UEFA have made itself clear. No two clubs can have the same ownership in the same European competition. Women's teams will not be exempt from this rule. This rule was applied to Crystal Palace and the Europa League, as they were demoted to the Conference League after UEFA ruled they had breached the multi-club ownership rules due to former co-owner John Textor's ties to Lyon.
This would directly impact investor Michele Kang, who is the prime example of why this rule has been strictly enforced in advance in the women's game, so that a situation like what occurred this season does not happen again. She owns Lyon and London City Lionesses. While it might be a few seasons off before London City can compete with Lyon in Europe, this rule, being stupid, is directly against her. People question whether her ownership model actually helps or hinders the growth of the women's game.
Kang bought the French side, originally called Olympique Lyonnais féminin, now OL Lyonnes, in May 2023. She acquired a 52.9% majority stake, and OL Groupe retained the requirement that this was her second club after acquiring the Washington Spirit in March 2022.
Lyon has won the Champions League eight times, none of them while Kang has been the club's owner. This issue is with London City Lionesses, an ambitious WSL club targeting European qualification if both teams qualify for the European competition in the same season. Kang would be forced to sell, restructure, or place one club in a blind trust to comply with UEFA rules, or one of the clubs will be unable to compete.
Speaking ahead of the Women’s Champions League final, UEFA’s head of women’s football, Nadine Kessler, confirmed that regulations will be enforced strictly, even as multi-club ownership becomes more common in the women’s game.
Kessler's message was clear: sporting integrity applies equally to men’s and women’s football; shared ownership is incompatible with fair competition; and even the perception of promised integrity is unacceptable.
Article 5 of UEFA’s Women’s Champions League regulations explicitly bans any individual from exercising decisive influence over more than one participating club financially, administratively, or sportingly.
While Kang is the most notable multiple-ownership model in women's football and likely the most powerful, there are other examples of this, including Cruxa Sports, which owns Rosengård and Montpellier, and Mercury13, which owns Como Women, Badalona Women, and Bristol City Women. Similar to Kang, this would only become an issue if they face each other in a European competition. But this strict ruling will likely limit the possibility of multiple club ownership and deter investors from pursuing it.
While the investment in the women's game on paper looks great, there have been some concerning red flags. Back in 2023, the US Soccer Federation accepted a $30 million “philanthropic” donation from Kang, later followed by the Launch of the Kang Women’s Institute. It raised concerns about a major club owner becoming a strategic partner of a national federation, an arrangement that would attract heavy scrutiny in the men's game due to the conflict of interest; this issue was not intended, but it set a precedent.
This is not the only time she has had issues with conflicts of interest. FIFA named Kang's holding company, Kynisca Sports, as the presenting partner of the FIFA Women's Champions Cup, though none of her clubs was involved in said competition; the optics matter. A club owner partnering with FIFA in a global club competition seemed to blur the lines between governance and private ownership.
We saw last summer, with Danielle van de Donk, the risks of multi-club ownership on the transfer market, where she moved from one club to another. Even though this is legally ok, the perception alone can damage trust, especially for clubs operating without billionaire backing, and removes the supremacy of the transfer market.
The most serious criticism is a structural one, where the owner absorbs losses indefinitely, wage inflation is driven by unmatched financial capacity, and competitive ceilings become fixed. This also discourages community-led ownership, women-led investment groups and sustainable mid-tier club models. Instead of strengthening the ecosystem, dominance risks making the league more fragile.
I feel that while the investment is great and I applaud her for building in women's football, it will become elitist, and the unique nature of football ownership will be sensed, and, like men's football, it will become just about the bottom line and not the sport.
Admittedly, her investment in London City has practically saved the club from collapsing financially and stabilised it, but she has not made it completely financially stable. While she has shown you do not need to rely on a men's team financially, you do rely on that culture and fanbase. She is in a fortunate position where she can invest and hope it sticks. That is not the culture and accessibility that all clubs can sustainably meet, making a clear discrepancy.
Ultimately, the Kang empire is clearly under severe scrutiny from UEFA as it enforces the rules. However, it is likely not to be an issue for a few more years, and London City have only just finished their first season in the WSL, with other clubs further ahead in their development. The real question is no longer whether Kang is “good” or “bad”.
It is whether women’s football is ready to regulate power before power defines the sport.
Add comment
Comments