches?
Things get messy when these commonly owned clubs start competing against each other. UEFA’s “Integrity Rule” exists to prevent this and states that two clubs under the same control can’t participate in the same European competition. But enforcement in practice is challenging and patchy.
Chelsea and Strasbourg’s situation is a perfect example. If both qualify for Europe, one might be forced to drop out That’s not speculation; it’s the UEFA’s rulebook. That’s a bitter pill to swallow for Chelsa fans who want to celebrate qualification and not worry if a legal technicality and smart business practices could knock your team out before a ball is kicked.
It’s not just happening in the big leagues. Drogheda United in Ireland had to clarify its ownership structure after concerns emerged about shared control with Danish club Silkeborg IF which resulted in their expulsion from UEFA competitions for the year. The uncertainty around eligibility casts a shadow over their European hopes too
Smaller clubs, bigger costs
One of the most uncomfortable consequences of multi-club ownership is what it means for smaller clubs. For many fans, their team is no longer a local institution but a pawn in someone else’s corporate strategy.
Smaller clubs often become “feeder teams”, grooming players for the main club. The best talents don’t stay long. They’re sold up the chain. It’s hard not to feel like the soul of the club is being drained for someone else’s gain.
Even the transfer market is impacted. Internal transfers within multi-club groups can inflate player valuations and allow owners to move money creatively, potentially skirting financial fair play rules. The playing field isn’t just tilted anymore. It’s being redrawn behind closed doors.
Can the rules keep up?
UEFA’s Integrity Rule was born from a 2000 court case, but it hasn’t aged well. A good example of inconsistent enforcement is the case of Manchester City and Girona, Both are under the City Football Group umbrella, yet they’ve managed to compete in Europe without issue, while clubs like Crystal Palace could be punished. As a fan, that feels deeply unfair.
The core problem is vagueness. What counts as control? A majority shareholding? A seat on the board? There’s room to manoeuvre, and plenty of powerful owners are appear willing to do just that.
Soccer has always had financial imbalances, but multi-club ownership takes it to another level. This isn’t just wealth, it’s consolidation. A few groups now control dozens of clubs. We risk losing the magic, that belief that any team can beat the odds. Fans want to cheer for a club, not a corporate logo.
What needs to change?
To protect the game, several responses must be considered. Including:
- A three-club cap per ownership group;
- Only one club per ownership group per UEFA competition tier;
- Clear definitions of control;
- Transparency in transfers;
- Independent oversight.
There’s a quote in football that pundits and fans alike keep coming back to: “The game belongs to the people.” If that’s the case, fans need a voice when it comes to this corporate ball game. Because without them, football is just another asset.
With Palace’s appeal against UEFA’s decision to demote them from the Europa League due to be heard this week at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, their supporters will soon know if their team will compete in the Europa League or the Conference League next season. All fans await the court’s decision with great interest.
