11 March 2023 , 07:30
1312
0
Deep within this year’s UEFA benchmark report, a 160-page document that is not the most digestible, there was the stark warning of a “material threat” being posed to the game’s integrity.
A threat that the owners of Newcastle United and Chelsea, among others, are now seeking to exploit for the simple reason that it makes business sense.
UEFA may continue to fight the prospect of a Super League, yet the rise in multi-club ownership stands alongside as a development that risks altering the game’s structure.
“The rise of multi-club investment has the potential to pose a material threat to the integrity of European club competitions, with a growing risk of seeing two clubs with the same owner or investor facing each other on the pitch,” the benchmark report said.
Dry language but the data underlines their concern. UEFA said that 66 clubs – 9% of all top-division clubs in Europe – have cross-ownership relations with one or more other clubs. And that includes more than half of the Premier League.
Chelsea complete record-breaking Enzo Fernandez transfer after deadline day rush
Man City, with 10 sister clubs from South America to Australia via India, may be the standard-bearers but the owners of Arsenal, Brentford, Brighton, Leicester, Nottingham Forest and Southampton have stakes elsewhere. Minor stakeholders in Crystal Palace, Liverpool and West Ham possess bigger slices of clubs on the continent.
Aston Villa’s owners last month bought 46% of Portuguese side Vitoria de Guimaraes and Bournemouth ’s new American custodians have recently taken a portion of Lorient in France.
Even Fleetwood Town are at it. Owner Andy Pilley last year completed a takeover of second-tier Irish side Waterford on top of getting involved with clubs in Dubai and South Africa.
Now Newcastle and Chelsea have made it clear that they are aiming to develop their own networks.
Newcatle's owners are looking to expand their portfolio (Getty Images)Speaking at the FT’s Business of Football summit last week Amanda Staveley said that Newcastle’s owners are biding their time as they look for an option that works within the post-Brexit visa structure that has opened up markets such as South America but halted English sides from bringing the best underage talent to their academies.
“Obviously we have looked at multi-club [ownership],” she said “But you have to make sure you have the right fit with changes around the GBE [governing body endorsements]. You have to choose your territory and make sure you have the right chemistry.”
For Chelsea that has been a similar issue. Chairman Todd Boehly, who has stakes in teams in other sports, is on the record speaking of his desire to create a network of clubs but rumours of potential takeovers in France, where more than half the clubs in Ligue 1 or Ligue 2 are reportedly for sale, and Turkey have not materialised.
So why are they so keen?
Part of it is the movement of players, which undoubtedly benefits the parent club if not always the weaker sibling.
Chelsea have spent huge sums under new under Todd Boehly - but the chairman is looking to buy another club soon (Getty Images)Take Man City’s £8m sale of Aaron Mooy to Huddersfield in 2017. The midfielder, now at Celtic, moved from Melbourne City for free 12 months previous and was loaned to the Terriers less than a week later.
Everton chiefs face transfer backlash from fans after deadline day disaster
When that switch was made permanent, Man City banked the fee for a player who did not even pull on the jersey. There were no rules broken but Australian-based critics complained that their domestic league had effectively become an academy for the Premier League champions.
The pattern among the Red Bull clubs is a familiar one too. Only last week it was confirmed that Benjamin Sesko would be swapping Salzburg for Leipzig, a path taken by more than a dozen players in the past decade - including Manchester United ’s Marcel Sabitzer, Liverpool’s Naby Keita and Bayern Munich defender Dayot Upamecano. Presumably negotiations in every deal were difficult.
Closer to home there have been years of personnel ping pong at Watford and their sister club Udinese; the pattern of which could leave a trends analyst muddled.
Earlier this week it was revealed that the EFL were looking into the move of Hassane Kamara, who signed for Watford from Nice for £3.6m. They sold him to Udinese for £16.9m eight months later before he was loaned straight back for the season.
Beyond recruitment, proponents of the model believe that it offers financial protection to owners. If one club has a stinker, bets have been hedged with interests in other leagues. And if there is a cohesive brand across the clubs - think City Football Group’s teams playing in the same shade of blue - owners feel that it is easier to get sponsors.
Manchester City's owners have led the way in terms of their multi-club model (Getty Images)“It is possible that global brands would be more attracted to a global club network even if [the clubs] are individual brands,” 777 managing partner Joshua Wander said in a recent Financial Times interview. “We do believe that the overall multi-club strategy will help these clubs prevent long periods of distress.”
777 owns Standard Liege, Genoa and Brazilian club Vasco da Gama and has a minority stake in Sevilla. But their takeover of French second tier side Red Star was met with backlash by supporters who felt that their club’s community identity was being diminished as they became part of a pan-continental machine.
Multi-club ownership has been around for more than quarter of a century; it is just that its growth has proliferated in recent years. In the 1998/99, Slavia Prague and AEK Athens qualified for the UEFA Cup.
But the governing body ruled the latter would not be allowed to compete because both clubs were owned by ENIC, the now Tottenham Hotspur owners and there was a conflict of interest. Following an appeal the Court of Arbitration for Sport sided with UEFA.
Fast forward to the summer of 2017, however, and a UEFA adjudication panel changed tack by saying Salzburg and Leipzig could participate in the same competition - on the basis there were “several important governance and structural changes” and “no individual or legal entity had anymore a decisive influence” over both clubs.
Directors stepped down, various deck chairs were arranged and UEFA said its rules around “common control” had been satisfied.
On paper those regulations now say one club cannot have a “direct influence” on another in the same competition, while the Premier League regulations prohibit one person from having a stake in more than a single club in the division.
But the rules between domestic leagues vary, too. In Italy, for instance, Lazio owner Claudio Lotito sold Salernitana after they were promoted to the top flight but one businessman can own multiple clubs once they do not share divisions.
Except when it comes to placing caps on the amount of clubs one firm can own, there is nada once they are not facing each other.
The intentions of Chelsea and Newcastle, once they inevitably add to their stables, will be to use their current clubs as the ultimate destination and their other clubs as finishing schools.
Which makes abundant sense for them. But, as UEFA said, poses a threat to integrity that could place unbreakable ceilings on the smaller siblings.