Latest news with #multiClubOwnership
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘A perfect storm': multi-club ownership, Crystal Palace and a looming court threat
In the waterfront offices of Uefa's House of European Football headquarters in Nyon, the legal team are preparing for an unwanted trip around Lake Geneva to Lausanne. Over the course of many internal meetings since Crystal Palace inadvertently provided Uefa with the toughest test yet of its multi-club ownership (MCO) rules by winning the FA Cup, it has become increasingly clear the ultimate arbiter on the issue is likely to be the court of arbitration for sport (Cas). 'We're going to find out if our MCO rules stand up to scrutiny as, one way or another, it looks like we're going to Cas,' says one source at Uefa, resigned to the issue of whether Palace can compete in next season's Europa League being placed in the hands of that Lausanne court. Advertisement Uefa has been liaising closely with Palace, with sources claiming the issue of John Textor's dual shareholding in the club and Lyon – who qualified for the Europa League by finishing sixth in Ligue 1 – was flagged by the governing body long before the 1 March deadline for resolving MCO issues. The American is in advanced discussions over selling his 44.9% stake in Palace to the New York Jets owner, Woody Johnson, which may help the club's cause, although there is no prospect of the deal being completed before Uefa has to make a decision. The case is emblematic of the confusion surrounding club ownership and the regulatory issues facing the sport, and Uefa has delayed a ruling until the related case of Lyon's financial problems has been resolved. The DNCG – French football's financial watchdog – is auditing Lyon's accounts after imposing a provisional relegation to Ligue 2 last year owing to the club's debt levels, with a final outcome expected next week. Relegation and a ban from European competition for Lyon would make Uefa's life a lot easier, although both seem unlikely. 'It's a perfect storm,' says a sympathetic figure at another club. 'Everything that could go wrong from Uefa's point of view has done. We have three clubs involved [Palace, Lyon and Brøndby, who are owned by the Palace shareholder David Blitzer], and two multi-club groups. There's a complex ownership group at Palace who don't appear to communicate very well, and a surprise FA Cup winner. Not to mention Lyon's financial issues. You couldn't make it up really.' Palace sources acknowledge they are working with Uefa amid belief on both sides that an accommodation is wanted, but two factors beyond either party's control could count against them. Advertisement First, Cas last month upheld Fifa's decision to expel the Mexican club León from the Club World Cup because they are part of the same ownership group as another qualifier, Pachuca. The owner, Grupo Pachuca, had attempted to park its León shareholding in a separate trust but this move did not satisfy Fifa or Cas. In another complication Nottingham Forest, who will be moved from the Conference League to the Europa League if Palace are kicked out, may go to Cas if denied that promotion. A source close to Forest's owner, Evangelos Marinakis, told the Guardian the Greek billionaire was opposed to many of the moves to regulate football and was prepared to take on Uefa. There are clear financial incentives to do so. Whereas Chelsea earned £21m in prize money from winning the Conference League in the past season, Tottenham's Europa League triumph could be worth well over £100m because it also delivered a Champions League place. Palace are worried the León ruling has set a precedent that could work against them. At Uefa there is a feeling that it would rather face Forest at Cas than have its multi-club framework tested in court by Palace. One figure at a European team with direct experience of multi-club contortions believes Uefa will give Palace every opportunity to pass muster, concurring that the governing body's regulations could be brought tumbling down in the event Textor and company mounted a challenge. An examination brought about by Forest would, they suggested, give the existing rules a far better chance of holding firm. Advertisement Confirmation by Cas this week of the League of Ireland side Drogheda's expulsion from the Conference League owing to a multi-club breach has heightened concerns in Nyon, but the cases are different. Drogheda had qualified by winning the Irish Cup last November yet their owner, Trivela Group, failed to meet Uefa's March deadline, and unlike Textor the American investors are majority owners of two clubs: Drogheda and Denmark's Silkeborg. Uefa had caused disquiet in some quarters by shifting that deadline forward from last year's June date. Some figures involved in club acquisition have expressed surprise that Drogheda were not able to win their case at Cas. 'Uefa are trying to be flexible, but the Fifa v Club León case is making it harder for them,' a source said. 