Here’s this year’s fix to UEFA’s multi-club ownership nightmare

As noted American philosopher Biggie Smalls once said: “Mo’ money, mo’ problems”. And while the Notorious B.I.G. was rapping about the perils of the big money hip-hop lifestyle, he could just as easily have been talking about the immaculately dressed lawyers in the boardrooms of Nyon.

The small Swiss town is, of course, home to the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), the regulatory body charged with governing a game with enough big money in it to give even Biggie pause for thought. And boy do they have problems, too.

Having survived the fuss of the recent attempt to form a big money European Super League (albeit after being found guilty of breaking the law by the European Court of Justice), UEFA is now facing a big money headache in the form of the regulations governing multi-club ownership groups.

UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) has before it a series of decisions to make regarding multi-club groupings, with Eagle Football Group’s Crystal Palace and Lyon having both qualified for next year’s Europa League, and Trivela Group’s Drogheda United and Silkeborg IF both qualified for the Conference League. UEFA rules state one club from each grouping must be expelled to maintain the ‘sporting integrity’ of each competition.

On its face, this doesn’t appear to be a difficult problem to solve. Just boot out the lower-ranking squad from each grouping, as per the rules. But the devil is in the details, and the details are highly political. Mo money in sport? Mo problems.

Thankfully, there is precedent to guide UEFA through the storm. Previous years brought potential conflicts in the form of Aston Villa/Vitória SC (both qualified for the 2023-24 Conference League), Manchester United/Nice (both qualified for the 2024-25 Europa League), and Manchester City/Girona (both qualified for the 2024-25 Champions League). And each time a solution was found and approved by UEFA to allow both clubs to play.

But not this year. UEFA now appear set to expel a club from European competition for the first time ever, with tiny Drogheda United set to get whacked from the third-tier Conference League. And the reaction in Ireland has been furious.

UEFA’s newfound rigidity is a bit of a surprise. In years past, UEFA happily signed off on new structures to mitigate multiclub conflicts, whether through share dispositions or the creation of ‘blind’ trusts. And well after its ‘deadline’. But the regulator is showing no flexibility this year, despite Drogheda United’s attempts, it says, to offer up the solutions that have previously been agreed with UEFA.

A close reading of the tea leaves by the Irish Independent’s football guru Dan McDonnell provides clues as to how things reached the expulsion point. The problem appears to be communication. Or rather, a lack of communication. Drogheda says it was not directly informed of a new mid-season UEFA deadline to the so-called ‘assessment’ date for multiclub groups, which was previously in June of each year but was this year moved up to March 1st. According to McDonnell, the bigger multi-club groups were told directly and multiple times. What’s more, the new deadline was only posted to the UEFA website on February 26, i.e. two days before the compliance cut-off. And unlike previous years, UEFA is not in the mood to sign-off on new structures beyond the assessment date unless it was given a heads up that changes were coming prior to its deadline. But it’s hard to suggest solutions if you don’t know you have a problem, or when problems were historically allowed to be solved much later on in the year.

In short, UEFA wants more time to assess the proposed multi-club mitigation measures, but at the cost of clubs having to act on a hypothetical, with European places not typically finalised until May or June in each playing year, well after UEFA’s new deadline. The revised timelines and cost of mitigating hypothetical scenarios might not be a problem for the bigger clubs and multi-club groups who have legal departments and history in dealing with the regulator, but it’s much trickier for small clubs who have to spend money they might have on solutions they might not need.

If anything, UEFA’s reading of the situation is backward. Multi-club ownership is not one-size-fits-all. There should be more flexibility and leniency for the smaller players, whose compliance costs with UEFA will be a much higher percentage of overall group revenue. Manchester United and Nice also have a better chance of meeting in a tournament’s later stages, when ‘integrity’ is at a premium. Why not keep some flexibility for the smaller clubs who aren’t likely to progress very far (sorry Drogs)?

A bit of common sense would be a better solution than UEFA’s current dance on the head of a pin. To wit, Crystal Palace appear set for a UEFA reprieve despite missing the same deadline as Drogheda United, at least according to media reports out of Britain. This is apparently owing to the fact that Eagle Football executive John Textor has no ‘decisive influence’ at the south London club. Of course, there is more art than science in that term, which is perhaps the point. Textor sits on the boards of both clubs. Are board members not meant to be decisive? UEFA appear to want flexibility with the big money multi-club groups, with rigidity for the smaller clubs who won’t be able to kick up a fuss. Anything to prove you can enforce a rule for the first time, I guess.

But punching down on the smaller puppies in the UEFA litter isn’t a good look. Especially by regulators repeatedly charmed by the big money now flowing into football. Not every mult-club model can be a City Football Group, BlueCo, INEOS, or Eagle Football. Some groups, like Trivela, want to actually help smaller clubs who might be struggling to stay solvent.

More broadly, regulation must be consistent, and communicated and applied consistently. There can’t be help and deals for some, but not for others. To make an example of Drogheda United, who apparently tried everything to become compliant, is a bad move. It would be a dumb decision. UEFA should want to be seen to be fair to all of its clubs, not just the ones with marquee names and big budgets.

Thankfully, there is an easy solution at hand. Let both Palace and Drogheda United make post-deadline changes to their structures. Let them play. And then, clean up the rules to remove any ambiguity. Tell everybody about them directly. Oh, and tell everybody about them at the same time.

Over to you, UEFA.

Photo by Jannik on Unsplash

Share this article: