Multi-Club Ownership: The Lifeline and the Looming Danger in Women’s Football

Multi-Club Ownership in Football: Men vs Women

Multi-club ownership in the men’s game is ridiculed for internal transfers. The model presents significant challenges regarding potential conflicts of interest, the integrity of competitions, and its impact on the traditional “spirit” of the sport, with regulatory bodies like UEFA working to control influence and prevent breaches of competition rules.

 You only need to look as far as the recent Crystal Palace and Europa League drama to understand how unwelcoming multi-club ownership is in the men’s game. But that begs the question: why is it so often praised in the women’s?

The main reason is financial. In the women’s game, where growth potential is high but established structures are still thin, multi-club ownership has been a vital shortcut to professionalisation. It provides a framework for scaling the sport and building sustainable business models. 

For investors, pooling resources and knowledge across multiple teams means shared investment in areas like sports science, player development and commercial expansion, all of which are crucial if women’s football is to reach its full potential. 

Unlike in the men’s game, the pool of investors is limited, and not everyone who pours money into a men’s club is prepared to do the same for the women’s side.

 The survival of London City Lionesses, for instance, hinged on Michele Kang’s arrival. Without her intervention, the club would almost certainly have dissolved. Kang’s portfolio now includes Lyon, London City Lionesses and Washington Spirit, making her the most significant figure in multi-club ownership in women’s football today.

This structure undoubtedly provides opportunity. Women’s football still lacks robust scouting and development networks, and ownership groups can build pipelines across continents, giving players opportunities to move between clubs and gain international experience. 

But while this accelerates professionalisation, it also opens the door to potential abuse. The transfer of Danielle van de Donk from Lyon to London City Lionesses this summer was an early warning sign. 

What appeared at first to be a natural extension of Kang’s vision was, on closer inspection, a troubling example of internal trading.

 If player movement is dominated by pathways within multi-club groups, not only is individual growth restricted, but the competitiveness of leagues is also compromised.

There are other dangers too. Multi-club ownership can easily create conflicts of interest when teams under the same umbrella meet in competition. Smaller independent clubs risk being crowded out by the superior resources and scouting power of multi-club projects.

 Groups may even stockpile players, moving them around internally rather than allowing rivals the chance to sign them. And when finances tighten, women’s clubs often prove disposable.

 The story of OL Groupe illustrates both the promise and the peril. Lyon Féminin were turned into a global powerhouse thanks to OL’s investment, dominating Europe and professionalising facilities, coaching and scouting long before their rivals.

 Yet their American counterpart, OL Reign, never received the same commitment, and when OL’s finances worsened, the club was sold to the Seattle Sounders’ ownership group. It was a stark reminder that in this structure, football is business first.

At the moment, none of Michele Kang’s clubs play in the same competition, which limits the potential for immediate conflict. But that may not last. If London City Lionesses establish themselves in the WSL and qualify for the Champions League alongside Lyon, UEFA will have to intervene. 

Regulations that came into force in 2024, and were strengthened in March 2025, make clear that no individual can control more than one club in the same competition. 

UEFA has already enforced this in the men’s game, where clubs have been demoted or excluded, and women’s sides will not be exempt. If Kang is forced to divest from one of her clubs, the result would likely be destabilising.

Multi-club ownership in women’s football is, for now, a lifeline. It has allowed clubs to survive, provided resources to professionalise the game and created new opportunities for players. 

But the very system that has underpinned growth could soon undermine it. A foundation for the future veils a structure that, if unchecked, risks monopolisation, exploitation and financial instability. 

It is both a tool for building the game and a potential mechanism for breaking it, and it is only a matter of time before UEFA subjects the women’s game to the same scrutiny as the men’s.