UEFA is under pressure to extend its deadline for separating club ownership structures following a chaotic summer in which several teams, including Crystal Palace, were barred from European competitions due to violations of multi-club ownership rules.
Smaller clubs within multi-club groups are expected to lobby UEFA to push back the current March 1 deadline for proving compliance. Under the regulations, clubs cannot compete in the same tournament if one person holds decisive influence over both. Palace were controversially ruled in breach because their former majority shareholder, John Textor, also controlled Lyon. Both clubs had qualified for the Europa League, but Palace were ultimately moved to the Conference League, where they began their campaign with a 1-0 playoff win against Fredrikstad.
Any change would reverse last season’s decision to move the deadline forward from June 1. Palace argued that the earlier cutoff was unfair, as they only secured European qualification by winning the FA Cup in May—an outcome that seemed unlikely in early March. UEFA’s financial control body rejected this argument, and the decision was upheld on appeal.
Other clubs, such as Ireland’s Drogheda and Slovakia’s Dunajska Streda, were also excluded from the Conference League due to ownership links. There is broad agreement among officials and club owners that the rules need refinement to prevent similar confusion in the future, though no specific solution has yet been proposed.
UEFA is reportedly hesitant to amend the regulations so soon after introducing the March 1 deadline, but the issue will be discussed at the executive committee’s meeting in Tirana next month. The European Club Association, which co-manages UEFA competitions, has expressed sympathy for affected clubs and may advocate on their behalf if formally approached.
Critics argue that requiring clubs to restructure ownership mid-season, without knowing if they will even qualify for Europe, is unreasonable. A source from a multi-club group noted, “Smaller clubs with limited resources are hit hardest. Allowing more time would not compromise sporting integrity.”
Ironically, another challenge to the deadline comes from Nottingham Forest, who benefited from Palace’s demotion by taking their Europa League spot. Forest’s owner, Evangelos Marinakis, had previously placed his shares in a blind trust to avoid a conflict with his ownership of Olympiakos, in case both qualified for the Champions League. As it turned out, Forest finished seventh and only secured a Conference League place, making the trust arrangement unnecessary after just six weeks. A UEFA source called the situation “strange.”
Some in football question the effectiveness of blind trusts as a genuine separation strategy. One club owner pointed out that Marinakis hardly seemed detached from Forest when he confronted manager Nuno Espírito Santo on the pitch after a match.A draw with Leicester in May. It seems blind trusts will become more common, but they’ll likely remain little more than a symbolic gesture.
Few expected club owners to change their strategies midstream due to recent controversies. There’s little evidence that this summer’s issues have discouraged clubs from pursuing multi-club operations or deterred investors overall. In the Premier League alone, Burnley’s owners, Velocity Sport Limited, bought a minority stake in Espanyol in July, while Fenway Sports Group is in talks with several Spanish clubs about adding to their Liverpool-led network.
Still, the multi-club landscape is set to evolve in the coming years, with new models emerging. “Investors are likely to become more cautious and structured in how they manage multi-club relationships,” says Xander Czaikowski, CEO of Estrella Football Group. “This pushes the industry toward more professional frameworks and clearer rules of engagement.”
Evangelos Marinakis placed his Nottingham Forest shares in a blind trust but hardly seemed detached when confronting manager Nuno Espírito Santo at the end of last season.
Estrella, which recently acquired a stake in Portuguese club Cascais and is finalizing several other deals, aims to take minority shares of 10–20% in smaller clubs. These clubs would be treated as equals and share a digital management platform. The idea is to create value across multiple similarly sized operations rather than prioritizing the results of one team. “We typically take minority stakes precisely because of the regulatory environment,” Czaikowski says. “The shift is from a top-down, controlling approach to one that is horizontal and collaborative.”
Whether such approaches gain traction or not, existing models will undoubtedly face continued scrutiny. This week, Racing Strasbourg fan group Ultra Boys 90 announced they will keep protesting against ownership by Chelsea’s holding company, BlueCo, despite a relatively successful 2024–25 season that earned Conference League qualification. “The issues we’ve raised haven’t magically disappeared,” their statement said. “Racing is no longer a club that makes decisions in its own interest.”
Czaikowski is among those who believe UEFA’s rules focus too much on ownership structures, while the deeper issue of unsustainable financial models remains inadequately addressed. In the short term, there is at least agreement that recent missteps must not be repeated. Drogheda United, whose owners also run Walsall and Danish club Silkeborg, felt that miscommunication over regulations played a big part in their situation.
“There’s a balance to be struck between encouraging investment and ensuring good governance, and we’re generally comfortable with where things stand,” another UEFA source added. “A bigger issue is whether all clubs and potential investors actually know the rules. There’s more we can do to educate and support them, I’m sure.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about European sanctions and multiclub ownership designed to be clear and helpful for all levels of interest
Beginner Definition Questions
1 What is multiclub ownership
Multiclub ownership is when a single individual company or investment group holds a significant controlling stake in more than one professional football club
2 Why is this suddenly a big issue in European football
Its become more common as investment groups have bought multiple clubs Recent highprofile cases like the ownership of Manchester City and Girona reaching the Champions League have raised concerns about fair competition and integrity
3 What are European sanctions in this context
This refers to potential new rules and punishments from UEFA designed to regulate multiclub ownership and prevent conflicts of interest especially in their tournaments like the Champions League
Rules Regulations Questions
4 What is the current rule from UEFA
UEFAs current rule states that two clubs owned by the same entity cannot both play in the same UEFA competition if one could directly influence the others performance
5 How do clubs get around the current rules
Investment groups often structure their ownership so that no single individual has a majority decisive influence over multiple clubs simultaneously using complex corporate structures to stay within the technical limits of the rules
6 What changes is UEFA considering
UEFA is considering stricter rules This could include lowering the ownership threshold that triggers a conflict looking at loans and transfers between linked clubs more closely and potentially even banning multiclub groups from entering teams in the same competition altogether
Problems Concerns Questions
7 Whats the main problem with multiclub ownership
The biggest fear is a conflict of interest For example if two clubs owned by the same group play each other could the result be manipulated Or could one club be pressured to sell its best players cheaply to the other
8 Are there any benefits to multiclub ownership
Proponents argue it can help smaller clubs by providing financial stability access to a wider network of scouts and coaches and the opportunity to loan talented young players from a sister club to aid their development