'Cas upheld Fifa's rules, which are very similar to Uefa's, so the precedent is there. The Cas ruling was based on the nature of the blind trust and the importance of the regulatory process – ie dates and deadlines. To put it simply Palace haven't complied, but Uefa want to make it work.' There is some acknowledgment at Uefa that elements of its MCO rules are not fit for purpose, although it would prefer to redraft them in Nyon than put them at the mercy of the court. There is nothing in Article 5 of Uefa's rules detailing whether Palace or Brøndby should be given precedence if both end up in next season's Conference League, for example. In ordinary circumstances it would be Brøndby by virtue of their higher league position, as stated in the rules, but Palace could also have a claim if parachuted in from the more prestigious Europa League. Advertisement Uefa's MCO rules have been in place without many revisions for 24 years, although one significant change was made 12 months ago when the regulations were relaxed to permit a club part of a multi-ownership group to compete in a different competition. Article 5 was drafted in 2001 after a legal challenge from Tottenham's owner, Enic, the first multi-club operation in the Premier League, after AEK Athens were blocked from taking part in the 1998-99 Uefa Cup because their sister club Slavia Prague had also qualified. The initial rule stated that 'control or influence' over more than one club was not allowed, but it was not tested until 2017 when RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg qualified for the Champions League, which led to the wording being altered to 'decisive influence'. What had been a rare occurrence is now an annual problem for Uefa, with Aston Villa, Brighton and Toulouse allowed to play in Europe during the 2023-24 season only when their owners put more distance between them and Vitória de Guimarães, Union Saint-Gilloise and Milan respectively. The same issue affected Manchester City and Girona as well as Manchester United and Nice a year later. The fact that neither Girona nor Manchester United joined their partner clubs in qualifying for next season's European competitions may have kicked a further conundrum down the road. Their respective ownership groups were allowed what was, in theory, a short-term exemption last season by placing one of their clubs' shares in a blind trust until 1 July this year. One club owner wonders how Uefa would have responded if those sides had reached the same tournament for a second consecutive year. It is unclear whether they would have been allowed to roll over into a further 12 months of blind trust holding. Advertisement Multi-club ownership is growing constantly; figures shared with the Guardian by the MCO Insights consultancy suggest more than 800 top- and second-tier clubs could be involved by 2030. That would roughly double the current number. By that point it would surely be uncontrollable by current rules. Simon Leaf, head of sport at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, believes Uefa and other governing bodies need clearer regulations to avoid being repeatedly taken to court. 'We are seeing an increasing number of clubs looking to use various legal avenues – in particular, competition law – to try to challenge regulations that they dislike,' Leaf says. 'This trend is likely to continue, making it much harder for leagues and governing bodies to regulate their competitions. 'On the Palace matter it is hard to have too much sympathy with Uefa given they already showed themselves to be willing to bend their own rules on MCOs last summer – and despite their efforts to strengthen the regulations since then, the bar has now been set. 'Either way, MCOs are not going away, and so football's governing bodies need to find a way to properly deal with these issues so that they are dealt with in the boardroom rather than the courtroom.'
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
‘A perfect storm': multi-club ownership, Crystal Palace and a looming court threat
In the waterfront offices of Uefa's House of European Football headquarters in Nyon, the legal team are preparing for an unwanted trip around Lake Geneva to Lausanne. Over the course of many internal meetings since Crystal Palace inadvertently provided Uefa with the toughest test yet of its multi-club ownership (MCO) rules by winning the FA Cup, it has become increasingly clear the ultimate arbiter on the issue is likely to be the court of arbitration for sport (Cas). 'We're going to find out if our MCO rules stand up to scrutiny as, one way or another, it looks like we're going to Cas,' says one source at Uefa, resigned to the issue of whether Palace can compete in next season's Europa League being placed in the hands of that Lausanne court. Uefa has been liaising closely with Palace, with sources claiming the issue of John Textor's dual shareholding in the club and Lyon – who qualified for the Europa League by finishing sixth in Ligue 1 – was flagged by the governing body long before the 1 March deadline for resolving MCO issues. The American is in advanced discussions over selling his 44.9% stake in Palace to the New York Jets owner, Woody Johnson, which may help the club's cause, although there is no prospect of the deal being completed before Uefa has to make a decision. The case is emblematic of the confusion surrounding club ownership and the regulatory issues facing the sport, and Uefa has delayed a ruling until the related case of Lyon's financial problems has been resolved. The DNCG – French football's financial watchdog – is auditing Lyon's accounts after imposing a provisional relegation to Ligue 2 last year owing to the club's debt levels, with a final outcome expected next week. Relegation and a ban from European competition for Lyon would make Uefa's life a lot easier, although both seem unlikely. 'It's a perfect storm,' says a sympathetic figure at another club. 'Everything that could go wrong from Uefa's point of view has done. We have three clubs involved [Palace, Lyon and Brøndby, who are owned by the Palace shareholder David Blitzer], and two multi-club groups. There's a complex ownership group at Palace who don't appear to communicate very well, and a surprise FA Cup winner. Not to mention Lyon's financial issues. You couldn't make it up really.' Palace sources acknowledge they are working with Uefa amid belief on both sides that an accommodation is wanted, but two factors beyond either party's control could count against them. First, Cas last month upheld Fifa's decision to expel the Mexican club León from the Club World Cup because they are part of the same ownership group as another qualifier, Pachuca. The owner, Grupo Pachuca, had attempted to park its León shareholding in a separate trust but this move did not satisfy Fifa or Cas. In another complication Nottingham Forest, who will be moved from the Conference League to the Europa League if Palace are kicked out, may go to Cas if denied that promotion. A source close to Forest's owner, Evangelos Marinakis, told the Guardian the Greek billionaire was opposed to many of the moves to regulate football and was prepared to take on Uefa. There are clear financial incentives to do so. Whereas Chelsea earned £21m in prize money from winning the Conference League in the past season, Tottenham's Europa League triumph could be worth well over £100m because it also delivered a Champions League place. Palace are worried the León ruling has set a precedent that could work against them. At Uefa there is a feeling that it would rather face Forest at Cas than have its multi-club framework tested in court by Palace. One figure at a European team with direct experience of multi-club contortions believes Uefa will give Palace every opportunity to pass muster, concurring that the governing body's regulations could be brought tumbling down in the event Textor and company mounted a challenge. An examination brought about by Forest would, they suggested, give the existing rules a far better chance of holding firm. Confirmation by Cas this week of the League of Ireland side Drogheda's expulsion from the Conference League owing to a multi-club breach has heightened concerns in Nyon, but the cases are different. Drogheda had qualified by winning the Irish Cup last November yet their owner, Trivela Group, failed to meet Uefa's March deadline, and unlike Textor the American investors are majority owners of two clubs: Drogheda and Denmark's Silkeborg. Uefa had caused disquiet in some quarters by shifting that deadline forward from last year's June date. Some figures involved in club acquisition have expressed surprise that Drogheda were not able to win their case at Cas. 'Uefa are trying to be flexible, but the Fifa v Club León case is making it harder for them,' a source said. 'Cas upheld Fifa's rules, which are very similar to Uefa's, so the precedent is there. The Cas ruling was based on the nature of the blind trust and the importance of the regulatory process – ie dates and deadlines. To put it simply Palace haven't complied, but Uefa want to make it work.' There is some acknowledgment at Uefa that elements of its MCO rules are not fit for purpose, although it would prefer to redraft them in Nyon than put them at the mercy of the court. There is nothing in Article 5 of Uefa's rules detailing whether Palace or Brøndby should be given precedence if both end up in next season's Conference League, for example. In ordinary circumstances it would be Brøndby by virtue of their higher league position, as stated in the rules, but Palace could also have a claim if parachuted in from the more prestigious Europa League. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Uefa's MCO rules have been in place without many revisions for 24 years, although one significant change was made 12 months ago when the regulations were relaxed to permit a club part of a multi-ownership group to compete in a different competition. Article 5 was drafted in 2001 after a legal challenge from Tottenham's owner, Enic, the first multi-club operation in the Premier League, after AEK Athens were blocked from taking part in the 1998-99 Uefa Cup because their sister club Slavia Prague had also qualified. The initial rule stated that 'control or influence' over more than one club was not allowed, but it was not tested until 2017 when RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg qualified for the Champions League, which led to the wording being altered to 'decisive influence'. What had been a rare occurrence is now an annual problem for Uefa, with Aston Villa, Brighton and Toulouse allowed to play in Europe during the 2023-24 season only when their owners put more distance between them and Vitória de Guimarães, Union Saint-Gilloise and Milan respectively. The same issue affected Manchester City and Girona as well as Manchester United and Nice a year later. The fact that neither Girona nor Manchester United joined