Twelve of the twenty Premier League clubs are now involved in some form of multi-club ownership arrangement. That figure alone explains why UEFA’s financial and governance rules have become one of the most pressing issues heading into the final weeks of the 2025-26 season. For clubs chasing a European spot, the threat is real : qualify on the pitch, then lose that place at a desk in Nyon.
How UEFA’s multi-club ownership rules actually work
UEFA’s position is blunt. Sporting integrity must be, in their own words, “undisputable” — and two clubs with sufficiently close ties cannot compete in the same European competition. The threshold most people know is the 30% shareholding trigger, but frankly, that’s only part of the picture.
What UEFA calls decisive influence matters just as much. If a director, executive, or senior staff member plays a role in key decisions at two clubs simultaneously, that’s enough to raise a red flag. The Crystal Palace case last season made this painfully clear : John Textor argued he had no real say at Selhurst Park, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport sided with UEFA, finding he had influenced transfers and appointments. Palace dropped from the Europa League to the Conference League as a result.
The removal process follows a strict order of priority when UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) identifies a conflict :
- The club in the higher-ranked European competition keeps its spot.
- If tied, domestic league position decides.
- If still tied, UEFA coefficient applies — where the Premier League currently ranks first.
After years of allowing clubs to register fixes after qualifying, UEFA moved its compliance deadline to 1 March last season. Three clubs — Palace, Irish side Drogheda United, and Slovak outfit FC DAC 1904 — were caught out. All three appealed to CAS. All three lost. A December circular from UEFA confirmed the deadline remains strict, and that triggered frantic activity across several clubs in the final days of February 2026.
Everton, Chelsea, Forest : three clubs, three different approaches
The Everton and Roma situation is arguably the most intriguing. Both clubs fall under the Friedkin Group umbrella — Everton through Roundhouse Capital Holdings, Roma through Romulus and Remus Investments. Dan Friedkin serves as chairman of Everton and president of Roma simultaneously. Everton sit eleventh in the Premier League, just three points off sixth place and a potential Europa League berth. Roma, meanwhile, are level on points with fifth-placed Como in Serie A.
Everton insist they have a solution but refuse to reveal it publicly. They have ruled out a blind trust. Whether that confidence is justified or simply a poker face, the CFCB will ultimately decide. The Palace precedent shows that claiming no decisive influence is not enough — you have to prove it with evidence.
| Club pairing | Ownership link | Action taken before 1 March |
|---|---|---|
| Everton / Roma | Friedkin Group | Undisclosed restructuring |
| Chelsea / Strasbourg | BlueCo | Multiple board resignations |
| Nottingham Forest / Olympiakos | Evangelos Marinakis | Blind trust established |
| Brighton / Hearts / Union SG | Tony Bloom | Stake reduced below 30% in 2023 |
Chelsea and Strasbourg represent perhaps the most visible case of shared infrastructure between two clubs. Manager Liam Rosenior moved from Strasbourg to Stamford Bridge in December 2025. Eleven players have transferred between the two clubs this season. BlueCo responded on 17 February : Paul Winstanley, Laurence Stewart, James Pade and Jeffrey Wilbur all stepped down from the French club’s holding company board. On 28 February, Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali resigned as directors of BlueCo Data Limited at Companies House. Both remain on Chelsea’s board. Chelsea’s league form has deteriorated sharply, meaning European qualification via the Premier League is no longer guaranteed — but an FA Cup final appearance adds another potential route in.
Nottingham Forest’s approach centres on a blind trust. Owner Evangelos Marinakis — who also controls Olympiakos — was removed as the person of significant control at NF Football Investments on 28 February. Control passed to Pittville Four Limited, run by three independent trustees. The problem ? Companies House wasn’t updated until 17 April, weeks after UEFA’s deadline. Forest maintain the trust was legally effective from 28 February. Two years ago, the CFCB accepted blind trusts for Manchester City/Girona and Manchester United/Nice — but explicitly stated it would not be bound by that precedent in future seasons. That caveat still hangs over Forest.
Brighton and Leeds : a quieter battle with just as much at stake
Tony Bloom built his football network carefully. Brighton, Scottish Premiership leaders Hearts (29% stake purchased in 2025), and Belgian side Union Saint-Gilloise all have a route into European competition this season. Bloom reduced his controlling stake in Union Saint-Gilloise below 30% before the 2023-24 Europa League season precisely because of this risk. When he bought into Hearts, he capped his shareholding at 29% — deliberately staying below the trigger threshold.
The real danger for Brighton lies not in direct ownership percentages but in pyramid conflicts. If Hearts or Union SG qualify for Champions League qualifying and then lose out, they could drop into the same competition as Brighton. MCO rules would then exclude the Seagulls entirely, regardless of their league finish.
Leeds United’s European hopes effectively ended with their FA Cup semi-final defeat against Chelsea. But precautionary steps had already been taken. Leeds are fully owned by 49ers Enterprises, which also holds 51% of Rangers through a consortium. Paraag Marathe, a board member at Leeds and formerly vice-chairman at Ibrox, stepped down from Rangers on 27 February. Gene Schneur, who sat on both boards, did the same. Leeds believe those departures would have resolved any MCO conflict — a moot point now, but a signal of how seriously clubs are treating these regulations ahead of future seasons.
