Crystal Palace‘s long-awaited return to European competition has taken an unexpected detour. Just two months after lifting their first major trophy in club history, the FA Cup, the club has been removed from the 2025–26 UEFA Europa League by a decision that cuts to the heart of modern football ownership.
UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body ruled that Palace is in breach of its multi-club ownership rules due to the influence of American investor John Textor, who also owns Olympique Lyonnais. Both clubs qualified for the same tournament, and under Article 5 of UEFA’s club competition regulations, that’s a problem. The result: Lyon stays in the Europa League, while Palace is relegated to the Conference League.
This wasn’t about performance on the pitch. It was about who owns what off it.
Textor owns roughly 77% of Lyon and is also the largest shareholder at Palace, holding around 45% of the club. He resigned from his board positions at Lyon in July, handing leadership duties to Michele Kang, and agreed to sell his Palace stake to NFL owner Woody Johnson. But UEFA determined these moves came too late. The rules require that any potential conflicts be resolved by March 1, and the clock had run out.
Palace’s leadership made a final appeal in Nyon, arguing that Textor didn’t exert decisive influence over the club. That argument failed to persuade UEFA, which also rejected a last-ditch attempt to place Textor’s shares in a blind trust. “Why should I put my interest in a trust back before March when the rule says you only have to do it if you have decisive influence? I don’t,” Textor told TalkSport.
The ruling means Palace’s European debut will now happen in the third-tier Conference League. The club is expected to appeal the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
A rule reshaped by the era of empire-building
Multi-club ownership is no longer a fringe phenomenon. From Red Bull to City Football Group to Eagle Football Holdings, networks of clubs now span continents. The rules that govern these ownership webs are evolving too.
UEFA’s Article 5 bans clubs under common control from participating in the same competition, but a 2024 amendment allows such clubs to enter separate tournaments. That’s why Palace wasn’t banned from Europe entirely. Instead, UEFA enforced a reshuffling: Lyon, who finished sixth in Ligue 1, had the stronger domestic record and kept their Europa League place. Palace dropped down.
Legal precedent isn’t on Palace’s side. UEFA has won similar cases before, including the famous ENIC dispute in the late 1990s and, more recently, Drogheda United’s exclusion in 2025 over a conflict with Silkeborg. The Red Bull case, where Leipzig and Salzburg were both allowed to compete after restructuring, offers a template for compliance, but timing is critical. Blind trusts and share transfers work only if submitted ahead of UEFA’s deadline.
For Palace, the financial and sporting consequences are stark. The difference in prize money between the Europa League and Conference League can exceed $20 million. Their group stage spot is now in jeopardy, too—they must navigate a playoff just to make the draw. European nights at Selhurst Park, once imagined against Roma or Leverkusen, may now feature lesser-known opposition.
Nottingham Forest, meanwhile, is the unexpected beneficiary. UEFA has yet to confirm it, but Forest is in line to be bumped up into the Europa League group stage.
The episode also shines a light on the complexities of modern football ownership. Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings controls clubs in Brazil, Belgium, France, and the UK. His argument that he had no control over Palace—”If I had decisive influence, then those Brazilian players that just beat PSG… half of them would be coming to Crystal Palace”—reflects both the ambition and contradictions of the multi-club model.
This time, UEFA drew a line. And Palace, who earned their place the hard way, now face the consequences of ownership decisions made far from the pitch.
