News & Views

How multi-sport ownership is shaping investment in sport

Over the past decade, the financial and governance architecture of professional sport has undergone a significant transformation, with investors now viewing clubs as assets within larger thematic portfolios that can share capital, infrastructure, and brand reach.

In some examples, like Fenway Sports Group this spans sports, but in football, City Football Group’s global strategy has defined a multi-club ownership (MCO) model adopted by both institutional and high net worth investors.

One definition of MCO is the practice of holding controlling or significant interests in several clubs across one or more jurisdictions and now represents one of the defining developments in the sports investment market, especially in football which is the most globalised of all major sports.

MCO has become a structured, compliance-driven approach to deploying capital across a sector where valuations continue to rise at all tiers of football, not just the elite. For UK and European rights-holders below the elite tier, it offers an entry point to strategic investment and professional management, but it also introduces complexity around deal management, financial fair play, capital allocation, and governance that demands sophisticated legal execution.

Examples of the new generation of transactions

• ALK Capital/Velocity Sports Partners (Burnley & RCD Espanyol) - In October 2025, ALK Capital’s sports investment vehicle, Velocity Sports Partners (VSP), acquired ~99.66 % of Spanish La Liga club RCD Espanyol, completing a purchase from the Chinese Rastar Group. The price was reported as circa €130 million, of which about €65 million was paid in cash and €65 million in VSP shares. Public commentary by ALK emphasised that both clubs would retain separate leadership and identity, positioning themselves as stewardship rather than ownership takeover and the reaction from league and regulatory stakeholders seems muted. The deal raises some complex governance and regulatory questions. For example, VSP must comply with both Premier League and EFL ownership tests as well as La Liga regulations, plus ensure no conflict if both clubs qualify for European competition.
• Sport Republic (Southampton, Göztepe & Valenciennes) - The London-based investor Sport Republic acquired an 80% stake in Southampton FC and then acquired about 70% of Turkish club Göztepe SK before becoming controlling shareholders of Valanciennes in France. Their broader plan has been publicly articulated as building a portfolio of “high-influence stakes in football clubs and other sporting assets across the world.” From a regulatory perspective, again they must align each club with different league requirements; in Turkey and France, the second-tier nature and media value are lower, so the financing likely includes significant working capital to support promotion push. The regulatory reaction appears manageable so far, though clubs must comply with local licensing, wage/financial controls, and maintain independence where required by each league.
• Mercury13 (Bristol City Women and FC Como Women) - In September 2025, the multi-club investment group Mercury13 completed a majority acquisition of Bristol City Women, a Women’s Championship (WSL2) club following their earlier purchase of FC Como Women. The previous owner, the Lansdown family, retains a minority share, so the new structure gives Mercury13 operational control while preserving some continuity with the stated ambitions of professionalising the club, invest in infrastructure (academy, performance centre), and build a blueprint for independent women’s clubs across Europe and Latin America. The investor here looks to have accepted a different risk profile around revenue growth rather than leveraging existing cashflow, focusing on brand development, infrastructure build, league promotion, and fan growth. The women’s football regulator and league appear supportive, and there is public goodwill for dedicated investment in the women’s game.

Structuring and funding multi-club platforms

At the centre of every MCO sits a holding company or investment vehicle that raises capital and deploys it across multiple operating clubs. The legal and financial structures used - equity, convertible instruments, or intra-group loans - determine not only how control is exercised but how future capital could be raised and allocated.

In practice, the parent entity can provide funding to subsidiaries according to defined parameters: infrastructure development, player acquisition, academy investment or centralised services such as analytics and technology. The efficiency of this model depends on clear governance and transparent accounting between clubs and allocation models must ensure that each club’s transactions and budgets remain distinct enough to satisfy domestic and UEFA financial-sustainability rules, while still benefitting from economies of scale.

The financial fair play (FFP) implications are significant. Under UEFA’s current Financial Sustainability Regulations, all related-party transactions - including intra-group loans, management fees, or shared sponsorship - must be reported and priced at fair market value. Similar requirements are being mirrored within the Premier League and EFL frameworks. From a compliance perspective, that means transfer activity, player wages and shared commercial contracts between clubs in the same network must be documented and audited in a way that prevents the artificial shifting of losses or costs.

