Crystal Palace’s fight to stay in the Europa League explained - and why Nottingham Forest are getting involved | OneFootball

Crystal Palace are waiting on tenterhooks to discover if their European tour will be cancelled before it even begins.

The Eagles thought they had secured their place in continental competition after defying all the odds to win the FA Cup - their first-ever major trophy - which resulted in them qualifying for the Europa League.

However, their dream of European football - something they’ve never had in their 120-year history - hangs in the balance as Uefa decide whether Palace have breached the tournament’s multi-club ownership rules, which do not allow teams under the same owner to compete in the same competition.

Premier League rivals Nottingham Forest have since piled in on Palace’s woes, writing to the governing body to voice their concerns over the breach.

Here’s everything you need to know about Crystal Palace’s fight to stay in the Europa League.

Are Crystal Palace in breach of multi-club ownership rules?

Much of this saga centres around American businessman and Eagle Football Holdings owner John Textor. Eagle Football holds a 43 per cent stake in Crystal Palace, but also owns a 77 per cent stake in Ligue 1 outfit Lyon, who akin to Palace have also qualified for next season’s rendition of the Europa League.

To prevent collusion, Uefa does not allow multiple clubs under the same owner to compete in one of its competitions, and in the case that two teams under a multi-club model qualify for the same tournament, the side that achieved the better finish in its domestic season gets priority. Lyon finished sixth last term and qualified via their league position, while Palace finished 12th.

John Textor is the heart of the issue for Crystal Palace due to his ownership of Lyon (Getty Images)

However, there was a way around this. Under Article 5 or Uefa’s rulebook, clubs had until March 1 of this year to have complied with the requirements to prove they are not "simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition".

What this often entails is the adaptation of shareholdings - such as putting shares in a blind trust - to follow regulations, with the likes of Ineos, the City Group and, most recently, Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis all doing so to ensure their teams face no barriers to compete in Europe. Marinakis was preparing for the eventuality that Forest would qualify for the Champions League alongside Olympiakos, who are also owned by the Greek billionaire.

Lyon get priority over Crystal Palace in the Europa League due to their superior league standing (Getty Images)

Uefa’s deadline of 1 March is clear, but Palace missed it. After all, their route to such a conflict was incredibly unforeseen at that point - they were sitting in the bottom half of the table and were only in the FA Cup fifth round. Meanwhile, Lyon only managed to gain European qualification in the season’s last breath, moving into a Conference League spot thanks to a 99th-minute Le Havre winner at Strasbourg on the final day, before Paris Saint-Germain won the Coupe de France to bump Lyon into the Europa League.

While a lack of foresight may prove unforgiving, it is understood that Textor’s position means he cannot be enforced by the club to place his shares in a blind trust due to a lack of legal authority. With the deadline long gone, Palace have told Uefa that they are ready to take immediate steps to comply with their requirements, but are also arguing against the claim that they are in serious breach of the requirements at all.

What is Crystal Palace’s defence?

Crystal Palace are arguing that their historic FA Cup triumph and subsequent Europa League qualification were achieved on their own merit rather than via the benefits of a multi-club system, and that the response to eject them from the competition is disproportionate.

They also refute that they operate under such a multi-club model, with Textor holding just 25 per cent of the voting rights - crucially, less than 30 per cent. This could prove pivotal as Uefa's rules state that "no individual or legal entity" can hold a majority of shareholder voting rights - and thus the ability to have the final say on decisions - at two clubs in the same European tournament.

Steve Parish (right) is widely accepted to be the man with the final say at Palace (Getty Images)

Palace chairman Steve Parish and his top brass are widely accepted to be the key decision-makers at Palace, with Parish having the determining vote, while Textor has comparatively inferior influence.

As such, there is an argument that Palace’s operation is entirely independent, claiming not to have been assisted by Textor’s Lyon connection in their FA Cup triumph last term. According to the club, this is in the sense that there have been no employee or coach sharing, no joint strategy, no collective scouting, and the fact that the last transfer between the two outfits came in August 2023, when now-Everton defender Jake O’Brien left Palace for Lyon.

Why are Nottingham Forest getting involved?

Nottingham Forest have written to Uefa to express their concerns and a desire for clarity over Crystal Palace’s involvement in the Europa League when they might be in breach of the governing body’s multi-ownership rules.

As previously stated above, Forest were in a similar boat in regard to the possibility of falling foul of these regulations, only in the Champions League, which led to Marinakis diluting his control of the club.

Evangelos Marinakis was forced to dilute his control of Nottingham Forest to follow Uefa’s regulations in the case both Forest and Olympiakos qualified for the Champions League (PA Wire)

Forest missed out on Europe’s premier competition on the final day of the Premier League season, allowing Marinakis to retake the reins, but now stand to gain from Crystal Palace’s failure to change their ownership structure by the March 1 deadline.

This is because they finished the season in seventh - at present a Conference League spot. There is no guarantee, but they could be lifted into the Europa League if Palace are expelled.

What could happen next?

Palace are doing all they can to convince Uefa that they are not in serious breach of the regulations, with Parish and Textor being invited to the governing body’s headquarters in Nyon, Switzerland, for crisis talks.

Parish has entered crisis talks with Uefa over Palace’s future in the Europa League (PA Wire)

Textor has been part of the contingent to argue that his influence at the club is minimal - something he has publicly made known he is frustrated about, with the current leadership structure meaning he actually wants to sell his stake.

As such, Textor is willing to resign as director of Palace to ensure their involvement in Europe next season, which would mean the American would lose any and all influence at the club.

When will a verdict be reached?

Uefa will continue to deliberate in internal meetings, primarily with their Club Financial Control Body, over the coming weeks and are expected to come up with a decision by the end of the month, forcing Palace to endure an anxious wait to see if their European dream lives or dies.

Deliberations at Uefa’s headquarters in Nyon are continuing with a decision over the matter expected at the end of the month (AFP via Getty Images)

While it may appear the simple compromise is to drop Palace to the Conference League - avoiding the ownership clash but keeping Palace in continental competition - a similar issue would arise due to the positions of shareholders Josh Harris and David Blitzer. They also own Danish club Brondby, who have qualified for the competition through finishing third in the Superliga.

Palace are hopeful that if a sanction is imposed, it does not act as an injustice to their competitive achievements. It’s reported that Palace believe a hard ban from European football would contradict Article 2 of Uefa’s rulebook, which set out to ensure “sporting values always prevail”, and would instead be more receptive to a fine or oversight measures, such as the temporary monitoring of transfers.