As the Premier League season reaches its decisive phase, the fight for European qualification has not only been happening on the pitch but also behind the scenes in boardrooms and legal offices. Clubs are increasingly involved in complex negotiations with UEFA to ensure they comply with strict multi-club ownership (MCO) regulations, which can determine whether a team plays in Europe, is moved to a lower competition, or is excluded entirely.
UEFA’s rules exist to protect “sporting integrity,” ensuring that two clubs with close ownership links do not compete in the same European tournament in a way that could create conflicts of interest. The governing body insists that the integrity of competitions must be unquestionable, meaning no club should have undue influence over another in the same competition.
A key factor in these rules is ownership structure. If a single entity owns or influences more than one club—typically flagged at around 30% ownership or significant voting rights—it can trigger scrutiny. However, ownership percentage alone is not the only issue. UEFA also examines whether individuals or groups have “decisive influence” over multiple clubs, including shared directors, executives, or operational decision-making power.
If UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) decides that a conflict exists, one of the clubs must be removed from European competition. Priority is usually given based on sporting merit: the club competing in the higher-ranked tournament keeps its place. If both are in the same competition bracket, league position becomes the deciding factor, followed by UEFA coefficient rankings, where English clubs are currently highly placed.
A major tightening of rules has made compliance more difficult. In previous years, clubs were sometimes allowed to resolve ownership issues after qualification. However, UEFA moved the compliance deadline forward to 1 March, meaning clubs must be fully compliant before European qualification is confirmed. This change has already impacted several clubs, including Crystal Palace, Drogheda United, and FC DAC 1904, who faced sanctions and were ultimately unsuccessful in appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
A renewed UEFA directive has reinforced that the 1 March deadline is strict, prompting a rush among clubs across Europe to restructure ownership arrangements before the cutoff.
Everton and Roma under scrutiny
One of the most closely watched cases involves Everton and AS Roma, both connected through the Friedkin Group. While Everton currently sit mid-table in the Premier League, they are still within reach of European qualification. Roma, meanwhile, are competing in Serie A for a Europa League place.
Both clubs operate under separate corporate entities, but their shared ownership structure raises questions about influence and control. Dan Friedkin, the American billionaire, holds significant positions in both clubs, including chairman of Everton and president of Roma.
UEFA’s definition of control is intentionally broad, covering not just ownership stakes but also influence over transfers, strategy, and board decisions. Everton will therefore need to prove that Friedkin does not exert overlapping influence that could compromise competition integrity.
The situation is complicated further by past rulings. Crystal Palace previously argued that investor John Textor had no decisive control, but UEFA and CAS determined otherwise due to his involvement in recruitment and governance decisions.
Everton maintain confidence that their structure will pass UEFA scrutiny, although they have not publicly disclosed the exact solution. One option used by other clubs is a blind trust arrangement, although Everton are reportedly not pursuing this path. UEFA’s final decision will depend on whether any “decisive influence” is identified.
Chelsea and Strasbourg: a BlueCo challenge
Another major case involves Chelsea and Strasbourg, both owned under the BlueCo investment structure. Their relationship is more direct, making them one of the clearest examples of multi-club ownership in European football.
There has already been significant movement between the two clubs. Several players and staff members have switched roles, including managerial and sporting personnel, raising further questions about competitive independence.
In response to UEFA pressure, BlueCo has made structural adjustments. Key directors linked to Chelsea and Strasbourg stepped down from shared positions, while additional changes were made at holding company level. High-profile figures such as Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali also resigned from certain corporate roles, though they remain involved at Chelsea.
However, even with these adjustments, uncertainty remains. If both clubs qualify for the same European competition, UEFA rules could restrict player transfers between them until 2028. Additionally, complications may arise if Strasbourg qualify through European success while Chelsea secure a place via domestic competition or FA Cup victory.
A key unresolved issue is that UEFA regulations do not clearly address what happens when a European trophy winner from a multi-club group qualifies automatically for another competition. This creates a grey area that may require a direct ruling.
Nottingham Forest and Olympiakos
Nottingham Forest’s situation involves Greek club Olympiakos, both linked to owner Evangelos Marinakis. To avoid conflict, Forest previously placed the club into a blind trust structure, transferring decision-making power to independent trustees.
Under this arrangement, Marinakis stepped back from direct control, and independent figures were appointed to oversee club operations. However, administrative delays in updating official records have created uncertainty over compliance dates.
Forest insist that control was fully relinquished before the UEFA deadline, but questions remain about whether UEFA will recognise the earlier or later administrative date as valid. A previous precedent saw UEFA accept blind trust arrangements involving Manchester City, Girona, Manchester United, and Nice, but the governing body has since stated that it is not bound by that decision in future cases.
This leaves Forest in a position where approval is not guaranteed, despite their confidence in compliance.
Brighton, Hearts, and Union Saint-Gilloise
Brighton’s case is linked to investor Tony Bloom, who also holds stakes in Hearts and Union Saint-Gilloise. All three clubs could potentially qualify for European competition, creating another MCO scenario.
To manage this, Bloom reduced his ownership stake in Union Saint-Gilloise below UEFA’s threshold in previous seasons. His 29% stake in Hearts was also structured carefully to avoid triggering regulatory conflict.
However, complications could arise if multiple clubs qualify for the Champions League or Europa League simultaneously. In such cases, UEFA prioritises the club in the higher-ranked competition, potentially forcing exclusions or demotions.
Bloom is considered to have proactively structured his investments to avoid conflict, but UEFA will still assess final qualification outcomes.
Leeds and Rangers
Leeds United and Rangers also faced potential MCO issues due to shared investment from 49ers Enterprises. Paraag Marathe held leadership roles at both clubs, creating a theoretical conflict if both qualified for Europe.
To address this, Marathe stepped down from his position at Rangers, along with other shared board members. Leeds have stated that these changes should ensure compliance with UEFA rules.
Conclusion
Across Europe, multi-club ownership regulations are becoming one of the most influential and complex off-field factors in modern football. Clubs are increasingly forced to restructure ownership, adjust governance, and make legal arrangements just to maintain eligibility for European competition.
While UEFA aims to protect fairness and integrity, the evolving nature of global football investment means these regulations will continue to challenge clubs at the highest level.