For clubs operating within these structures, the challenge lies in combining centralised strategy with local accountability. Directors of each club retain their fiduciary duties under UK law, even when strategic decisions originate from a parent company abroad. That tension, between local governance and group policy, must be addressed explicitly in shareholder and management agreements.

Compliance and governance in practice

The legal assembly of an MCO platform involves multiple layers of compliance. The holding entity must satisfy ownership disclosure and ‘fit and proper person’ rules within each league, while the clubs themselves must continue to meet financial-licensing obligations on an individual basis.

In the UK, the Independent Football Regulator will intensify these requirements by formalising oversight of ownership transparency, solvency, and capital adequacy. For investors, that means greater documentation and more scrutiny of funding sources. For rights-holders, it reinforces the need to understand not only who the investor is, but how their capital will flow through the group.

At the European level, UEFA’s Article 5 on multi-ownership continues to pose one of the most complex challenges. It prohibits two clubs controlled by the same entity from participating in the same UEFA competition. Investors have sought to navigate this through reduced voting rights or minority positions, but UEFA’s recent guidance on ‘decisive influence’ indicates a move towards substance over form and any structure that permits coordinated control over sporting performance, finance or governance is likely to be deemed non-compliant.

The practical implication for legal teams is that documentation must establish real independence between clubs where required, with separate boards, financial systems, and decision-making frameworks. 

Beyond capital efficiency - the broader business case

While portfolio theory and operational efficiency have long been cited as the rationale for MCO, the most successful networks are now using their scale to create entirely new commercial and technological ecosystems.

Multi-tenanted or shared infrastructure enables better analytics and operational efficiencies across clubs but also provides the foundation for improving the fan and partner experience. Centralised marketing and technology teams can build unified digital platforms that monetise audiences across territories, giving smaller clubs access to global sponsors and fan engagement tools previously out of reach.

In parallel, cross-club commercial portfolios are emerging - networks negotiating group-wide partnerships with sponsors or technology firms, offering multi-market exposure under a single agreement. For rights-holders, the opportunity is to become part of a wider commercial story without losing local authenticity and for MCOs this is a USP in a fiercely competitive sponsorship market.

What is equally important is that this platform logic applies across different maturity levels of sport. Investments such as Mercury 13’s show that the appeal of MCO is not limited to established men’s competitions with more predictable cashflows, but extends to emerging areas where growth potential, brand building and ESG alignment play a greater role in valuation. This also opens the door to newer forms of capital that are more venture based than private equity, where the risk-reward profile is more appropriate.

The legal frameworks, however, must be equally rigorous. The same transparency, governance and financial-sustainability principles apply, regardless of sector maturity.

Preparing for the next phase

For UK rights-holders exploring investment or sale into a multi-club structure, preparation is key. Clean financial statements, auditable governance, and clarity of ownership are prerequisites. Clubs should be ready to demonstrate compliance with league and UEFA regulations, and to provide clear visibility on how new capital can be deployed and value created.

Clubs both on an individual basis and as part of an MCO are part of a changing narrative in football, where revenue streams are diversifying, and combining with more traditional areas of investment focus such as real estate.

From a legal perspective, shareholder agreements must balance investor protections with local autonomy, defining capital commitments, veto rights, reporting obligations and exit mechanisms. Inter-club transactions - from player loans to commercial collaborations - must be structured and priced transparently. And above all, each club must retain sufficient independence to satisfy both domestic regulators and UEFA’s integrity tests.

Concluding thoughts

Multi-club ownership has matured into a sophisticated, diversified and highly regulated investment model that sits at the intersection of sport, finance, and governance. It offers undeniable benefits: access to capital, operational efficiency, and strategic brand development. Yet those advantages are sustainable only when underpinned by rigorous legal architecture, transparent financial management, and ongoing compliance discipline, as well as a very careful approach to protect fans.

For investors and rights-holders alike, success lies not simply in building a network, but in maintaining its integrity under scrutiny. At O’Connors, we help clients design, execute, and govern MCO structures that are both compliant and commercially effective - ensuring that ambition, capital, and regulation move in concert as the business of sport continues to evolve.