The Rise and Rift of Multi-Club Ownership in Pro Football: A New Monopoly in the Making?

A Football Club's Stadium

The world of professional soccer is undergoing a seismic shift — not on the pitch, but in the boardrooms behind it. Once the domain of passionate local investors and legacy club families, ownership structures are evolving into sprawling global portfolios. Known as Multi-Club Ownership (MCO), this trend is reshaping the sport’s competitive landscape, its financial ecosystem, and even the integrity of its most prestigious competitions.

But with great corporate empires come great complications — and UEFA is just starting to feel the strain.

When Owning Too Much Becomes a Problem

At its core, MCO isn’t inherently controversial: a single investor or holding group buys stakes in multiple clubs around the world. It’s a business model that promises talent pipelines, global branding, and operational synergies. Think of City Football Group — the organization behind Manchester City, New York City FC, and a dozen other clubs — with shared scouting networks and player movement that span continents.

Peak Phase Pre-Workout. Buy Now

Yet when these portfolios contain teams that qualify for the same continental competitions — like the UEFA Champions League or Europa League — problems emerge.

UEFA’s rules are clear: no individual or entity can exert decisive influence over more than one club competing in the same European tournament. This is meant to preserve sporting integrity — ensuring no owner has conflicting interests that could undermine fairness.

But reality is proving messy.

Crystal Palace vs. Lyon: A Rule Tested, and a Fanbase Furious

Perhaps the most telling example came from the 2025–26 UEFA season.

• Crystal Palace, a historic English club, won the FA Cup — earning a spot in the Europa League for the first time in its 120-year existence.

• Yet they were blocked from competing, not by sporting failure — but by ownership logistics.

  
  

Both Palace and Olympique Lyonnais qualified for the same competition — and both were controlled, at the time of qualification, by American investor John Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings. UEFA’s regulations prohibit that scenario, so Lyon retained the Europa League place (finishing higher domestically) while Palace were bumped down to the Europa Conference League.

Fans erupted. Club leaders called it an “injustice.” Legal appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport failed. And the saga highlighted a foundational flaw in the MCO model: when business interests and competition rules collide, the fans — and smaller clubs — lose.

Not Just the Big Clubs: Smaller Sides Caught in the Crossfire

It’s not only glamour clubs like Crystal Palace. Smaller teams are also bearing the brunt of these rules:

• Drogheda United, an Irish club, saw its Conference League spot revoked due to MCO conflicts with Silkeborg IF, both owned by the same U.S. investment group.

• The knock-on effect? Players miss out on European exposure, clubs forgo vital revenue, and football communities suffer.

  
  

Across Europe, similar disputes are forcing teams to restructure ownership stakes, sell shares, or sever ties with sister clubs — all to stay eligible for continental competition. It's laborious, expensive, and sometimes arbitrary.

The MCO Business Model: Strategic or Sinister?

Supporters of multi-club portfolios argue they bring investment and expertise to teams across the globe. By spreading risk and resources, investors can:

• Scout and develop talent across leagues.

• Move players internally to optimise growth.

• Expand brand reach into new markets.

• Build feeder-club systems that groom future stars.

  
  

This feeder club idea is where the critics raise red flags. MCO groups essentially create ecosystems — tapping smaller leagues for talent, then funnelling the best assets to flagship clubs in elite competitions. Over time, this could resemble a sporting monopoly, where a handful of ownership groups dominate player development, transfer markets, and even match outcomes.

Is that far from a Super League mentality?

Some would argue it isn’t. In effect, MCO networks already knit together a sort of unofficial pyramid — where affiliated teams in minor leagues serve as stepping stones to elite clubs in Europe’s top tournaments. It’s not a closed league, but it’s a controlled pipeline that benefits investors first and football culture second.

UEFA’s Clash with MCO — And What Comes Next

Governing bodies are scrambling to adapt. UEFA’s rules are strict, but they weren’t designed for portfolios that span continents and tiers. Cases like Palace vs. Lyon underscore the tension between commercial ambition and sporting fairness.

Some clubs have used blind trusts or reduced shareholdings to comply — temporarily distancing ownership influence long enough to compete. Others are reconsidering future MCO investments altogether, wary of regulatory penalties that could wipe out European campaigns.

Meanwhile, fans are left wondering:Is this evolution good for the game — or the beginning of a corporate takeover of club soccer?

SB Sneakers. Shop Now

Conclusion: A New Era of Ownership, But at What Cost?

Multi-Club Ownership is reshaping the economics of soccer. It has unlocked capital and global opportunity. Yet it also introduces conflict, inequality, and real consequences when business interests collide with sporting rules.

The real challenge now isn’t whether MCOs will expand — they will. It’s whether soccer’s institutions can adapt its regulations to ensure fair competition, fan loyalty, and sporting integrity in an era dominated by global investment supergroups.

Because if the game becomes less about competition and more about corporate strategy, we might just be watching the first act of a de facto Super League — not on the pitch, but in the boardrooms across Europe.