Quick Read
- Crystal Palace lost its appeal to compete in the Europa League after being demoted to the Conference League.
- UEFA cited multi-club ownership violations due to John Textor’s shares in both Palace and Olympique Lyonnais.
- The CAS upheld UEFA’s ruling, rejecting Palace’s claims of unfair treatment and inconsistent rule application.
- The demotion could cost Palace up to £20 million in lost revenue.
- The club will now focus on a Conference League playoff scheduled for August 21 at Selhurst Park.
Crystal Palace’s hopes of competing in the Europa League this season were officially dashed on Monday, August 11, 2025, as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against their appeal. The decision upholds UEFA’s earlier ruling to demote the club to the third-tier Conference League, citing breaches of multi-club ownership regulations. This ruling has sparked disappointment and financial concerns for the London-based club, which had been eager to capitalize on its FA Cup victory by playing on a higher European stage.
The Ownership Controversy
The root of the issue lies in Crystal Palace’s ownership structure. John Textor, the founder of Eagle Football Holdings, held shares in both Crystal Palace and French club Olympique Lyonnais (OL). Both clubs had qualified for the Europa League, creating a conflict under UEFA’s regulations that prevent a single entity from having decisive influence over multiple clubs competing in the same tournament. According to The Guardian, UEFA deemed that Textor’s 43% stake in Crystal Palace and his position on OL’s board gave him decisive influence over both clubs, violating its rules.
In an attempt to rectify the situation, Textor sold his stake in Crystal Palace to fellow American businessman Woody Johnson earlier this year. However, UEFA’s assessment date had already passed, and the club’s actions were deemed insufficient to meet compliance standards. As reported by Sports Business Journal, the CAS panel found that the rules were clear and did not allow for flexibility regarding the assessment date.
The Appeal and Its Rejection
Crystal Palace argued during the CAS hearing in Lausanne that they had been unfairly treated in comparison to other clubs in similar situations. They pointed to Nottingham Forest’s owner, Evangelos Marinakis, who was allowed to place his club into a blind trust after UEFA’s initial deadline. Palace claimed they had not been informed that the March 1 deadline could be extended until May 31, a key point that enabled Nottingham Forest to remain compliant.
However, the CAS panel dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that Textor’s influence had been decisive at the time of UEFA’s assessment. According to Reuters, the panel concluded that Palace’s claims of inconsistent application of UEFA’s rules lacked sufficient merit. Furthermore, CAS highlighted that the regulations were applied uniformly, and Palace had failed to meet the necessary standards.
Financial and Competitive Repercussions
The demotion to the Conference League carries significant financial implications for Crystal Palace. The club estimates a potential loss of up to £20 million in revenue, stemming from reduced prize money, sponsorship opportunities, and matchday earnings. Steve Parish, the club’s chairman, expressed his frustration at the ruling, stating: “I’m determined that we get the right outcome. If we don’t, we’ll have to look at if there’s any steps after that.” Despite these strong words, the ruling appears final, leaving Palace with limited options for recourse.
On the pitch, the demotion means Palace will now face a Conference League playoff against the loser of the Europa League qualifier between Norway’s Fredrikstad and Denmark’s Midtjylland. The first leg is scheduled to take place at Selhurst Park on August 21, just three days before Palace hosts Nottingham Forest in the Premier League. Meanwhile, Nottingham Forest is expected to be promoted to the Europa League, replacing Palace in the competition.
Broader Implications for UEFA’s Multi-Club Ownership Rules
The case has reignited debates over UEFA’s multi-club ownership rules and their enforcement. Critics argue that the regulations are outdated and fail to account for the complexities of modern football club ownership. Others believe that UEFA’s strict stance is necessary to preserve the integrity of European competitions.
As Front Office Sports highlighted, the controversy also raises questions about communication and transparency in UEFA’s decision-making processes. Palace’s claim that they were not informed of the extended compliance deadline has fueled calls for greater clarity and consistency in how rules are applied across clubs. Whether this case prompts UEFA to revisit its regulations remains to be seen, but it has undoubtedly cast a spotlight on an area of governance that is increasingly under scrutiny.
For Crystal Palace, the focus now shifts to making the most of their Conference League campaign and ensuring that the financial and competitive setbacks from this decision do not derail their broader ambitions.