Crystal Palace take their protest against Uefa’s decision to Cas this week
Crystal Palace’s appeal against Europa League expulsion is “likely to be a watershed moment” in football’s multi-club ownership rules, sports lawyers believe.
Palace will take their legal battle to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) on Friday in a bid to overturn Uefa’s decision to demote them to the Conference League.
European governing body Uefa punished the FA Cup winners over former shareholder John Textor’s ownership of Lyon, ruling that it breached MCO rules as the French side also qualified for the Europa League.
Palace believe the rules were applied more strictly to them than others. Cas is due to deliver its verdict on Monday, and legal experts expect significant ramifications.
“This is likely to be a watershed moment given the high-profile nature of the dispute and the fact that Uefa appears to have taken a much firmer approach to the issue than the approach taken with other clubs in previous seasons,” Simon Leaf, a partner Mishcon de Reya, told City AM.
“Whilst undoubtedly the rules were toughened up for qualification into Uefa’s competitions for season 2025-26, Uefa seemed more willing to take a more pragmatic approach to enforcement of its own rules.
“If Uefa prevail, I suspect that clubs that are part of MCO structures will not leave matters to chance and take pro-active steps to ensure that they remain compliant with the rules to avoid a similar situation from arising again.
“However, if Crystal Palace succeed, then Uefa will be forced back to the drawing board to ensure that it has a set of regulations that ensure that the integrity of its competitions can be retained in situations where questions may be raised about the common ownership and influence wielded with respect to its competing clubs.”
MCO regulations are become stricter
Multi-club operations have rapidly grown in number and observers believe that the rules are becoming stricter in response.
Javier Mendez, senior associate at Baker McKenzie Madrid, said: “European football’s regulatory landscape is clearly tightening when it comes to multi-club ownership, particularly within the context of Uefa competitions.
“Rather than introducing entirely new regulations, we are seeing Uefa enhancing the enforcement and interpretation of its existing rules.
“This stricter approach is particularly reflected in broader interpretations of ‘control’ and ‘decisive influence’ concepts as well as the imposition of more rigorous compliance deadlines.”
Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy this week warned of the dangers of multi-club ownership operating without close regulatory scrutiny.
Nottingham Forest are set to benefit if Cas rules in favour of Uefa, replacing Palace in the Europa League if their relegation to the Conference League is upheld.
Multi-club ownership and blind trusts
Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis also owns Olympiacos and placed his shares in a blind trust to avoid MCO sanctions when it appeared both clubs might qualify for the Champions League.
But the ways in which Uefa’s rules work alongside blind trusts are still open to question.
“Personally, I think more needs to be done here to clarify how workarounds, such as blind trusts, should operate in practice,” said Leaf.
“In particular, where the same trustees are acting for a number of clubs, albeit from rival MCOs, there is a danger of those clubs obtaining an unfair advantage.
“Equally, concerns have been raised about the degree of control legacy shareholders may still retain over club operations despite trusts being used.
“Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that Uefa’s Article 5 doesn’t automatically allow the use of blind trusts unless it can be shown that such trusts will allow the relevant club to comply with Uefa’s criteria concerning control or influence.”
Mendez added: “Historically, Uefa has adopted a pragmatic stance toward these setups, such as when Tony Bloom employed a blind trust to allow Union Saint-Gilloise to participate in the Europa League while maintaining control at Brighton.
“Recently, however, Uefa’s approach has grown noticeably more cautious and there are growing concerns about whether trustees in blind trusts are truly independent, and whether original owners might retain indirect or informal influence.
“While blind trusts and similar structures are currently accepted, the regulatory trend is moving toward closing the practice.”
ECJ ruling casts doubt on Cas decision finality
There is one more piece in this complex regulatory jigsaw: last week’s ruling by the European Court of Justice which declared that Cas decisions can be reviewed by national courts.
With Palace scheduled to play their first Conference League fixture on 21 August, time is against a further appeal in their case, but the development has implications for future decisions.
“This shift means Cas decisions are no longer the ultimate authority, especially in cases where EU law or fundamental rights may be at stake and for clubs impacted by Uefa’s Article 5, this precedent is a potential game changer,” says Mendez.
“The decision may put pressure on Uefa to increase transparency and ensure their regulations can withstand national and EU judicial scrutiny while also potentially making it more difficult for Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body to quickly enforce bans or exclusions.”