The Rise of Multi-Club Ownership in Soccer

By: Lucas Ho

City Football Group Logo at the Manchester City Training Center

With financial power becoming the biggest leverage in every global sport, it’s not a coincidence that companies have taken the opportunity to form a multitude of clubs across the different soccer markets.

It is reported by FIFA that before 2012, the number of clubs structured as a multi-club ownership (MCO) was around 40, but has risen to over 200. The concept is not new. It traces back to the late 20th century, though then they were not as widespread as present day. In the 1990s, ENIC, the current owner of Tottenham Hotspur, held stakes in SK Slavia Prague, Rangers FC, AEK Athens FC, LR Vicenza, and FC Basel. Though ENIC was the majority shareholder of many of these clubs, they were all later sold to fund the increase in their stake in Tottenham Hotspur. This was the largest ownership group at its time, predating the empires that City Football Group and Red Bull would build in the 21st century. Despite ENIC controlling a large network of clubs across Europe, they did not have a brand. The names of Tottenham, Slavia Prague, and Rangers did not reflect the ownership of ENIC, something that MCOs have done in recent decades. The modern business of multi-club ownership is driven by several motivations: business potential, brand expansion, and recognition. Corporations have come to understand the benefits of managing a multi-club structure by providing an established name and a large network that can take advantage of business opportunities around the world.

One of the most prominent examples of this model is the City Football Group (CFG). Established by Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President of the UAE, the group is connected extensively with the UAE government. Sheik Mansour acquired Manchester City from the former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2008. Following Manchester City’s acquisition in England, they have expanded to most major soccer markets around the world. Their ownership now includes twelve clubs: Manchester City, Girona, Lommel, Estac Troyes, Palermo, New York City FC, Montevideo City Torque, Bahia, Melbourne City FC, Yokohama F. Marinos, Shenzhen Peng City FC, and Mumbai City FC. The closest group with such a prominent name across multiple teams is Red Bull. Their ownership includes four clubs in Europe, North America, and South America, a far cry from the twelve clubs owned by CFG. The accumulation of such a substantial collection of clubs brings the question of whether this is further developing soccer, or killing it.

Despite the rapid expansion of multi-club ownership and their financial success, the model has sparked controversy in the soccer world about its long-term impact on the sport. Their existence is purely economic, and is strategized in a systematic way that aims to expand their portfolio. There are many reasons why ownership groups choose to set up in this way, mainly because of financial advantages. As a financially stable ownership group, they can inject significant capital into each club, which is evident in City Football Group's heavy investment in Manchester City. With 115 financial fair play charges, it would be an understatement to say that City Football Group is in a decent financial position. In addition to having a financial advantage compared to single club owners, multi-club ownership groups can benefit from the interconnected networks of clubs and academies worldwide. For example, Dominic Szabozlai moved from Red Bull Salzburg to Red Bull Leipzig, eliminating most clubs from the race to sign him. The corporations, such as Red Bull and City Football Group, focus primarily on the economics of the sport. This causes issues with governing bodies, competing clubs, and also fans. A main source of concern for multi-club ownership surrounds their club’s advantage over other clubs, because of the emphasis on economics in today’s game. Similar clubs outside of this structure may have difficulty competing with large conglomerates because of their financial disadvantage. This raises the question of whether the smaller clubs would ever have a chance to close the competition gap without being bought by a wealthier business.

Multi-club ownership is reshaping the economics of soccer, bringing both promise and questions. As the business model evolves, the governing bodies of the sport must learn to adapt to the new structure to protect the beautiful game.