Mutli Level Clubs Ownership Explained

Over the last few years club owners have moved away from associating themselves with other clubs like how Chelsea would send players to Vitesse.  Now, many owners are starting to own other clubs, so they have more control over what happens to their players at that club. 

Many owners look to have one many club and a series of smaller clubs or feeder clubs to develop rising talent.  One of the best examples of this is the city football Group.  As mentioned in a previous article, they own the club Girona as well as Manchester City and the likes of New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama F Marinos, Montevideo, Sichuan Jiuniu, Mumbai City, Lommel SK, ESTAC Troyes, Palermo, Bahia and Club Bolivar.  In the premier league, there are currently 11 clubs, the owners of which own stakes in other clubs.

Premier League Club has owners with Stakes in other clubs.

·       Arsenal: Colorado Rapids

·       Aston Villa: Real Union, Vitória Sport Clube, ZED FC, Vissel Kobe

·       Bournemouth: FC Lorient

·       Brighton: Union Saint-Gilloise

·       Chelsea: Strasbourg

·       Crystal Palace: Lyon, Botafogo, RWD Molenbeek

·       Manchester City: New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama F Marinos, Montevideo, Girona, Sichuan Jiuniu, Mumbai City, Lommel SK, ESTAC Troyes, Palermo, Bahia, Club Bolivar

·       Newcastle: Al Nassr, Al Ahli, Al Ittihad, Al Hilal

·       Nottingham Forest: Olympiakos

·       Sheffield United: Beerschot, Al Hilal United, Kereala United, Chateauroux

·       West Ham: Sparta Prague

When Sir Jim Ratcliffe buys a stake in United, they will join this list, with Jim owning a Stake in OGC Nice and FC Lausanne-Sport. 

 Following Aston Villa Owners buying a stake in Real Union, Sir Jim Ratcliffe is looking to buy a stake in United, and the Premier League clubs vote against a ban on loan deals between associated clubs.  The Pitchsider will investigate the rule around having a mutli Level club ownership and some disadvantages and advantages of this model.

All clubs want to fight for trophies; the biggest one is the Champions League. The rules from UEFA for this competition mention that the same owner can’t own clubs. For example, if Sir Jim buys United, the potential owns two clubs who could be playing in the same champions, which in the rules is not allowed.  So, a disadvantage of owning multiple clubs is one club could miss out in playing in this competition.  This can make this a simple rule to understand, but it is more complex. Take the Red Bull Clubs of RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg.  They play in the Champions League but are owned by the same person/organization.  When the Pitchsider has done some digging, these clubs can play in the same competition because they have proven that there is a different management.  There is a clear divide between the clubs behind the scenes, meaning no conflict of interest exists. If United and Nice and City and Girona can prove a clear divide between the clubs, we could see all the clubs in the Champions League next year, turning this negative into a positive. However, it is still being determined whether more clubs with multi-ownership enter the competition than UFEA may start to enforce this rule.

One of the advantages pf this model of club ownership is that the parent clubs can send a player to their other clubs and ensure that the player is getting game time compared to if they were to go to another club not owned by the owner.  A good example is looking at Chelsea.  They have sent Brazilian midfielder to Andey Santos to Nottingham Forest.  However, this footballer is playing a few games with only two appearances in total this season. This is Stopping the player from getting the experience needed.  Another Chelsea player, Ângelo Gabriel, has started ten games on loan at Chelsea’s sister club, Strasbourg.  This is the same club that Andey Santos is likely to join on loan in January.  This is why Chelsea can make sure that Santos is playing football.  Many clubs with this model do it as it is a good way to develop future talents.  However, the negative here is that the sister club fans will see great talents, and the club will do well.  However, the following year, the players may not return; therefore, the club may not do as well, and this may disappoint the fans.

Looking at this ownership model, there are a lot of benefits for the owners and the main central club in the model.  For the small sister teams, for example, in the Brighton model, Union Saint-Gilloise, there are benefits, as mentioned above.  They get good players on loan and a lot more money to spend and sponsorship deals; for example, the city grows partner Puma.  The smaller clubs all have the same shirt manufacturer.  However, there are a number of drawbacks which fans of the bigger clubs overlook.  Many fans of the smaller clubs are against the ownership change, as they were at Strasbourg when Todd Boehly overtook them.  This is because they want their club to grow and challenge for title not just be a feeder club to the other club.  So, there can be a toxic relationship with the fans, which may stop them from supporting the club. Which could damage the core if the business.  On the other hand, however, this could help the club get more fans as many fans who support a team will also support the sister teams of their club, which can build awareness of this smaller club. 

Overall Multi club ownership is the way for the future.  As football becomes more like a business the clubs and groups will become brands.  However, as more clubs move to this model, new rules will likely come into force, which could make clubs move away from this model.