their partner clubs in qualifying for next season's European competitions may have kicked a further conundrum down the road. Their respective ownership groups were allowed what was, in theory, a short-term exemption last season by placing one of their clubs' shares in a blind trust until 1 July this year. One club owner wonders how Uefa would have responded if those sides had reached the same tournament for a second consecutive year. It is unclear whether they would have been allowed to roll over into a further 12 months of blind trust holding. Multi-club ownership is growing constantly; figures shared with the Guardian by the MCO Insights consultancy suggest more than 800 top- and second-tier clubs could be involved by 2030. That would roughly double the current number. By that point it would surely be uncontrollable by current rules. Simon Leaf, head of sport at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, believes Uefa and other governing bodies need clearer regulations to avoid being repeatedly taken to court. 'We are seeing an increasing number of clubs looking to use various legal avenues – in particular, competition law – to try to challenge regulations that they dislike,' Leaf says. 'This trend is likely to continue, making it much harder for leagues and governing bodies to regulate their competitions. 'On the Palace matter it is hard to have too much sympathy with Uefa given they already showed themselves to be willing to bend their own rules on MCOs last summer – and despite their efforts to strengthen the regulations since then, the bar has now been set. 'Either way, MCOs are not going away, and so football's governing bodies need to find a way to properly deal with these issues so that they are dealt with in the boardroom rather than the courtroom.'
Telegraph
08-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Uefa making an example of Crystal Palace would be farcical
The regulations for Uefa's club competitions determine that no two clubs may have the same owner, management or administration, although when that has presented a problem, Uefa have, by their own admission, found a way around it. As the Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin said himself, the organisation tends to adapt when it suits them. 'There are clubs,' he remarked in April 2023, 'or at least one – where we still pretend it's not the same owner [as another] but it's the same owner, and I will not tell you which. You can guess.' Pretending that the multi-club ownership [MCO] issue does not matter has been Uefa's way of dealing with one of the biggest phenomena of modern football. It is why RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg can both play in the Champions League despite sharing an energy drink benefactor and a very famous director of football, in Jürgen Klopp. It is why City Football Group can list Manchester City and Girona among their 13 clubs and both could play in the Champions League last season. The same has been done provisionally for Nottingham Forest and Olympiakos, under the ownership of Evangelos Marinakis. Or Manchester United and Nice under the Ineos ownership. Football is good at pretending. In this case, Uefa is satisfied when an owner's shares of one or the other club are placed in a blind trust. Then the problem simply goes away. Crystal Palace, this season's FA Cup winners, are faced with the kind of administrative nightmare that might see them kicked out of the Europa League because they failed to do the necessary pretending by a certain Uefa deadline. The US investor John Textor, whose company Eagle Football owns around 40 per cent of Palace, did not put that share in Palace in a blind trust by March 1, an MCO deadline brought forward by Uefa this year. As a result of Eagle Football's control of Ligue 1 Lyon, also in the Europa League next season, Palace could find themselves ejected from the competition. Uefa works on the basis that Article 5 of their regulations governing MCO seeks to prohibit a single individual having 'decisive influence' across more than one club. Textor's influence on Palace is so decisive that the joke goes that his share of the club is the most expensive season ticket in the Premier League. Everyone knows Palace is run by its chairman Steve Parish – via his alliance with the two key US investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer – and between them they control the club. Those three, as well as Textor, met Uefa officials last week to explain it. Palace and Lyon do not share a single member of staff. No player has ever been loaned between the clubs. They do not share scouting or recruitment systems or indeed any commercial deal. The sum total of their interaction is the £1 million deal for Jake O'Brien to join Lyon two years ago. Yet this is to be the first MCO test case that might see a Premier League club thrown out of its rightful European competition. There may yet be an MCO issue for Palace with Blitzer's stake, via his MCO company Global Football Holdings, in Brondby. That could jeopardise Palace playing in the Europa Conference League, should Brondby make it through qualifying. But it is the Europa League in which Palace belong. That is the competition they reached by winning the club's first major honour. A competition that is Palace's best chance of signing