Following Football Benchmark’s multi-club ownership workshop at World Football Summit Madrid, Antonio Di Cianni, Director of Advisory, considers where MCOs can create value and the strategic and regulatory challenges that investors must address.

Multi-club ownership has become an established part of the global football investment landscape. The number of MCO groups worldwide increased from 18 in 2012 to 152 in 2024, while the number of clubs within these structures rose from 40 to 380 over the same period. Eight of the top 15 most valuable European football clubs in Football Benchmark’s 2026 Football Clubs’ Valuation report are now connected to what could be defined as multi-club networks.

After more than a decade of rapid expansion, however, the market has entered a period of consolidation. The number of clubs within MCO structures declined by 10% in 2025, while European club transactions involving an MCO fell from a peak of 58 in 2022 to 33 in both 2024 and 2025.

This does not mean that the MCO opportunity has disappeared. It shows that investors are looking more carefully at how these models can work in practice. Acquiring clubs is only the beginning. The more difficult task is building a group in which every club has a clear role and the intended sporting and financial benefits can genuinely be delivered.

That balance between opportunity and complexity was at the centre of the workshop I hosted at World Football Summit Madrid: “Multi-Club Ownership: Building competitive advantage in a globalised game”. David Dwinger and Xander Czajkowski of Estrella Football Group joined parts of the discussion and shared their experience of developing a horizontal MCO model.

The opportunity remains clear

If implemented effectively, an MCO can increase the value of its individual clubs and the wider group. For most groups, player development and trading remain the clearest opportunity. Operating across different markets can widen access to emerging talent and create pathways between clubs competing at different levels. But common ownership alone does not create an effective pathway. The clubs must have compatible recruitment strategies, suitable sporting environments, and a clear view of how each player can progress.

The value also does not depend only on players moving between affiliated clubs. A successful model should improve how the group identifies and develops talent and how it ultimately realises value, whether through first-team contribution or an external sale.

Commercial opportunities – although more difficult to achieve – may also exist through shared expertise, technology, and selected central services. A group may be able to reduce duplication, improve the capabilities of individual clubs, and offer commercial partners access to several markets. The scale and nature of these opportunities will differ between groups, depending on their markets, club profiles, and objectives.

The structure must follow the strategy

The choice between a vertical and horizontal structure has consequences for governance, investment, player pathways and the relationship with supporters. It should therefore follow the investor’s objectives rather than simply reflect an established MCO model.

A vertical model can create clear player pathways towards a flagship club but it may also produce an uneven allocation of resources and increase concerns that other clubs exist mainly to serve the leading one.

A horizontal model, on the other hand, gives clubs a more equal position within the network, with shared access to expertise and investment. During the workshop, David and Xander explained how Estrella is approaching this model, including its commitment to retaining each club’s name, badge, and local identity. Their contribution illustrated how a group can seek to balance local independence with the benefits of a wider network.

It also reinforced an important point: the model must reflect the specific objectives and composition of the group. A one size-fits-all approach does not work.

The questions we ask investors

When we work with investors considering an MCO strategy, we always begin with several fundamental questions. What do you want to achieve? What is your vision for the group, and what is your available ticket size?

These questions typically come before the search for a club. They determine the group-level strategy, the intended role of each club, and which capabilities should sit centrally or remain under local management.

We start by considering the most strategically sound market to invest in. Selecting a country and league should consider more than a club’s availability or estimated acquisition price. The media landscape, revenue distribution, competition structure, and the league’s financial performance all matter. The regulatory framework – including, importantly, nationality rules – access to continental competitions, and local attitudes towards MCO can also affect whether the model is viable in a given country.

Then, using a funnel approach, we move from market/league considerations to what the investor should acquire. What type of club fits the strategy? Is an acquisition necessary, or could a partnership achieve the same objective? Does the investor require majority control, or would a minority position be sufficient?

At club level, we assess, among other things, the ownership structure, finances, infrastructure, and commercial potential. We also examine the squad, the club’s record in developing talent and trading players, and whether it can fulfil the intended role within the group.

An attractive opportunity can itself become the starting point for an MCO strategy, or be considered more optimal as a standalone acquisition. The key is to understand how the club could fit within the investment proposition and whether the investor has the resources and operating capabilities to support it after the transaction.

Regulation must be considered from the start

Regulation is now shaping MCO strategy rather than simply placing limits around it. Article 5 of UEFA’s club competition regulations limits the control or influence that one party can exercise over multiple clubs, prohibiting them to take part in the same UEFA competition. Even more importantly, UEFA’s Financial and Sustainability Regulations restrict the accounting treatment of transfers between related clubs: they are no longer able to improve their financial performance through intra-group transactions. Indeed, in the event of an intra-MCO transfer, the selling club must record the transaction at the lower of proceeds and net book value, limiting the capability to record profit on disposal of players through intra-MCO transfers.

FIFA limits the number of international loans, while domestic rules covering nationality, minimum salaries, and reserve teams vary considerably between markets.

Regulation is therefore not a workstream to address once acquisitions have been completed. It can determine which markets are suitable, how ownership and governance must be structured, and whether the intended player pathways are workable. These issues need to form part of the original investment thesis.

From investment idea to operating model

The potential advantages of multi-club ownership are apparent. An MCO can provide access to talent and markets that individual clubs may struggle to reach independently. It can also strengthen club capabilities and create new player development opportunities. But these outcomes depend on the quality of the strategy and its execution.

The most efficient MCOs are those in which every acquisition has a clear purpose, the operating model supports that purpose, and each club becomes stronger through its participation in the group.

This is where my colleagues and I at Football Benchmark often support investors. We help them define the investment strategy, understand whether an MCO is the right approach to achieve their objectives, and turn that into action.

We also work with owners post-acquisition, reviewing organisational structures, operating performance, and whether the group is delivering the expected sporting and commercial benefits. If you would like to continue the conversation, you can reach me at antonio.dicianni@aceadvisory.eu.