By Martin Graham
As the Premier League race for continental qualification intensifies, several clubs are facing an equally significant battle away from 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 heavily.
UEFA generally views a 30% shareholding as an important threshold, but ownership percentages alone are not decisive. The governing body also closely examines “decisive influence”, meaning directors, executives, or ownership figures who may shape key decisions at multiple clubs. If conflicts are identified by UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), one side can be excluded.
When such disputes arise, the club in the higher-ranked competition is protected first. The domestic league finish is then considered, followed by the association coefficient ranking. Since the Premier League currently leads those rankings, this can have major consequences for English sides if they become entangled with sister clubs elsewhere.
Last season, Crystal Palace, Drogheda United, and FC DAC 1904 became the first clubs punished under the revised rules after UEFA moved its compliance deadline forward to 1 March. 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
Everton’s position is particularly intriguing because of The Friedkin Group’s ownership of both the Merseyside club and Roma. Everton are controlled through Roundhouse Capital Holdings Limited, while Roma sit under Romulus and Remus Investments, yet Dan Friedkin’s senior role at both clubs could draw attention. Everton believe they have addressed any concerns, although they have not publicly detailed their strategy and have dismissed using a blind trust.
Chelsea and Strasbourg may represent the clearest modern example of two clubs with strong operational links under one umbrella, BlueCo. Player movement between the clubs has been extensive, and Liam Rosenior’s switch from Strasbourg to Stamford Bridge only increased scrutiny. In February, multiple directors linked to Chelsea stepped down from Strasbourg’s holding company, while Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali also left directorship roles in BlueCo Data Limited shortly before the deadline.
If both clubs enter the same competition, previous precedent suggests restrictions on transfers between them could be imposed until 2028. However, Chelsea’s uncertain domestic finish and Strasbourg’s slim European hopes through league placement or Conference League success mean UEFA may yet face a difficult judgment.
Nottingham Forest have once again relied on the blind trust model after Evangelos Marinakis relinquished formal control of NF Football Investments before the deadline due to possible overlap with Olympiakos. Forest insists compliance was achieved on 28 February, though Companies House and Premier League board records were updated later, potentially raising questions over timing. While blind trusts have been accepted before, UEFA previously warned that future seasons would not automatically follow the same path.
Brighton’s earlier planning and Leeds’ preventative moves
Brighton may benefit from planning ahead after Tony Bloom reduced his stake in Union Saint-Gilloise below the 30% threshold before Brighton’s Europa League campaign in 2023-24. Bloom also purchased 29% of Hearts, a figure clearly designed to avoid breaching UEFA’s regulations. However, if Brighton, Hearts, and Union Saint-Gilloise all end up on intersecting qualification paths, complications could still emerge depending on which competitions they enter or drop into.
Because clubs in higher competitions take precedence, Brighton’s own place could theoretically be threatened if Hearts or Union SG were involved in Champions League qualifying and later shifted into the same tournament pathway. Bloom will hope his carefully structured investments are enough to avoid that scenario.
Leeds, although no longer in European contention after their FA Cup semi-final loss to Chelsea, had also taken action because of their ownership links to Rangers. With 49ers Enterprises fully controlling Leeds and part of the consortium owning Rangers, boardroom overlap was a concern. Paraag Marathe and Gene Schneur both stepped down from Rangers positions before the deadline, with Leeds confident that this would have removed any regulatory obstacle.
A growing Premier League issue
With around half of Premier League clubs now operating within some kind of multi-club framework, UEFA’s regulations are becoming an increasingly important factor in determining who actually gets to play in Europe. Legal restructuring, boardroom resignations, and ownership reshuffles are now almost as vital as league results.
The 1 March compliance deadline has become central to these efforts, leaving little room for late solutions once qualification is secured. Clubs can no longer rely on fixing problems after the season ends.
As more ownership groups expand across Europe, Uefa’s enforcement of these rules may shape not only qualification outcomes but also the future structure of football investment itself. For Premier League clubs chasing Europe, success may depend as much on corporate paperwork as performances on the pitch.