Private investment firms building multi-club football portfolios

Why the portfolio model has grown

Football investment is increasingly global, while the economics of individual clubs remain intensely local. A group structure can give an investor exposure to different supporter markets, competition systems and player-development environments without asking one club to do everything. It can also spread learning across recruitment, data, commercial partnerships and leadership, provided those capabilities are built with care and not assumed to appear because a holding company exists.

The scale of the trend is material. UEFA reported that more than 230 clubs worldwide were part of a multi-club investment structure at the end of 2023, compared with fewer than 100 five years earlier. Its analysis distinguishes between ownership, where a party has control or decisive influence, and investment, where a party has interests in more than one club without necessarily controlling each one. That distinction is central to any serious multi-club investment case.

For clients, the question is not whether a portfolio is fashionable. It is whether a second or third club improves the ownership thesis in a way that can be explained in operating terms. If the answer is only that another club creates optionality, the strategy is still incomplete. The role of each asset, the capital it requires and the authority that sits with local leadership need to be clear before the group becomes more complex.

Start by defining the job of each club

Every club in a portfolio should have a distinct reason to exist within the wider strategy. One may be a flagship competing in a mature commercial market. Another may offer access to a high-quality player-development system. A third might provide a credible route into a different geography, supporter base or partnership market. None should be described as a feeder club by default. That language can obscure the local sporting ambition, supporter relationship and governance each club needs to protect.

The test is whether the club could still be a sensible investment on its own terms. A portfolio does not remove the need for a viable stadium plan, a realistic wage structure, sound governance or a credible sporting model. It should improve the decisions around those things. The guide to whether football clubs are good investments is a useful starting point because it separates the attractions of the asset from the capital and performance risks that sit behind it.

Clients should ask three practical questions. What local advantage does this club have? What contribution can it make to the group without compromising its own plan? And what would happen if no group benefits materialised? If the answer to the third question makes the investment unattractive, the proposal depends too heavily on synergy rather than the club itself.

Build the investment case from the ground up

A multi-club portfolio can create operational opportunities, but it also creates more capital calls, more approval processes and more chances for a difficult sporting season to affect the group. The investment case should therefore start with separate base and downside plans for every club. Only after those plans are credible should the client model any group-level benefit.

That discipline matters when looking at cash. A group may be able to share specialist expertise or create buying power around certain services, but it cannot assume that one club's success will reliably finance another club's needs. Transfer timing, promotion and relegation, local broadcast distributions, stadium works and investor obligations can all pull in different directions. The full cost of owning a football club remains relevant at portfolio level: purchase price is only one part of the commitment.

Model cash needs club by club, then at group level. The group view should test whether more than one club might need support in the same period, whether debt or guarantees create cross-exposure, and how the investor will make funding decisions under pressure. It should also identify which investments are protective, such as working capital or critical maintenance, and which are strategic, such as a training-ground improvement or commercial team. Combining the two makes both harder to govern.

Governance is the investment thesis in practice

The practical value of any shareholding depends on the rights behind it. A portfolio structure needs a clear map of share ownership, voting power, board appointment rights, reserved matters, information rights, financing commitments and exit provisions at each club. The map should include linked entities and contractual rights, not only the percentage of equity held.

That is especially important where an investor holds a minority stake. A minority position can be commercially attractive and strategically meaningful, yet still create questions if it comes with strong veto rights, board control or financing arrangements that give a party decisive influence. UEFA's club licensing definitions describe control in terms of the power to direct financial, operating or sporting policies through share ownership, voting power, constitutional documents, agreements or other means. Read the official definition of control as a prompt to examine substance, not just headline ownership percentages.

At group level, the board needs to decide what is centralised and what must remain local. Investor reporting, treasury standards, safeguarding, risk controls and certain specialist support can be shared. Sporting decisions, recruitment accountability, club identity and local commercial relationships cannot simply be flattened into one central function without creating risk. The point is not to make every club identical. It is to create enough consistency that the group can see problems early while preserving responsibility close to the club.

