Multi-Club Ownership: Boon or Bane for European Football?

It’s not a rare thing to see the same person or legal entity owning multiple companies. On the contrary, this is completely natural in many industries from football to eCommerce. A good example comes from online gambling companies – based on pokiespros.com insights, some of the best digital casinos share the same owner and it allows them to stay competitive thanks to outstanding games and bonus features.

The situation is not much different in international football. Multi-club ownership has become a fairly important trend (just think of Manchester City), but there are countless debates all over the globe regarding the fairness of this concept. This post will show you the ups and downs of both viewpoints. 

Advantages of Multi-Club Ownership

First of all, allow us to explain the very concept of multi-club ownership (MCO). It’s a situation where a single entity or even individual owns multiple clubs, but it mainly happens across multiple leagues or even different continents.

Now, the primary advantage of this strategy is that MCO easily creates a steady player development pipeline. That’s because clubs under the same ownership tend to collaborate closely so as to divide their roles – lower-tier clubs mainly focus on nurturing young talent, whilst mightier teams take over when the right time comes.

For instance, Red Bull GmbH successfully uses this model with Red Bull Salzburg and RB Leipzig.

On one hand, Salzburg is in charge of developing and scouting young players from around the world. As soon as those players reach a higher level, they transition to RB Leipzig in the Bundesliga (which is much more competitive). As such, the system reduces reliance on external transfers so as to help clubs gain access to a steady flow of talent.

At the same time, the MCO strategy has its own financial efficiencies. Ownership groups can quickly centralize scouting networks and coaching expertise while minimizing operational costs. In addition, players are free to move between clubs at minimal transfer fees – that is exactly what happened when Dayot Upamecano and Dominik Szoboszlai moved from Salzburg to Leipzig.

Another detail worth noting is that MCO creates truly unique opportunities for sponsorships that span multiple markets. For example, Betway’s independent sponsorship deal with West Ham shows how companies value visibility across Europe. In the MCO context, sponsors learn that they are able to amplify brand exposure simply by engaging with multiple clubs in different regions.

Disadvantages of Multi-Club Ownership

Of course, multi-club ownership is far from perfect. As a matter of fact, many claim that it comes with major drawbacks that raise questions about everything from fairness to the overall health of European football. Naturally, the first problem has to do with the conflict of interests – especially when two clubs under the same ownership find themselves in the same competitions or football tournaments.

For instance, RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg faced each other a couple of times in the Europa League, which was a massive incentive for the critics to talk about how decisions made at the ownership level might influence both teams’ performances.

Another issue is that MCO risks creating an uneven playing field: Smaller clubs are at a disadvantage against ownership-backed networks. That’s because MCO entities can easily pool resources across clubs so as to hoard talent and dominate transfer markets. On the other side, this can leave independent clubs struggling to compete at all.

In contrast, Global Football Holdings, which holds a minority stake in Crystal Palace (England), is a nice example of how independent clubs can maintain their autonomy while growing sustainably. Unlike MCO-backed clubs, Crystal Palace does not benefit from a ready-made network of feeder clubs or shared resources, but its independence safeguards the overall competitive balance in the EPL.

Regulatory Framework and UEFA’s Stance

The only natural thing was to see UEFA trying to regulate the MCO trend in close cooperation with national leagues. The first attempt to do this is the famous UEFA Article 5 of the Champions League regulations – it explicitly prohibits two clubs controlled by the same entity from participating in the same competition. However, the rule comes with an exception – they are still allowed to partake in the same competition if “they can demonstrate operational independence.”

This is quite a big loophole, particularly because monitoring ownership influence leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation. To make things even worse, domestic leagues have introduced varying degrees of regulation, thus making the overall enforcement pretty inconsistent.

The Role of Gambling Sponsors in European Football

There’s yet another trend that we must not fail to mention here: It is the role of gambling sponsors in European football. These have turned into a genuinely dominant force in Europe as they provide crucial funding dozens of clubs across multiple leagues.

This is a true lifeline for a lot of smaller as well as mid-tier clubs because they get enough money to cover operating costs. Betway’s sponsorship of West Ham United is one such example. But such reliance on gambling sponsorship cannot pass without its own dose of criticism, mainly because people believe that gambling should not be promoted through football. From this point of view, soccer attracts a broad and often youthful audience, and so it should not be sending any gambling-related messages to the crowd.

In each case, we can conclude that every major trend in the sport is going to cause controversies because it directly influences the very nature of the game. We see the same thing happening right now with MCO, and it will definitely take a while before anyone can confidently answer: Is this boon or bane for European football?