This rule is all about keeping things fair and avoiding conflicts of interest. Like, if Manchester City and Girona FC were owned by the same company, only one could play in the Champions League. The other would have to play somewhere else or just chill if both make it.
Topic: Can two clubs owned by one person participate in the Champions League? (Read 399 times)
September 24, 2024, 12:16:13 PM
September 17, 2024, 11:54:23 AM
There are legal, ethical and economic subtleties to this issue. There is too much money and too little sport in modern sports. Sports have long been a business and therefore it is not entirely honest in one way or another. Of course, if one person has large blocks of shares or other ownership interests in two or more clubs, then one way or another he can influence the state of affairs in both clubs. Let's imagine that there will be a match in which two clubs will play, owned by one person or one person will have a large share of ownership in both clubs. Such matches will always be suspicious in terms of preliminary agreements about their outcome...
It is only small clubs that have the same owner and journalists always love such topics, just a sports lover will expose the truth if they doubt the result of the match, if both clubs in a match do not show their full strength, they should be investigated and removed from the tournament, there will also be very few people paying attention to such clubs. With big clubs, the terms are relatively clear and when facing a worldwide audience, a mistake or manipulation is enough to lose a sponsor and affect other shareholders, so most big clubs have only one owner and many investors. 
September 17, 2024, 10:29:50 AM
Yes, two clubs owned by one person can participate in the champion leagues but here's the twist - they cannot face each other in the competition.
It actually makes sense when you think about it. If two clubs owned by the same person were to compete against each other, it would mean knocking out one's own team. That doesn't make sense, right?
I like to think of it like siblings. Just because they're not on the same team doesn't mean they're not connected. They're still family, and you would expect them to support each other. Similarly, two clubs under the same ownership should be seen as "siblings" in the football world.
UEFA's regulations, effective from the 2024-25 season, say clubs under common ownership can participate in different UEFA competitions, including the Champions League, but they won't be matched against each other.
Simply put, two clubs owned by one person can participate in the Champions League, but they'll not be allowed to face off against each other.
It actually makes sense when you think about it. If two clubs owned by the same person were to compete against each other, it would mean knocking out one's own team. That doesn't make sense, right?
I like to think of it like siblings. Just because they're not on the same team doesn't mean they're not connected. They're still family, and you would expect them to support each other. Similarly, two clubs under the same ownership should be seen as "siblings" in the football world.
UEFA's regulations, effective from the 2024-25 season, say clubs under common ownership can participate in different UEFA competitions, including the Champions League, but they won't be matched against each other.
Simply put, two clubs owned by one person can participate in the Champions League, but they'll not be allowed to face off against each other.
September 17, 2024, 10:06:41 AM
Those rules were made in the past and I believe soon they won't be valid anymore as changes come. In my own opinion, all clubs should be eligible to participate in the Champions League whether are bonded to another club through ownership.
Football is one of the lucrative business in the world right now so if a capitalist has a enough money to buy two or more club, then all the two clubs will play the leagues but remember the players are not the same they are different players from different backgrounds so even the two clubs are paired to play a game, they will play and one must win.
I seriously don't understand how you guys can rush aside this situation so easily, especially considering the place we're discussing this, here on a crypto forum that promotes decentralization, and you see no problem with someone acquiring and gaining more influence in a field.
Ok, two teams might not be a problem, what happens if there are 6 or 7, doesn't this trigger the same situation we have in mining where pools just grow bigger and bigger and have a larger share of it till they reach alarming levels where they can control a lot of things? It's the same with those clubs, once somebody wons a lot of them the implication will be disastrous because it's not just the game
- the guy will own television rights for half of the matches he could easily arrange who will get the rights
- with so many teams he can decide the advertisements if he doesn't like one spons that one suddenly loses half of the market
- imagine you are a player and you get into conflict with a club suddenly you have twenty clubs where you're not wanted anymore
Forget about rigged games, the $ implications if this grows out of control are huge!
