It means they own it invest in more than one club. In some cases like Chelsea there are feeder clubs, in others like Arsenal it's just a portfolio.
148443 A BBC-article on the UEFA-consequences of Multi Club Ownership (MCO). https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cgj0qlvj9qno As the battle for places in Europe hots up in the Premier League, the race to shuffle papers to satisfy Uefa's bureaucrats has been just as intense. This is because European football's governing body has strict multi-club ownership (MCO) rules. Those rules could cause a team to be demoted from one competition to another, like Crystal Palace were from the Europa League to the Conference League last season, or miss out on Europe altogether. Half of the Premier League clubs are now in some form of multi-club arrangement. Everton, Chelsea and Nottingham Forest all had their lawyers scrambling for a solution before Uefa's 1 March deadline. Brighton, meanwhile, will hope the action they took three years ago still meets requirements. Clubs have been locked in talks with Uefa to make sure they have got their house in order. But have they done enough? What are Uefa's multi-club ownership rules? Uefa says sporting integrity is of "fundamental importance" and that it must be "undisputable", and that two teams who are very closely linked should not play in the same competition. This includes, but is not limited to, the total shareholding and voting rights - 30% generally being the trigger. Just as important is the test of decisive influence - directors or staff members who are involved in key decisions. What does this mean in practice? If Uefa's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) rules that there is a conflict, then one club must be removed. Priority is given to the team in the higher-ranked competition - this could apply if one team is in, say, Champions League qualifying and could drop into the Europa League. Then it is domestic league position. Finally, Uefa coefficient - which the Premier League sits top of. After years of allowing clubs to register solutions after they had qualified, last season Uefa brought forward its compliance date to 1 March - and it caught out three teams. Palace, Irish club Drogheda United and Slovak outfit FC DAC 1904 became the first to face punishment under the MCO regulations. All three took their cases to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), and lost. In December, Uefa sent a fresh circular underlining that 1 March is still "a strict deadline for compliance", citing the rulings made by Cas. This led to the flurry of activity across several clubs at the end of February. The link between Everton and Roma is not too well known, but it could yet be the most compelling story. The Toffees are 11th in the Premier League, but only three points off sixth. As it stands, sixth earns Europa League football. In Serie A, Roma are level on points with fifth-placed Como, which would also come with a spot in the Europa League. The two clubs are owned by the Friedkin Group through subsidiary entities. Everton are controlled by Roundhouse Capital Holdings Limited, and Roma under Romulus and Remus Investments. The two people with significant control in Roundhouse Capital Holdings are Analaura Moreira-Dunkel and Marcus Watts - high-ranking officials in the Friedkin Group. They are also on the Everton board and were associated with Roma in the years immediately after the takeover but no longer have an identifiable role at the Italian club. Everton's issue could be that US billionaire Dan Friedkin is both their chairman and president of Roma. Friedkin is also the 'person of significant control' at Pursuit Sports UK, an umbrella group for sports operations. Uefa's definition of "control", "decisive influence" and "shared decision-making" is broad. Everton will have to prove there is no risk or appearance of involvement by Friedkin in both clubs. Palace argued that John Textor had no such say at Selhurst Park, but Cas agreed with Uefa that he had a role in several transfers and appointments. Everton are confident that they have a solution, but are not saying what that is. Whether that is a case of playing their cards close to their chest or not, only time will tell. The club have ruled out a blind trust, the route Nottingham Forest appear to have chosen. If the CFCB does need to make a decision, the ownership structure and Friedkin's presence on both boards would be looked at. Chelsea and Strasbourg etc.
I think MCO isnot in the iterest of football, as it simply violates the essence of competition, a battle between independent entities. I think it should be banned alltogether.
I am mostly unaware of the various MCO groups, but it seems like the Rob McElhenny and Ryan Reynolds are going about it in the correct manner. They hold large interests in Wrexham AFC (English leagues), Necaxa (LIga MX), and Inter Bogota (Colombia), but each stake is held through a different LLC. And they are not majority shareholders in any except Wrexham IIRC. And the chances of any of those clubs facing each other in a UEFA competition are almost nil.
149361 https://nltimes.nl/2026/05/05/dutch...mass-legal-action-subsidies-knvb-reform-plans A large number of amateur football clubs across the Netherlands are gearing up for collective legal action, citing disorderly handling of the government’s BOSA subsidy scheme for sports facilities. At the same time, a wider legal conflict is unfolding with the Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) over the rollout of “weekend football,” a proposed restructuring of match scheduling. Many clubs have been left at a disadvantage by the distribution of government funding intended for sustainability improvements and facility renovations, AD reports. The subsidy pot of approximately 43 million euros ran out almost immediately. A technical failure in the application system prevented numerous clubs from applying, while others say they were unfairly left out through the allocation process. Clubs that had already committed to investments based on the expectation of receiving 20 to 30 percent reimbursement are now seeking compensation. They claim the government failed to apply the “first-come, first-served” principle in a fair and consistent manner, making its handling of the subsidy scheme unlawful. This while a group of over 80 amateur football clubs, organised under the “Kerngroep Weekendvoetbal,” has launched legal proceedings against the KNVB. The association plans to combine Saturday and Sunday teams in the second and third classes into unified leagues from the 2026/2027 season onwards. Traditional Sunday clubs worry that their identity and club culture could be lost if matches are moved to Saturday evenings. They anticipate smaller crowds and declining canteen income on Saturdays. In addition, many senior players also serve as youth coaches on Saturdays, a role that could become difficult to maintain if clubs are forced to switch to Saturday football. Supported by specialist legal counsel, including Juust Advocaten, the clubs have secured enough funding to move forward with their case in court. Talks in November 2025 between amateur clubs and professional football over a more equitable compensation scheme for trained players ended without agreement, further fuelling support for collective legal action. According to research, amateur clubs are facing steadily increasing fixed costs, while government support has not kept pace, adding to the financial pressure driving the push for compensation claims.
All federations can do is control the competitions they organize. UEFA can't stop a particular investor buying a business, all they can do is prevent two clubs with the same owner from playing in the same UEFA competition.
149766 https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2026/05/29/the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2026/ etc.
What's crazy is that, while Madrid hasn't won a title in a few years, the team they beat out for the top spot (the Cowboys) hasn't won a title in 30. It blows my mind how such a mediocre team can be so valuable.
150882 Transfer system to be overhauled: FIFA presents final new rules The international transfer system is going to be overhauled for good. After more than a year and a half of intensive negotiations, world football association FIFA has reached an agreement on far-reaching new transfer rules. The permanent package of measures should restore peace and financial stability in the football world, after the ECJ shook the old system to its foundations with the notorious Lassana Diarra case at the end of 2024. The ruling in the Diarra case caused panic among football clubs worldwide, because players suddenly seemed to be able to get out of their contracts much more easily and with impunity. To defuse this uncertainty, strict new rules will come into force on 1 January 2027. For the first time in history, players' union FIFPRO has also signed the transfer system, which gives the agreements the status of a global collective labor agreement. Beneficial for clubs that invest in youth training The new set-up mainly protects clubs that invest heavily in their youth academy. For example, the period in which contracts of players up to the age of 23 are legally closed will be extended to four years. In addition, clubs are now allowed to sign their own underage talents for a maximum of five years, provided that the player has been playing in the academy for two seasons. A lot is also changing at the lower end of the market. Footballers who earn less than one and a half hundred thousand euros per year will now be entitled to a premium of up to 5 percent of the transfer fee in the event of a foreign transfer. If a club or player decides to breach contract in the future, the new regulations will immediately create clarity there as well: from now on, the fine will always cover the actual damage, with the hard lower limit being the remaining salary of the broken contract. Until the final introduction in 2027, the current interim scheme will remain in force.
151031 I'm looking forwards with interest to analysis of what the new transfer regime is going to mean for Dutch clubs.
Marca published today the summary of Deloitte's 35th Annual Football Finance Report. It is an interesting read. Total revenue for European leagues in the 24/25 season increased to €40.2b, but that was concentrated in the Top Five leagues (EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, and Ligue 1), which at €21.6b represents 54% of the total. However, growth is beginning to slow and Deloitte suggests that "Expanding competitions and adding more matches to the calendar cannot be the only way to sustain long-term growth, as an oversaturated market risks harming both players and fans if it ultimately weakens the spectacle on the pitch." And, BTW, higher revenue doesn't translate to higher profits. Most leagues are losing money faster than revenue is growing. https://www.marca.com/futbol/2026/0...e-inevitable-futbol-europeo-tocado-techo.html
Looking at EFL League One the numbers are scary. In 24/25 Charlton lost £16.7M on £11.2M in revenue. Wycombe and Burton also lost more money than they generated and others were fairly close. This is revenue, not profit, which means they are living day to day and not reducing their debt in any way. Charlton managed to get promoted to the Championship and stay up, without a huge investment in salaries which should bring them some relief. Wycombe brought in a Kazakhstani billionaire who now owns 80% of the club and Burton are owned by Nordic investors. It's the way these clubs keep operating. They keep finding "the greater fool" as one economist called them. It is not the pro/rel that keeps these clubs operating, it's egos, speculation and the gamble that other teams can "do a" Charlton or an Ipswich and get to the point where these debts are no longer a big deal.
There's a bunch of other clubs that fit this description. Swindon Town was once in the Premier League at one point and is now in the wilderness. Scunthorpe United nearly made the PL in the late 2000s and is now in the National League. Leeds is a pretty good example of how hard it can be to get back to the top table. Sunderland, too. Basically, you need some combination of good ownership and a strategic management. Plenty of clubs can find rich owners, but a lot of those owners just want the ego boost of saying they own a football club and aren't really that good at it. Or they're nepo babies like Kun Top.
You need to be willing to go $tens of millions, if not $100 millions into debt and hope you get lucky. Coventry went from a small profit in 2023/24 when they finished 9th, to a $30 million loss in 2024/25 finishing 5th, then spent another net $20 million in transfers and increased their payroll by 50% in 2025/26 to finish first. It worked out for them. There are other clubs who did the same thing and failed and will end up as the next Swindon, or Reading, or Oldham Athletic. Fortunately for me Notts County have been there, done that, and are hopefully on the way back.
I think most clubs should follow a model similar to Brentford's. They're not necessarily going to win the Premiership, but they are always making smart moves and maximizing their position. Having a strong youth academy helps.
Google Gemini says that UEFA members represent 850 million people. The Big Five stands for 300 million. Roughly 35% of the population.