Competition rules change the structure

European competition eligibility is not a late-stage legal detail. It can affect how a portfolio is owned, financed and governed from the beginning. UEFA's rules are designed to protect the integrity of competitions by preventing one individual or entity from having control or decisive influence over more than one participating club. A portfolio that looks workable in an ordinary season may face a different test when two clubs qualify for the same competition.

The consequences are practical. In past cases, UEFA has accepted clubs into competition after significant changes restricted investors' influence and decision-making at one club. The measures included changes to shareholdings, board representation, voting rights, financing and access to key decisions. UEFA's published account of these multi-club ownership decisions shows why governance cannot be treated as paperwork.

Clients should assess the qualification scenario before they acquire or fund a club, not after a successful season creates a conflict. That means testing board rights, investor rights, shared services, data access, player movement and related-party funding against the current competition regulations. The rules and timing can change, so transaction counsel should work from the applicable season's materials rather than a generic precedent.

Choose markets for a reason, not a map

A portfolio can look geographically balanced while still making little commercial or sporting sense. The question is not how many flags appear on the ownership chart. It is what each market contributes to the investment case and whether the group has the capability to operate there responsibly. League structure, player-registration rules, supporter culture, local media economics, stadium rights and the quality of available leadership all deserve a place in the first screen.

A club with a strong academy tradition may be strategically interesting, but only if the investor understands the local recruitment environment, contract rules and development pathway. A club in a large city may offer partnership and hospitality potential, but it may also face intense competition for attention. A lower entry price can be sensible, yet it may be paired with a stadium constraint, an ageing squad or a funding requirement that is harder to absorb than it first appears.

Use a consistent market screen before moving into a detailed process. It should cover sporting relevance, recurring revenue, property and infrastructure, regulatory route, local leadership, capital requirements and realistic exit options. The purpose is not to reduce a club to a score. It is to make sure the group is comparing like with like and that enthusiasm for a new geography does not outrun the evidence.

Keep financing and reporting transparent

Groups become difficult to manage when the true funding position is not visible until it is urgent. Each club should have a clear operating budget, cash forecast, funding route and record of investor support. At portfolio level, management needs a consolidated view of commitments, guarantees, related-party balances, debt and any capital that has been allocated but not yet called. That does not make every funding decision central. It makes the overall exposure understandable.

Transparency also helps the group distinguish a deliberate strategic investment from an unplanned operating subsidy. If a club needs funding because a new training facility is part of an approved long-term plan, the return, timing and delivery risk can be assessed. If it needs funding because cash has weakened after a poor run of results, the decision has a different purpose. Both situations may require support, but they should not be presented as the same use of capital.

Financial sustainability is part of the operating context, not an external compliance exercise. UEFA's financial sustainability framework links football earnings, solvency and squad-cost control. The details will differ by club and competition, but the investor lesson is straightforward: a growth plan must be funded in a way that remains credible through the monitoring and sporting cycle, not simply at signing.

Plan the portfolio's future at the outset

Every acquisition should begin with a view of the possible holding period and routes forward. A portfolio does not have to be permanent to be strategic. An investor may hold one club for the long term, retain a minority position in another or decide that a club is better served by a different owner once a defined period of investment has been completed. Those choices are easier when governance, financing and local leadership were set up with an orderly transition in mind.

Exit planning should not reduce the club to a financial instrument. It should clarify the rights and responsibilities that make any ownership change more stable. Review transfer restrictions, pre-emption rights, shareholder loans, management incentives, board succession, major contracts and the evidence a future buyer will need. A disciplined record of investment decisions, funding and operating progress makes the eventual conversation more credible for everyone involved.

The group should also consider whether a change in one holding alters the rationale for the others. If a portfolio was designed around shared market access or specialist capability, the departure of one club may change the economics and governance of the remaining structure. Looking at that possibility early is more useful than discovering the dependency during a sale process.