September 17, 2024, 08:30:20 AM
There are legal, ethical and economic subtleties to this issue. There is too much money and too little sport in modern sports. Sports have long been a business and therefore it is not entirely honest in one way or another. Of course, if one person has large blocks of shares or other ownership interests in two or more clubs, then one way or another he can influence the state of affairs in both clubs. Let's imagine that there will be a match in which two clubs will play, owned by one person or one person will have a large share of ownership in both clubs. Such matches will always be suspicious in terms of preliminary agreements about their outcome...
September 13, 2024, 03:31:13 PM
[....]
I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
That's quite a naive thinking. How do you think football fans would look at the competition between two sworn rivals and a competition between two sister clubs? The intensity of the game would be different at the very least. Another thing is that there will always be rumors of a rigged game that would affect the league's reputation. They don't want any of that so it's better to avoid it from ever happening.I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
I believe that's one factor that officials are considering in this specific scenario. If they are sister clubs, the owner may have his preference as to which team should have the edge in the championships. We can't deny the fact that there will be bias in this situation.
If the league will allow such arrangement, for sure, the owner in question doesn't really have full ownership for the other club. He may have influence but he is not the major stakeholder of the club.
September 13, 2024, 02:42:07 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
You pretend like you are the recipient of some top secret and elusive information, yet the owners are pretty well known for all the biggest clubs. This is not much of an issue for the billionaires behind these clubs as they are often just trophies and toys. If there was a scenario that a billionaire wanted to own both, there are all sorts of structures that can be dreamed up to disguise them, but a risk analysis will be done to avoid these simple conflicts. If it looks like a club is in danger of violating this rule they might offload the weaker club, but it would seem fairly common they might own a scrappy smaller club along with a bigger one, just to see if it's possible to build one up from the grass roots and build more of a legacy for themselves.
September 13, 2024, 02:09:12 PM
Can two clubs owned by one person participate in the Champions League?
Football is one of the lucrative business in the world right now so if a capitalist has a enough money to buy two or more club, then all the two clubs will play the leagues but remember the players are not the same they are different players from different backgrounds so even the two clubs are paired to play a game, they will play and one must win. And they are two things involved in such game. The players are playing for their bonuses so they will play well for their club to win and the second is they play to win the cup for the owner.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 1028
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
September 13, 2024, 01:38:29 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
I learnt about this information regarding Manchester City and Girona being owned by an individual and as at last season, there was talks about one between both clubs not participating in the champions league, because the selection will be based on if any won their domestic league first. Manchester city won the premier League and already have a spot in the champions league ahead of Girona who finished among the top finalist in their own league.Despite owned by the same entities. Manchester City and Girona are participating in the UCL.
UEFA has cleared this problem with both of clubs have participated in UCL. I think they were relaxing the rules for the two clubs owned by same owner are able partiipating in the UCL. Everything is clear now with this.
September 13, 2024, 01:18:36 PM
i don't see any reason why if both teams are qualified to participate in the UCL that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
You don't see it as a problem when they meet in the same group and the owner could decide to throw one match so that at least one of his team goes through the next stage or they both qualify? You don't see a problem in an investment buying a team in every championship and turning the CL into a private league between his teams, influencing betting, tv broadcasting, transfers, everything?
Right now they don't have the majority for the Girona case, but this doesn't mean they can't collude on the outcome of the matches if they feel like it, and the decision to let them play really opens a can of worms, like there weren't enough problems already!
September 13, 2024, 12:58:56 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
I don't think there is lack of interest here in the start of the competition and this can become a conflict if both teams face each other in the final (which is highly unlikely for Girona) and the owner may favor the team with less trophies but so far if this true it should not compromise anything as Manchester City is only one time Champions League winners and recently in 2023 they won 1-0 against Inter Milan.
I also don't think there is any conflicting thing in which team one would support, this is easy a supporter of Manchester City would surely support them and a supporter of Girona will surely support them, based on such stats I highly doubt there is something to forbid such teams to be participating in Champions League and the fact that they are owned by the same person should not mean anything in my opinion.
September 13, 2024, 12:50:35 PM
UEFA will not provide any official statement regarding this matter, not until Mancity and Girona are qualified for the UCL in the next season.
But Im sure both of the teams will be play in the UCL 2024/2025, Mancity and Girona will find a legal loophole to eligible for the event.
Also having 44% stake in Girona should be not classified as conflict of interest and Girona already had the UEFA license since last year.
i don't see any reason why if both teams are qualified to participate in the UCL that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Aside from whatever the role states, if a team is allowed to participate in a build up games that guarantees thier place at the UCL, it's only fair that they be allowed to play if they eventually qualify. The placement of business and politics in sports is seriously getting in the way of seeing pure football that's void of an interference of a governing body. The ownership might be the same but the team is entirely different with different managers and game tactics should one be disqualified because another equally qualified for the UCL? So if for instance in this case of girona and man city, the two teams qualifies for the UCL, who's going to step down for who?But Im sure both of the teams will be play in the UCL 2024/2025, Mancity and Girona will find a legal loophole to eligible for the event.
Also having 44% stake in Girona should be not classified as conflict of interest and Girona already had the UEFA license since last year.
September 13, 2024, 12:26:49 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
I learnt about this information regarding Manchester City and Girona being owned by an individual and as at last season, there was talks about one between both clubs not participating in the champions league, because the selection will be based on if any won their domestic league first. Manchester city won the premier League and already have a spot in the champions league ahead of Girona who finished among the top finalist in their own league.All the while, it doesn't matter the status of ownership of the club I support, because I think a fan like myself would love the manager and style of play of a team more and would choose to support and cheer for them without even a bother as to who the owner of the club is.
September 12, 2024, 01:40:19 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
That's gonna be more like an impartial competition, given that the owner stands a chance to either lift the cup with his right nads or his left; They can do a whole lot of things with it.. manipulatively playing against another team with the second team (girona) as a bait to weaken or displace them in group stages. That way, they can't be fixed with their main team, City.. Although, everyone knows city is undiluted and formidable.Therefore, there's a grand rule - the independence club rule that doesn't permit that... I've also heard rumors that it'll be allowed soon, although I don't seem to accept that fact.
Yeah, that would open the door to the gambling corruption[...]
I think we can all agree that it goes beyond the unimaginable. 
September 12, 2024, 01:28:40 PM
I think the major reason for such role is to avoid match fixing. Imagine where the one of the two clubs is yet to qualify and they are to play each other, so what will happen in such instance, of course match fixing.
As per my research, there are 36 clubs involved in the Champions League. So the chance for both Clubs (which is owned by a single owner) to head to head on the finals can still be slim, unless only if there is already a corruption that applies right from the start.Yeah, that would open the door to the gambling corruption and the person who owns two clubs could make a boatload of money (I have my personal distaste for such kind of people) .
They can make a lot of money but I think other people who betted on the correct team can also make too. This is still not reason though to allow them but it's always better if the game is being played fairly because each bettors will also have a fair chance of winning, even though or especially they made a solid analysis.Sure both team wouldn't be neglected but , it would signal the end of sport. Therefore, I consider the rule to be correct and fair.
Wouldn't be neglected or not restricted? But he already said that there is a rule against it. I'm with it despite of what I said earlier that the chance for both clubs that is owned by a single owner to head to head on the finals is only less since there are also lots of clubs that are participating, and we are also talking about champions league here, so the clubs that are involved are what we can say highly skilled for them to reach this far. Corruption is not a new thing and people are like used to them already, so there is no way that this signals the end of sports or sports betting. 
September 11, 2024, 10:54:09 PM
[....]
I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
That's quite a naive thinking. How do you think football fans would look at the competition between two sworn rivals and a competition between two sister clubs?I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
With this said, if one team gets disadvantaged in favor of the other, fans would immediately call it rigged even if it isn’t. The bias and reputation would be too much to argue otherwise. There is also a real possibility that the owner would try to sacrifice the other just to make the other team win. They might not do it but they can and that is what a lot of people, not just fans but also commentators, sport analysts, journalists and the general public, would think and imply.
September 11, 2024, 09:35:32 PM
I think the major reason for such role is to avoid match fixing.
Yeah, that would open the door to the gambling corruption and the person who owns two clubs could make a boatload of money (I have my personal distaste for such kind of people) . Sure both team wouldn't be neglected but , it would signal the end of sport. Therefore, I consider the rule to be correct and fair.
September 11, 2024, 09:08:01 PM
Please I need a confirmation on the information I recently received regarding two clubs owned by the same person not allowed to both participate in the UEFA Champions League which means that one club must have to participate and the other club not allowed to. Furthermore, I've heard that Girona FC and Manchester City are both owned by the same person. If this is the case, I'd like to know your thoughts on which club you would support in reference of the above information.
There is a very fine line between what the law says and what is actually sensible in these scenarios.
Today, we have several football clubs that belong to more than one person or company, that is, they have mixed participation in some teams, sometimes more than one.
So, how can we prohibit them from participating in a championship? It is difficult.
I believe that the ideal would be to define a maximum percentage of each company's participation in the championships, but even in this there are many controversies and decisions being more favorable or not in very similar scenarios. I believe that there is no ideal formula for what is correct and each case must be analyzed independently.
From this thread I remembered case that occurred in the past where UEFA allowed Leipzig and Salzburg to compete in the UCL and there was debate over the same ownership, namely Red Bull, an energy drink company.
Exactly, this happened in the 2017/18 season and the decision was favorable because they understood that the Austrian club was only sponsored by RedBull, without there being any actual "ownership" of the team and therefore it did not violate the so-called "article 5" of the competition's integrity.
September 11, 2024, 06:55:57 PM
[....]
I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
That's quite a naive thinking. How do you think football fans would look at the competition between two sworn rivals and a competition between two sister clubs? The intensity of the game would be different at the very least. Another thing is that there will always be rumors of a rigged game that would affect the league's reputation. They don't want any of that so it's better to avoid it from ever happening.I don't think there's something wrong with allowing teams financed by a single source into the UEFA really, it doesn't tarnish the reputation of the league in the first place, it allows more people to enjoy the game and more players to show their prowess, and most of all, it's going to keep the game of football alive!
I believe that's one factor that officials are considering in this specific scenario. If they are sister clubs, the owner may have his preference as to which team should have the edge in the championships. We can't deny the fact that there will be bias in this situation.
If the league will allow such arrangement, for sure, the owner in question doesn't really have full ownership for the other club. He may have influence but he is not the major stakeholder of the club.
September 11, 2024, 06:54:32 PM
It's good that UEFA tries to remain fair and impartial but I think if rich people want to game the system they will find a way eventually.
If UEFA wants to keep things fair they should make it so there's an extern review body for arbitration that has guaranteed funding and had representatives rotate or be elected from a blind large selection. Without an external body to review such matters any football organization can fall into corruption like many national leagues have reported collusion and corruption in the past.
Already to a large extent the champions league favors the richest teams. Funnily enough the nations league which has lower funding and lower stakes has matches that are more interesting to watch. It's not always about the money.
If UEFA wants to keep things fair they should make it so there's an extern review body for arbitration that has guaranteed funding and had representatives rotate or be elected from a blind large selection. Without an external body to review such matters any football organization can fall into corruption like many national leagues have reported collusion and corruption in the past.
Already to a large extent the champions league favors the richest teams. Funnily enough the nations league which has lower funding and lower stakes has matches that are more interesting to watch. It's not always about the money.
Jump to: