By Martin Graham
As the Premier League’s race for continental qualification intensifies, a number of clubs face an equally important battle off the pitch, ensuring they comply with UEFA’s strict multi-club ownership regulations before places in Europe are confirmed. These rules are designed to protect sporting integrity by preventing closely connected clubs from competing in the same tournament if ownership structures, voting rights or influential decision-makers overlap too much.
UEFA generally considers a 30% stake to be an important threshold, but ownership percentages alone are not determinative. The governing body also looks closely at “decisive influence”, meaning directors, executives or ownership figures who can shape key decisions at various clubs. If conflicts are identified by UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), a party may be excluded.
When such disputes arise, the club is first protected from top-level competition. The end of the national league is then considered, followed by the ranking of the association coefficient. With the Premier League currently leading these rankings, this could have major consequences for English teams if they tangle with sister clubs elsewhere.
Last season, Crystal PalaceDrogheda United and FC DAC 1904 became the first clubs to be punished under the revised rules after UEFA brought forward the compliance deadline to March 1. All three challenged the decisions at the Court of Arbitration for Sport but were unsuccessful, reinforcing UEFA’s tougher stance and prompting a rush among affected clubs this year.
Everton, Chelsea and Forest under scrutiny
of Everton The position is particularly intriguing due to The Friedkin Group’s ownership of both the Merseyside club and Rome. Everton are controlled through Roundhouse Capital Holdings Limited, while Roma are under Romulus and Remus Investments, but Dan Friedkin’s leading role at both clubs could draw attention. Everton believe they have addressed any concerns, although they have not publicly detailed their strategy and ruled out using blind confidence.
Chelsea i Strasbourg may represent the clearest modern example of two clubs with strong operational links under one umbrella, BlueCo. The movement of players between the clubs has been extensive, and Liam Rosenior’s switch from Strasbourg to Stamford Bridge only increased the scrutiny. In February, several Chelsea-linked directors resigned from the Strasbourg holding company, while Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali also left their directorships at BlueCo Data Limited shortly before the deadline.
If the two clubs enter the same competition, previous precedents suggest that transfer restrictions could be imposed between them until 2028. However, Chelsea’s uncertain domestic final and Strasbourg’s slim European hopes through league placement or success in the Conference League means UEFA still face a tough judgement.
Nottingham Forest they have reverted to the blind trust model after Evangelos Marinakis relinquished formal control of NF Football Investments before the deadline due to a potential overlap with Olympiakos. Forest insist compliance was achieved on February 28, although Companies House and Premier League board records were updated later, which could raise questions about the timing. While blind confidences have been accepted before, UEFA already warned that future seasons would not automatically follow the same path.
Brighton’s earlier planning and Leeds’ pre-emptive moves
Brighton could benefit from planning ahead after Tony Bloom reduced his stake in Union Saint-Gilloise below the 30% threshold ahead of Brighton’s Europa League campaign in 2023-24. Bloom also bought 29% of Hearts, a figure clearly designed to avoid falling foul of UEFA regulations. However, if Brighton, Hearts and Union Saint-Gilloise end up crossing qualification paths, complications could still arise depending on the competitions they enter or are handed.
As clubs in higher competitions take priority, Brighton’s place could theoretically be under threat if Hearts or Union SG were involved in Champions League qualification and then moved into the same tournament path. Bloom hopes his carefully structured investments will be enough to avoid this scenario.
Leedsalthough no longer competing in Europe following the FA Cup semi-final defeat to Chelsea, he had also taken action due to his ownership links with Rangers. With 49ers Enterprises fully controlling Leeds and part of the consortium that owns Rangers, boardroom overlap was a concern. Paraag Marathe and Gene Schneur resigned from their Rangers positions before the deadline, with Leeds confident this would have removed any regulatory hurdles.
A growing Premier League problem
With around half of Premier League clubs now operating in some form of multi-club framework, UEFA regulations are becoming an increasingly important factor in determining who actually plays in Europe. Legal restructuring, boardroom resignations and ownership changes are now almost as vital as league results.
The March 1 compliance deadline has become critical to these efforts, leaving little room for late fixes once qualification has been achieved. Clubs can no longer rely on fixing problems after the season is over.
As more ownership groups expand across Europe, UEFA’s application of these rules may shape not only qualifying results, but also the future structure of football investment. For Premier League clubs chasing Europe, success can depend as much on corporate paperwork as on-field performances.
