Crystal Palace’s Europa League Dream Ends in Lausanne as CAS Upholds Ban
Crystal Palace’s 1-0 victory over Manchester City in the FA Cup final on 17 May 2025, which delivered the club’s first major honour, appeared to guarantee them a place in the 2025/26 Europa League. However, celebrations were short-lived as doubts soon emerged over their place in the competition. UEFA raised questions after Lyon, another club controlled by John Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings, also qualified for the competition.
On 11 July, UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) determined that Palace had breached Article 5.01 of its Club Competitions Regulations regarding its multi-club ownership rules and expelled the club from the Europa League. Palace challenged the ruling before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but CAS dismissed the appeal on 11 August, confirming that Palace would be denied entry into the Europa League and would instead drop into the UEFA Conference League. The decision not only deprives Palace of Europa League broadcasting and prize revenue, but also weakened the club’s commercial and sporting prospects by denying the exposure associated with Europe’s second tier competition. This article examines the background to the dispute, the rules at stake as well as the financial and sporting implications of the result for Crystal Palace.
Europa League Qualification and Palace’s Path
England receives two Europa League places each season. One is normally awarded to the team finishing fifth in the Premier League, although in the 2024/25 season the allocation shifted after England was granted an additional Champions League place, meaning that sixth place Aston Villa qualified instead. The second Europa League place goes to the winners of the FA Cup, a route which has previously enabled less established clubs to compete in Europe. Wigan Athletic are the most notable example, having entered the 2013/14 Europa League while playing in the Championship after defeating Manchester City 1-0 in the FA Cup final, a scoreline that mirrored Crystal Palace’s own victory in 2025.
Crystal Palace’s eligibility was called into question by their ownership structure. Eagle Football Holdings, controlled by American businessman John Textor, owned 43 per cent of Palace while also holding a 77 per cent stake in Olympique Lyonnais. With Lyon qualifying for the Europa League through Ligue 1, UEFA was required to determine whether the two clubs were in breach of its multi-club ownership rules.
That determination was postponed until Lyon’s domestic status was resolved. The Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion (DNCG), the body responsible for monitoring the finances of professional clubs in France, had initially relegated Lyon to Ligue 2 following a review of their accounts. On 9 July 2025, however, the appeal instance of the DNCG overturned that decision, keeping Lyon in Ligue 1 and preserving their eligibility for European competition.
Two days later, on 11 July, the CFCB First Chamber reviewed submissions of both clubs and concluded that, as of 1 March 2025, they were in breach of Article 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competitions Regulations governing multi-club ownership. Although Textor has since sold his 43 per cent stake in Palace to New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and stepped down as President of Lyon, with Michele Kang assuming that role, these changes came too late to alter UEFA’s ruling.
UEFA Rules and the CAS Appeal
UEFA’s rules on multi-club ownership are set out in Article 5 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations. Article 5.01(c) states that no individual or entity may control or influence more than one club competing in a UEFA tournament. Control includes holding a majority of voting rights or having the ability to exercise decisive influence over a club’s decision-making.
Article 5.02 provides that if two or more clubs are found to be under common control, only one may be admitted, with preference given to the club that finished higher in its domestic league. In this instance, Lyon’s sixth-place finish in Ligue 1 ranked above Crystal Palace’s 12th place in the Premier League, resulting in Lyon’s admission at Palace’s expense.
Under Article 5.03, any excluded club must be replaced by the next-best placed side from the same national association. This allowed Nottingham Forest, who finished seventh in the Premier League, to move into the Europa League.
Finally, Article 5.04 permits excluded clubs to be admitted into another UEFA competition where possible, in descending order of competition. As a result, Palace were reassigned to the Europa Conference League.
Palace’s exclusion from the Europa League was therefore a direct consequence of John Textor’s ownership interests in both Palace and Lyon. Under Article 62 of the UEFA Statutes, Palace exercised their right to appeal the CFCB’s decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
At the one day hearing in Lausanne on 8 August, Crystal Palace advanced three principal arguments. Their first line of defence was that the treatment they received was anti-competitive and inconsistent with UEFA’s obligation to apply its rules fairly. They pointed to the March 1 deadline for multi club ownership compliance, which they argued had not been applied evenly.
Palace highlighted evidence that the European Club Association (ECA) advised its members that compliance could be achieved up to 31 May. Nottingham Forest benefited from this flexibility when their owner, Evangelos Marinakis, placed his Forest shares into a blind trust on 30 April, filing documents at Companies House stating he was no longer a “person with significant control” of NF Football Investments Limited.
This move ensured Forest would comply with UEFA regulations if they and Marinakis’s Greek club Olympiacos qualified for the same competition. Palace claimed that, because they were not members of the ECA, they were denied the same guidance and opportunity.
Their second argument centred on whether John Textor exercised decisive influence over Palace’s decision making. Palace emphasised that Eagle Football’s 43 per cent shareholding did not amount to control and that Steve Parish continued to run the club independently. They added that Textor grew so frustrated with his lack of authority that he eventually sold his stake to US businessman Woody Johnson. Parish publicly stated: “John and Eagle Football did not have decisive influence over Palace. I do not even know anyone’s phone number at Lyon. It is an incredible travesty of justice.”
The final argument addressed why Palace did not use a blind trust mechanism to resolve the conflict. Palace contended that such a solution was not viable because Textor was already in the process of selling his shares, making it impractical to create temporary governance arrangements at the same time.
CAS rejected all three arguments. In its written statement, the Panel found that Textor, as founder of Eagle Football Holdings, held shares in both Crystal Palace and Olympique Lyonnais and exercised decisive influence over both clubs as of the March 1 assessment date. The Panel also dismissed Palace’s claim of unequal treatment compared with Forest and Lyon, holding that the UEFA regulations were clear and left no flexibility for clubs found to be non-compliant at the assessment date.
The decision underscores CAS’s strict approach to Article 5.01. Earlier in the summer, Drogheda United were expelled from the Conference League after their owners, US based Trivela Group, also controlled Danish club Silkeborg, who had qualified for the same competition.
Financial and Sporting Consequences for Palace
The CAS ruling carries clear financial consequences for Crystal Palace. The Europa League prize pool stands at €565 million, almost double the €285 million on offer in the Conference League. Simply qualifying for the Europa League would have guaranteed Palace a greater payout and the chance to earn significantly higher rewards for wins, draws and knockout progression.
For Palace, the demotion therefore represents not just a loss of prestige, but also a substantial reduction in potential income. The difference between the two competitions could run into tens of millions of euros over the course of a season. With less exposure to sponsors and broadcasters, the club faces a financial setback that may hinder its ability to strengthen the squad and build on the momentum created by its FA Cup triumph.
Conclusion
Crystal Palace’s expulsion from the Europa League underlines UEFA’s determination to enforce its multi-club ownership rules strictly, even at the expense of sporting achievement. Despite lifting their first major trophy in May, Palace have been relegated to the Europa Conference League, with Nottingham Forest stepping into their place in the more lucrative competition. The financial and reputational consequences are significant, but the immediate focus now shifts back to the pitch. Palace will begin their European campaign in the Conference League play-off round, hosting Norwegian side Fredrikstad at Selhurst Park on 21 August in the first-leg.