The Rise of Multi-Club Ownership: Opportunity or Threat?
From expelling teams from Europe to reshaping the transfer market, multi-club ownership is already transforming football. Club León were removed from the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup after their ownership group, Grupo Pachuca, also controlled C.F. Pachuca, who had qualified for the same competition. Crystal Palace were excluded from the 2025–26 Europa League after UEFA ruled that John Textor’s stakes in both Palace and Olympique Lyonnais breached Article 5.01 of UEFA’s Statutes.
Supporters argue that the model brings financial stability, creates pathways for young talent and expands the global reach of clubs. Critics argue that it undermines competitive integrity, reduces teams to assets within investment portfolios and risks excluding clubs from competitions they have rightfully earned the chance to play in.
This article traces the rise of multi-club ownership, examines the legal and regulatory responses, weighs its advantages and concerns, and considers whether it should be allowed to shape the future of football.
The Growth of Multi-Club Ownership
Multi-club ownership is when a single investor or business holds stakes in more than one football club, ranging from small partnerships to vast global networks spanning several continents. The model allows resources, data and expertise to be shared across the group, often with one flagship club at the top of the hierarchy and others serving as feeder sides. The model has existed since the late 1990s when ENIC experimented with owning multiple European clubs, but it has expanded rapidly in the past decade. City Football Group (CFG), backed by Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth, now owns 13 clubs worldwide centred around Manchester City. Red Bull has built a sporting identity through RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg, while more traditional club owners have also embraced the model. Brighton’s Tony Bloom is the majority owner of Union Saint-Gilloise in Belgium, Aston Villa’s V Sports has invested in Vitória Guimarães, and Chelsea’s consortium owners BlueCo have added Strasbourg to their portfolio.
The expansion of multi-club ownership has been significant. In 2012, there were only 18 known multi-club groups across world football. According to UEFA’s 2024 European Club Finance and Investment Landscape report, there are now 342 clubs worldwide operating within a multi-club investment structure.
Legal and Regulatory Issues
Multi-club ownership has forced governing bodies to clarify where the limits of control lie. In England, the Premier League rules are unambiguous. Section I of the Handbook on Finance and Governance prohibits any association that compromises independence between clubs. Rule I.4 states 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 Club.” This prevents two Premier League teams from being under the same control, although links with foreign clubs are permitted.
At European level, the key safeguard is Article 5.01 of UEFA’s Statutes. This provision prevents two clubs under the same control or “decisive influence” from competing in the same UEFA competition, whether the Champions League, Europa League or Europa Conference League. The rule was first introduced in the late 1990s after ENIC simultaneously owned AEK Athens, Slavia Prague and Vicenza, all of whom reached the quarter-finals of the 1997–98 Cup Winners’ Cup. More recently, UEFA has enforced the rule against Crystal Palace, excluding them from the 2025–26 Europa League because John Textor’s stakes in both Palace and Lyon were deemed to breach Article 5.01.
There have been other high-profile examples. In 2017, UEFA launched an investigation into Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig but ultimately permitted both clubs to compete in the Champions League. UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body concluded that, ‘no individual or legal entity had a decisive influence over more than one club.’
In 2024, Manchester City’s Champions League qualification raised concerns after Girona, another CFG club, also secured a place through La Liga. UEFA eventually approved their participation, but only after CFG placed its shareholding in Girona into a blind trust.
Ahead of the 2024–25 season UEFA introduced this “blind trust” mechanism, as a temporary safeguard, allowing shares to be held by an independent trustee to separate decision-making. UEFA has made clear, however, that this is an exceptional measure and not a long-term solution.
FIFA also regulates at the global level. Article 10(1)(c) of the FIFA Club World Cup Regulations prohibits any individual or entity from controlling more than one club in the same edition of the competition. The rule was applied in 2025 when Club León were removed from the tournament after their ownership group, Grupo Pachuca, also owned C.F. Pachuca, who had also qualified.
Alongside Palace’s expulsion from the Europa League, this case demonstrates how governing bodies are adopting a stricter approach to protect the integrity of competition.
Advantages of MCO
Despite the concerns, multi-club ownership offers clear benefits. The most obvious advantage is financial stability. Clubs in smaller or financially weaker leagues gain access to funding and infrastructure they might otherwise lack. Girona’s qualification for the 2024–25 Champions League under CFG backing is a prime example. The second benefit is knowledge and resource sharing. Red Bull’s model shows how players such as Dominik Szoboszlai and Dayot Upamecano developed at Salzburg before progressing to Leipzig, supported by a shared style of play and coaching infrastructure. Finally, multi-club ownership allows strategic positioning. By investing across continents, owners gain access to new talent markets and spread financial risk. This creates structured pathways for players, such as Savinho, who moved to Manchester City in July 2024 after previously playing for fellow CFG club Troyes.
Concerns about MCO
The biggest concern is that multi-club ownership erodes the identity of clubs. Historic clubs with proud traditions risk being downgraded to feeder sides, whose main purpose is to develop players for a more powerful club within the group. Strasbourg fans protested against the club’s takeover by BlueCo, fearing their team would be reduced to a feeder club for Chelsea. There is also the danger of expulsion from major competitions. UEFA’s Article 5.01 makes clear that two clubs under the same control cannot compete in the same tournament.
UEFA’s recent decisions show that ownership structures can directly affect whether clubs are allowed to compete, meaning success on the pitch can be undone by off-field ownership conflicts.
Looking ahead
Multi-club ownership is now firmly established in world football and shows no sign of slowing down. While UEFA and FIFA are now taking firmer steps to regulate it, the financial and structural power behind the model makes it difficult to contain. The challenge for governing bodies is to balance the benefits of investment with the need to protect fair competition and preserve club identity. The way this balance is handled will shape the future of the game.