CAS Panel Dismisses Drogheda's Appeal: A Cautionary Tale For Multi-club Investors

On 16 June 2025, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismissed an appeal brought by Irish club, Drogheda United FC (DUFC), against UEFA's decision to exclude the club from the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League (Conference League).

The case, resolved under an expedited procedure, offers further insight into UEFA's multi-club ownership (MCO) rules and their strict enforcement by CAS.

While the reasoned decision is not published yet, the decision to dismiss the appeal underscores the importance of proactive compliance for legal teams advising clubs or investors operating multi-club structures.

Background

In November 2024, DUFC, a semi-professional League of Ireland Premier Division club, qualified for the Conference League, UEFA's third-tier competition for European club football, by winning the FAI Cup. Silkeborg IF, a separate professional Danish club, secured its place via league performance.

Both clubs are owned by Trivela Group, a US-based sports investment firm.

Regulatory framework

All clubs that qualify for any of UEFA's European competitions, including the Conference League, must comply with relevant competition rules.

UEFA's MCO rules, which are found at Article 5.01, prohibit two clubs under common "control or influence" from participating in the same UEFA competition in a given season, and ensure that no one has simultaneous involvement "directly or indirectly.... in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition".

The rules are therefore triggered when two clubs under common ownership qualify for the same competition. In such cases, per Article 5.02, UEFA admits only one club, typically the one with the higher domestic league finish.

For more information on UEFA's multi-club ownership regulation framework, please see this article on LawInSport.

The decision

On 5 June 2025, UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) determined that DUFC and Silkeborg IF did not meet the MCO compliance criteria as of the revised assessment date, 1 March 2025 (the CFCB Decision). On this basis, it rejected DUFC's admission to the Conference League, in favour of Silkeborg IF.

DUFC argued that the change from the original 3 June deadline to 1 March was unfair and improperly communicated. However, UEFA had issued a circular in October 2024 notifying clubs of the change, citing the complexity of ongoing investigations and the need to ensure the smooth running of UEFA's club competitions.

DUFC disputes the decision

DUFC filed its appeal with CAS on 10 June 2025, seeking annulment of the CFCB Decision and reinstatement in the second qualifying round draw, which was scheduled for 17 June 2025.

The arbitration was conducted under a five-day expedited timetable, with a virtual hearing held on 16 June 2025, rendering its decision the same day.

The CAS panel – comprising Prof. Philippe Sands as President (UK/France), Mr. Kwadjo Adjepong (UK) and Mr. Fabio Iudica (Italy) – dismissed the appeal by majority. It found that the revised assessment date had been properly communicated (owing to the circular) and that DUFC "knew or ought to have known" of the change. It also rejected DUFC's arguments concerning alleged unequal treatment by UEFA.

DUFC had previously put forward proposals which included share disposition and trust arrangements, such as the blind trust structures previously accepted in the Manchester City/Girona and Manchester United/Nice cases regarding admission to the 2024/25 UEFA Europa League. For more information on the use of blind trusts in football, please see this article on LawInSport.

However, in this case, DUFC's submissions were deemed insufficient or untimely by UEFA, and ultimately not persuasive by the CAS panel.

A full CAS Award with grounds of the decision is due to be published in the coming weeks.

Impact on DUFC

The decision deprives DUFC of its first return to European football since 2013.

In a statement, DUFC expressed "heartbreak and disbelief" at the outcome, calling the decision unjust and urging for reform of UEFA's regulatory framework. The club also emphasised its efforts to engage constructively with UEFA.

DUFC forfeits over EUR 500,000 in potential prize money, in addition to giving up the prestige of European competition. Unfortunately, no other club from DUFC's league can replace the club, per Article 4.10 of the UEFA competition regulations, due to UEFA licensing deadlines.

The MCO landscape

Once published, the full decision will certainly make for an interesting read, particularly given its direct relevance to a number of other clubs and decisions. In particular, on 11 August 2025, CAS dismissed an appeal filed by Crystal Palace FC (Palace) against UEFA's decision to demote the club from the 2025/26 UEFA Europa League to the Conference League. The demotion resulted from Palace's alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with UEFA's MCO rules by the 1 March 2025 deadline. Although both clubs had qualified, Olympique Lyonnaise achieved a higher domestic league finish giving it priority.

The Palace decision was made on the basis of American businessman, John Textor, maintaining an ownership stake in the club at the time, whilst simultaneously being the majority owner of Olympique Lyonnais (pending approvals, Textor has now sold his Palace stake). The CAS panel ultimately noted that Textor had retained a "decisive influence" over the two clubs, citing that the MCO Rules are "clear" and do not provide flexibility in the event of noncompliance.

Similarly, at the end of June 2025, Hungarian and Slovakian clubs Gyori ETO FC and FC DAC 1904 Dunajska Streda were found to have been in breach of the MCO rules by UEFA, excluding the latter from admission to the Conference League.

These decisions also follow CAS's rejection of an appeal concerning the removal of Club Leon from the Club World Cup by FIFA on 6 May 2025, owing to the Mexican club's non-compliance with MCO
rules.

Takeaways for clubs and counsel

With MCO on the rise across football's top tier, we anticipate related disputes will become increasingly common, in particular given the high value stakes in place for participation in major European competitions.

This decision in particular marks a cautionary tale which is emblematic of a number of key issues for sports investors and their advisers:

UEFA deadlines are likely to be strictly enforced

Clubs' legal teams should monitor and track relevant deadlines set by UEFA before, during, and after the season end. UEFA's change to the assessment date was communicated months in advance, and CAS upheld its procedural validity. This inflexibility was clearly reflected in the Palace decision discussed above.

Precedent is no guarantee

While different structures have been successfully proposed in the past, such as blind trust structures to negotiate the MCO rules, this is not necessarily a guarantee of future success. Although UEFA will continue to exercise its discretion, clubs should proactively submit alternative arrangements in good time. Here, although DUFC's proposals appeared to align with past frameworks, they were not sufficient to override the breach.

Investor strategy must embrace compliance and be forward-looking

Investors in multi-club structures must design governance models that anticipate UEFA scrutiny. Legal advisors should ensure that ownership and operational arrangements are compliant well before qualification deadlines. This includes auditing ownership and influence structures before qualification deadlines, arranging timely restructures and share disposals, as well as scenario planning in the event of multiple club promotions. Clubs should consider both direct and indirect club control, and review all possible influence mechanisms, such as shared management or strategic coordination.

Finally, as well as effectively tracking UEFA circulars and deadline changes, it may be advisable to engage UEFA or seek third party legal opinions to clarify whether particular ownership structures are compliant.

This decision is thus clearly only the latest in a series of cases relating to multi-club structures. That said, it illustrates the increasingly complex environment for sports investors and highlights associated risks.

This article was originally published on LawInSport, available to subscribers here: CAS panel dismisses Drogheda's appeal: A cautionary tale for multi-club investors - LawInSport