Do not overstate player-market benefits

Player development is often the first benefit investors associate with a portfolio. Different leagues can offer varied pathways, and shared knowledge may improve how a group identifies, supports and retains talent. Yet player movement is not a shortcut to value. Every transfer, loan, contract and registration decision must still serve the sporting and financial interests of the club making it.

A good operating question is whether the club would make the same decision if the other group club did not exist. If not, the rationale needs closer examination. A player transfer that is designed primarily to solve a group problem can create sporting, financial and governance risks for both clubs. That is why the portfolio needs independent local accountability, clear transfer processes and records that can explain the commercial and sporting case for each decision.

For clubs participating in UEFA competition, the integrity question can become even stricter. UEFA has previously imposed conditions preventing related clubs from transferring players to each other, entering joint technical or commercial agreements, or sharing a scouting or player database for a defined period. Those conditions demonstrate the need to design the group around genuine independence where the rules require it, not to assume a structure can be adjusted painlessly when qualification arrives.

Protect local identity while building a group

Football clubs are not interchangeable operating units. Each has a sporting history, supporter relationship, local market and set of responsibilities that affect its long-term value. A multi-club investor can share capability without imposing a generic identity. In practice, that means investing in local leadership, listening to the club's market and being precise about which decisions are made at club level.

Commercial strategy is a useful example. A global partnership may create group-wide interest, but it should not displace local sponsors, matchday relationships or the club's own commercial proposition. The same applies to communication, community programmes, academy pathways and the football philosophy. A group can set standards and provide resources. It should not treat local relevance as a friction to be removed.

This is also a value-protection issue. A club's distinctive relationship with its city and supporters is often part of the reason it matters to investors, partners and players. Any portfolio plan that weakens that relationship may undermine the very asset it hopes to develop.

Use a disciplined diligence plan

Multi-club diligence needs the normal work expected in a football investment, then a second layer focused on the group. Start with the club's financial position, cash needs, player commitments, property rights, commercial contracts, governance and approvals. The football club due diligence checklist sets out the questions that should be answered before a client commits to a single asset.

Then examine the portfolio-specific issues: the investor's other holdings, all rights that create influence, group service agreements, data and scouting arrangements, related-party funding, player-trading protocols, insurance, tax structure and contingency plans for simultaneous qualification. The work should identify not only whether an arrangement is permitted now, but whether it remains workable under a successful sporting outcome.

UEFA's current club licensing framework covers sporting, social and environmental, infrastructure, personnel and administrative, legal and financial criteria. Its club licensing overview is a useful reminder that the ownership structure sits within a wider operating responsibility. A diligence plan that reviews only the holding company will miss the conditions that determine whether the clubs can compete and grow.

Set decision rules before the portfolio expands

Growth can make a portfolio harder to govern faster than it makes it more valuable. Before considering another club, set thresholds for geography, competition level, required control, funding capacity, local leadership, regulatory fit and expected role in the group. Those thresholds should include reasons to walk away, not just reasons to proceed.

It is useful to review the portfolio as if it were a new investment every year. What has each club contributed? Where has capital been required? Have shared capabilities created a real benefit? Has governance become clearer or more strained? Are any structures exposed if clubs qualify for the same competition? An annual review keeps the investor focused on evidence rather than the appeal of simply growing the network.

That review should reach the operating teams as well as the investor board. Local executives need a clear route to raise a concern about funding, independence, player movement or a group decision that does not fit the club's interests. A portfolio is more resilient when challenge is expected and recorded, rather than handled informally after an issue becomes public or time-critical.

Clients considering a multi-club strategy need a route that connects the ownership ambition to real clubs, capital and decision rights. The Ninety Project helps clients evaluate football investment opportunities through that joined-up lens, from the first brief to a more considered ownership plan.