Multi-club ownership in football explained: CFG, Red Bull, BlueCo - and why fans are angry
Table of Contents
 |
From ethical concerns around state-linked takeovers to the rise of billionaire-led club "portfolios," the way football teams are bought, run and strategically managed has changed beyond recognition over the last two decades.
Supporters, understandably, want answers: who owns our club, why do they own it, and what does it mean for the future?
At the centre of the debate sits a term that is now shaping elite football across Europe and beyond: multi-club ownership.
What Is Multi-Club Ownership?
Multi-club ownership (MCO) is when one individual or business holds stakes in more than one football club and can influence how those clubs operate.The structure varies widely:
- Some MCOs are relatively small - for example, a majority share in one club and a minority stake elsewhere.
- Others are global supergroups spanning continents, leagues and markets, with ten or more clubs under one umbrella.
The Big Examples: City Football Group, Red Bull and BlueCo
The rise of MCO has been most visible through highly branded "flagship" models.City Football Group (CFG)
City Football Group is the most famous example, using Manchester City as the flagship club to build a worldwide network.CFG has acquired and rebranded clubs including:
- New York City FC
- Melbourne City
- Montevideo City Torque
- and more across Europe, South America and Asia
Red Bull
Red Bull's football network is built on clear hierarchy and player pathways, with clubs such as:- RB Leipzig
- Red Bull Salzburg
- New York Red Bulls
BlueCo
BlueCo's ownership of Chelsea and Strasbourg is a more modern, finance-driven structure - one that's quickly become a lightning rod for debate, especially as it begins to affect managerial decisions and fan identity.How Does Multi-Club Ownership Actually Work?
MCO isn't one system. It's several.1) The "pyramid" model (flagship + feeder clubs)
This is where one club is clearly the priority - such as Manchester City in CFG - and other clubs support it through:- player development
- loan pathways
- recruitment pipelines
- shared coaching philosophies
2) Minority stakes and shared intelligence
Some owners take smaller shareholdings - enough to collaborate on scouting and data without fully controlling the club.Brighton & Hove Albion owner Tony Bloom, for instance, has benefited from holding stakes in clubs in other countries, allowing cross-club insight and efficiency.
3) Multi-academy pathways (Right To Dream model)
The Right To Dream programme shows how diverse MCO can be.It began as a Ghanaian academy and evolved into a wider model including:
- Danish club FC Nordsjælland
- new MLS side San Diego FC
- academy networks that connect talent development to club ownership
Why Has MCO Exploded?
A striking indicator: around half of Premier League clubs now operate within some form of multi-club ownership network.That doesn't happen unless there are clear advantages.
The Benefits of Multi-Club Ownership
1) Increased funding and stability
The most obvious advantage is access to wealth.Clubs tied to groups like CFG can compete financially in leagues where rivals don't have major investors - the kind of imbalance that can quickly change a club's status and ambition.
2) Shared scouting, recruitment and data
For many groups, the biggest benefit isn't just money - it's information.MCO networks can share:
- analytics departments
- scouting databases
- sports science models
- training methods
- staff expertise
3) Global outposts and talent discovery
MCO gives owners boots on the ground across regions - Europe, South America, Africa, Asia - improving access to emerging markets and undervalued talent pools.4) Player pathways and loan systems
MCO makes it easier to place young players into suitable environments:- consistent style of play
- familiar coaching principles
- controlled development plans
5) Economies of scale
Shared services across multiple clubs can reduce costs, including:- backroom operations
- performance tools
- recruitment staff
- medical resources
The Backlash: Integrity, Identity and "Colonisation"
The same advantages that excite owners worry supporters, and not without reason.1) Sporting Integrity Concerns
Critics argue MCO can distort competition:- "friendly" intra-network transfers
- access to talent others can't reach
- pathway control that undermines open-market fairness
2) The "Feeder Club" Problem
Even more emotional is the fear of becoming a subordinate club - a stepping-stone rather than a destination.As The Athletic's Matt Slater put it, some clubs in MCO structures "feel like they have been colonised... they have become feeder clubs."
This strikes at the heart of football identity: local history, community ownership culture and the feeling that your club exists for itself - not for another badge in another country.
3) Fan Protests and Identity Erosion
MCO groups have sparked protests across Europe, with supporters accusing owners of stripping club culture to fit a corporate model.In some cases, this is connected to:
- rebranding
- badge changes
- colour changes
- philosophy imposed from above
UEFA Rules: Why Some Clubs Are Allowed - and Others Aren't
Europe's regulations are meant to prevent MCO groups manipulating continental tournaments.UEFA guidelines state that no individual or entity may have "control or decisive influence" over more than one club competing in the same European competition.
But enforcement has triggered major controversy.
Brighton and Union Saint-Gilloise
Tony Bloom was forced to reduce his stake in Belgian side Union SG when both clubs qualified for Europe in the same season.Crystal Palace and Lyon: A Modern Flashpoint
More recently, Crystal Palace's European status became embroiled in an MCO dispute due to the club's ownership links with Olympique Lyon.The situation escalated to a serious integrity question: can two clubs with overlapping ownership compete in the same UEFA competition?
Ultimately, the issue was eased after shareholder John Textor agreed to sell his stake - in a case widely viewed as a stress test for UEFA's ability to enforce its own rules.
CAS Decisions Show Regulators Are Digging In
MCO disputes are increasingly ending up in front of football's legal authorities.CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) has backed decisions in cases including FIFA's expulsion of Club León from the Club World Cup due to shared ownership links with Pachuca.
The message is clear: regulators will act, but the system is also struggling to keep up with how quickly MCO is expanding.
Even UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin has admitted there may be parts of MCO regulations that are not fit for purpose, with growing internal acknowledgement that reforms may be needed.
BlueCo, Strasbourg and The Moment Fans Felt the "Trade-Off"
The Chelsea-Strasbourg relationship has become one of the clearest examples of how MCO can feel different depending on where you sit in the hierarchy.Strasbourg fans initially accepted the arrangement due to:
- major investment
- a revamped stadium project
- aggressive recruitment
- improved performance and European qualification
Even supporters who embraced success began to question the cost: what happens to a club's autonomy inside an MCO structure?
As critics point out, the point isn't that people can't move on - it's that MCO can make a club feel less like a club, and more like a department.
So Is Multi-Club Ownership "Here to Stay"?
At this point, the broader picture is hard to ignore:- MCO is deeply embedded in top-level football economics
- ownership groups are becoming more sophisticated
- clubs are treated as assets in global investment strategies
- governing bodies have rules, but enforcement is complex and often reactive
That makes the future of MCO less about whether it will exist, and more about how football decides to regulate it.
Because in the next decade, MCO may determine not only who wins trophies, but also what club identity even means.
Post a Comment