players who previously would have looked elsewhere. A competition they might just win under a manager, Oliver Glasner, who has won it before with an outsider. This is Palace's chance to climb the ladder – and they have earned it. All that is at risk because an investor with no decisive influence, at a club which has no MCO relationship with Palace did not place his shares in a blind trust three months ago. Why that deadline had been moved forward by Uefa from June 1 last year is not clear. Either way, by March 1, Palace were only just playing their fifth-round tie against Millwall. The rule presupposes that Textor should put his shares in Palace in a blind trust every year on the off-chance the club might win a trophy they had never won before. Either way, had they thought of it at the time, Parish, Blitzer and Harris could not compel Textor to do so – they could only ask him. At Uefa and the European Club Association, there is a willingness to find a way for Palace to play their first season in Europe. They have been here before. Palace had thought that a historic third-place finish in 1991 would be good enough for a place in the Uefa Cup. That season Arsenal won the First Division and Liverpool were second, still banned from Uefa competition for 10 years following the 1985 Heysel disaster. Then in April 1991, Uefa lifted Liverpool's ban after six years and they took the English Uefa Cup place. Forest believe that next season's Europa League place should be theirs. Marinakis placed his shares in a blind trust, in case Forest reached the Champions League as well as Olympiakos. Under the terms of Uefa's rules, Forest would have been compliant and Marinakis determined by Uefa to be not a decisive influence at the club from March 1. Although anyone who thinks Marinakis is not a decisive influence at Forest has really not been paying attention to events off the pitch as well as on it. Meanwhile, Textor's share in Palace has become the key element in a farce that is growing by the day. Public filings show that Textor controls 65 per cent of Eagle Football which itself has around 40 per cent of Palace. That puts him personally in control of less than 30 per cent of Palace – a key threshold for Uefa in determining decisive influence. Uefa's MCO regulations were introduced to stop collusion, corruption and all those other unwanted consequences people used to imagine might be the motive for one person running two or more clubs. They were not brought in to punish clubs with back-seat investors like Textor who have stakes in multiple clubs. Football has changed and the world's wealthiest owners want to own more than one club for reasons that do not include fixing football matches. Caught in the middle of it are Palace, who at last have a chance of doing something remarkable and now have had their sleeve snagged on a rule that was never intended for occasions like this.
The Sun
07-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Crystal Palace set to learn Europa League fate this week as co-owner looks to buy out John Textor
JOSH HARRIS wants to buy out John Textor in the latest tug of war at Crystal Palace. Textor owns around 45 per cent of the club and was planning to make a move on Harris and David Blitzer — who have 18 per cent each — to purchase their shares. 3 3 3 But that has failed so far — with Textor now willing to sell up to avoid Palace being booted out of the Europa League due to Uefa's rules on multi-club ownership. The European governing body's regulations mean Textor, majority owner of Lyon, cannot have influence at two clubs in the same competition. But a sale is unlikely to be quick and will not impact the decision of Uefa chiefs. And Harris is looking to pay a smaller sum than his US compatriot wants. Textor, whose Palace club won entry to the Europa League through winning the FA Cup, does not have a majority stake and only 25 per cent of voting rights. Palace hope that relatively low figure will help their case with Uefa, who are expected to deliver a verdict next week. Lyon are also set to feature in the competition having finished higher than Palace domestically, with a sixth-placed finish in the Ligue 1 last season. Uefa rules prohibit anyone from "simultaneously be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition." The prospect of Palace dropping into the Conference League is also nigh-on impossible too. This is because other shareholder David Blizter also has a stake in Danish oufit Brondby, who are set to play in European football 's tertiary club competition next season. In a desperate bid to see the Eagles fly across Europe next season and comply with Uefa rules, Textor and Blizter offered to put their shares in a blind trust. But Uefa chiefs have REJECTED the offer, leaving Palace's proposed European adventure next season in limbo.
BBC News
04-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Gossip: Eagles owner at risk of breaking Uefa rules
Crystal Palace part-owner John Textor, who also owns French side Lyon, is trying to sell his majority share in the Premier League team, as the Eagles try to avoid being disqualified from the Europa League next season for breaking Uefa's multi-club ownership rules. (Mail), externalWant more transfer stories? Read Wednesday's full gossip column Follow the gossip column on BBC Sport
