An Impending Doom

In a move that almost no one cared about, Ben Chilwell left Chelsea for Strasbourg—a truly unremarkable transfer for a rather unremarkable player.

However, the two clubs involved represent a growing conflict in football. 

After winning the FA Cup in May, Crystal Palace fans expected Europa League nights to arrive at Selhurst Park. Soon after that historic win, it became clear that Palace would be denied that chance due to a club in France.

Lyon flirted with the possibility of relegation due to financial issues in the 2024/25 season. Ultimately finishing in a Europa League spot, the club’s success cost the Eagles a spot in the Europa League. Owner John Textor sold his shares of Palace in the summer, but his involvement with both clubs through the end of the season created this mess.

European sporting bodies continue to attempt to clamp down on multi-team ownership in various leagues. The Lyon-Palace debacle became the perfect opportunity for the governing bodies to make an example of these ownership groups. Escaping any sort of punishment, however, are the two clubs involved in the Chilwell transfer.

While it remains a positive to see multi-team ownership groups held accountable, the issue falls on the way punishment is doled out.

The sport itself and its governing bodies demonstrate no ability to properly address this growing trend, which may destroy football.

Standing as the first test case for the sport, Eagle Football Group’s involvement with both Lyon and Palace offers the governing organizations a low-stakes case. After all, despite both clubs’ impressive seasons, they don’t represent the real power players.

Chelsea’s spending in the Prem, similar to an unrealistic FIFA manager mode, remains unlimited. A player, like Mudyrk, fails; no need to worry, as they’ll bring in another youngster to throw in the machine. Dishing out longer contracts than the sport is used to ultimately saw actual rule changes.

Despite the attention brought on by these transfers, it’s not these moves that truly matter in this discussion. It’s the almost Ouroboros-like relationship between the clubs in BlueCo’s portfolio.

Perhaps if the clubs used one another as developmental programs, almost like the City group tried to, less would be made about them. The actual transfer fees exchanged between the BlueCo clubs are where all the problems arise. After all, wouldn’t one assume that they are essentially just shuffling money around, right back to the organization?

Theoretically, the clubs operate separately from one another. Strasbourg goes after their own targets in the window, but how do you address the moments where they bring in Chelsea players? No other club seriously wanted Chilwell, so Chelsea seemed to have just dumped him onto their French counterpart.

It essentially relegates Strasbourg to being a franchise of Chelsea. Removing all sense of identity from the club and making it but a piece of a portfolio. To be fair to BlueCo, this rings true for all multi-team ownership groups, including Eagle Football Group.

While City truly revolutionized this new era, Chelsea grabbed it by the horns. Almost taunting every governing body, they continue to escape any real punishment.

Organizations, like BlueCo and City, exist in this Teflon zone, rising above punishment because no one knows how to address it. UEFA saw Palace as an easy example, given what they must have seen as low stakes.

PHOTO: Ben Chilwell/Facebook

As the Prem struggles to win any case against City, UEFA clearly feels at ease with not attacking the sports power players. The only time that UEFA actually went after top clubs was during the Super League fiasco. When it seemed that their earnings and power over European football came under threat, they were ready to bring down the hammer.

Financial Fair Play laws are both easy to understand and implement. Clubs need to prove that they won’t overleverage themselves while remaining competitive. As long as they keep their sponsorships and other financial involvements clean, they can skirt transfer or competition bans. 

When the same group owns multiple clubs and makes transfers between them, it becomes difficult to truly understand how to address the issue. Yes, it clearly reeks of collusion, but how can any sporting body prove this?

Similar to the disclosure that comes with FFP laws, any sort of transfer between clubs of the same organization should be subject to review. Again, the issue lies in proving that there was collusion. Either could claim that this was done in the best interest of the clubs, independently.

Furthermore, any implementation of punishment remains tough to visualize. Any sort of transfer ban makes sense, but could still be skirted around. Forcing the owners to sell is the ultimate punishment; however, this would cause too large a storm for UEFA.

Unlike the situation with Lyon and Palace, the rules for transfers between the same organization remain undefined.

In this time of uncertainty, organizations seem ready to exploit it.

If the proper footballing bodies had punished other multi-team organizations besides Eagles Football Group, this story might have died; instead, this issue forces football to look at itself in the mirror.

Constantly attempting to find new avenues of revenue, multi-team ownership offers the sport a steady revenue line that may be too good to ignore.