19 Dec 2025
By Louis Francis, Solicitor at Gilson Gray.
Multi-club ownership (MCO) groups have become one of the most transformative and divisive developments in modern football. What started as a fringe investment strategy has evolved into a global networked model used by private equity funds, sovereign wealth vehicles, and sport-specific holding companies. Yet, alongside its commercial efficiency and global reach, sits a series of unresolved controversies that cut to the core of sporting integrity, governance, and fan trust.
This article examines various issues raised as a consequence of MCO, ranging from sporting integrity to corporate structure and control, and considers what the future might hold.
One of the most persistent criticisms of MCO groups concerns the image and impact of ‘sporting integrity’. UEFA’s long-standing rule banning two clubs under the same ownership from competing in the same competition is intended to protect sporting integrity. As seen this year with Nottingham Forest and Crystal Palace, clubs may be moved between European competitions to comply with these rules, meaning qualification isn’t determined solely on merit.
Transfers within multi-club ownership (MCO) groups raise sporting-integrity concerns. Prices can be manipulated to a lowered value to help a club meet financial fair play requirements or inflated to shift profits to jurisdictions with more favourable tax treatment.
Development pathways also create tension. Using smaller clubs in a group to provide game time for top prospects can undermine perceptions of independence and ambition. Some supporters feel their club becomes a “feeder club” focused on generating value for the group rather than pursuing local success. Strasbourg’s ownership, for example, had to publicly deny becoming a feeder club to Chelsea after fan protests claimed the model compromised the club’s identity.
Conflicts of interest can emerge easily in MCO structures. Shared executives and overlapping directors create challenges for directors’ duties to avoid conflicts and act in good faith. Sensitive player and commercial data may circulate within the group, and intra-group transfers raise questions about whether deals are genuinely at arm’s length. Even without misconduct, the perception of conflict can be damaging, leading fans, media and rival clubs to question the fairness of the model. Strasbourg’s strong recent form has not prevented continuing protests over integrity concerns.
These sporting issues feed directly into governance and regulation. Unlike UK corporate law, where related-party transactions can require shareholder approval, independent valuations, and strict adherence to directors’ duties, football’s oversight mechanisms are less formalised. Yet they may, in practice, be stricter.
UEFA prohibits two clubs “controlled” by the same person or entity from competing in the same competition. “Control” is defined broadly and can include:
While similar to UK concepts of “significant control,” football’s definition can be tougher. UEFA may treat a minority stake as control if accompanied by veto rights, influence over recruitment, shared executives, management contracts or data-sharing arrangements. These are situations that UK corporate law might simply view as commercial agreements.
A major challenge is the lack of harmonisation across governing bodies. UEFA, FIFA and domestic leagues apply different thresholds and tests for control, meaning an investor may be compliant in one jurisdiction but restricted in another. This year has shown that sharp legal advice allows clubs to navigate, and sometimes work around, these inconsistencies in the current framework.
MCO groups are now a permanent part of football, and they’ll likely keep expanding. So what changes might we see to protect “sporting integrity” and tighten governance?
Possible developments include firewalls or information barriers to prevent confidentiality breaches or undue influence. We might see governance separation models, with independent directors and reduced or removed voting rights across affiliated clubs. Leagues and regulators could also increase reporting requirements. And finally, there may be a standardised data-driven system to ensure intra-group transfers reflect true “fair market value.”
At Gilson Gray, we are seeing these issues arise more frequently in transfer negotiations, and they form a regular part of our advice to clients. We are well placed to advise clubs and investors on MCO groups from corporate advice to compliance with the regulatory provisions. Please get in touch with David Winnie or Louis Francis to find out more.
View our full Sports service offering here.
