top of page
Search
Writer's pictureTristan Figueras

Multi-Club Model: The New Norm?

Hello, and welcome back to Early Doors Football. In typical fashion, Chelsea have been the most active in this transfer market, selling players left and right and being linked with big-money transfers. Absurdly, Chelsea has been linked with CLUBS, with BlueCo (part of the consortium that purchased Chelsea) having bought a controlling stake in French club RC Strasbourg. This is the start of Chelsea’s multi-club structure, which has been planned for some time, but is only now coming to fruition. Rio Ave FC of Portugal could be next to join the family, as Boehly is eyeing up planting some roots in Portuguese football. While I will discuss how this will affect Chelsea’s philosophies, I am going to take a look at the wider landscape in regard to multi-club partnerships. With Manchester City having their own “City Group” already, the infamous Red Bull system, and even Brighton having a sister club in Belgium, it looks like this structure is starting to take hold. This is obviously nothing new, but with football becoming increasingly “big-picture” and political, it is worth taking a deep dive into how this system could affect individual clubs and football at large.

Loan No More: Chelsea’s Strategy Change

Under Roman Abramovich and Marina Granovskaia, Chelsea were notorious for their loan army. Between 2010-2019, Chelsea loaned out 57 players, which was the second most in Europe (Robbie Copeland). There was a lot of criticism around this method, and rightly so, as it was generally unsuccessful from both a player and club perspective. For many players, it was desperately hard to get out of this cycle; if you got sent on loan, good luck breaking into the first team next season. This hindered many players' development, with only Reece James and Mason Mount being notable beneficiaries.


Since the transition to Clearlake Capital, Boehly, and the new football hierarchy, it has been clear that they are looking to phase this system out. Although I would imagine this was their goal anyways, FIFA’s new regulations on loans has surely sped up the process. We have already seen players that would have been favorites to go out on loan under the old regime (Koulibaly and Ziyech for example), be sold for losses.


There has been a distinct change under the new sporting and technical directors, with there being an emphasis on high potential youth players, and with a foothold in France, this idea is even more intriguing. The small amount of loans that do happen at Chelsea will now be young players going out to get first team minutes, likely at Strasbourg. Additionally, I would presume Strasbourg would adopt a similar scouting philosophy as Chelsea, so many talented youth players will likely be among the ranks in 2 or 3 years time. For players like Slonina, Datro Fofana, and Casadei, this addition could prove huge. There has been fair criticism about Chelsea stockpiling youth talent with no way to play them, but that has changed now. The jump from youth football to first team football at Chelsea could prove cavernous, but Strasbourg provides the perfect stepping stone. Keeping Football From the Sharks”: Multi-Club Model Impact on Fans


UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin spoke about multi-club ownership models in March and was rather neutral when it came to the topic. He stated football must be kept from the “sharks”, in reference to the most powerful clubs and more specifically, those that would run said clubs into the ground.


For Ceferin, his concerns lie not only in the impact this model has on individual clubs and leagues, but the impact it has on the competitive code as well. As specific networks get stronger, the likelihood they come into contact in European competition becomes far more likely. For example, the Red Bull Group teams in Salzburg and Leipzig regularly play in the Champions League and Europa League; if they were to play each other, is there a real concern of the outcome? If the teams are run by the same organization, it is not unreasonable to say something unsavory could happen that puts the competition into question. Even if it were to be unintentional, is it reasonable to have two teams of the same owner or group playing against each other on the world stage? This exact instance occurred in 2018, but nothing was done to stop it. UEFA initially stated that the fact Red Bull had “decisive influence” over both clubs jeopardized their competition, but they were convinced that the clubs were separate due to structural changes (The Athletic). Seemingly, these rules are not strong enough if they can be bent in such open fashion. Mere days ago, there was a UEFA meeting discussing the multi-club rules and if they needed to be strengthened or weakened. The outcome is unknown, but it would be rather surprising if they were to strengthen them, given Ceferin’s previous leniency. Presumably, the new rules (if there are to be any) would focus more on protecting the competitive aspect on the European stage, but would leave the door wide open for investment. While anyone could recognize the positives, and those cannot be discounted, the impact of being a cog in the multi-club wheel is painful for most clubs, and especially their fans. Again, Red Bull is a prime example of this, particularly their teams in Salzburg and Leipzig. While I have spoken down on them, and will continue to do so, the Red Bull structure also pumps out incredible talent on a regular basis, but I will get into that later. Both teams existed long before Red Bull arrived, although in entirely different forms. In Austria, SV Austria Salzburg (known under multiple names due to various sponsorships throughout the years), was formed in 1933 thanks to the merging of two Salzburg teams. The team had a tumultuous history, where it bounced between the first and second division, until finding consistent improvement in the 70s, where they made it to the UEFA Cup and the Austrian Cup final. The 80s saw their fortunes return to normal, before making huge strides in the 90s, winning their first Austrian League title. I say all this to illustrate that this club had decades of history and fan culture, this was not some start up team where you could easily argue becoming a piece of a multi-club puzzle could help them push on. In 2005, Red Bull came in and took over the team and everything was changed; from team colors, to the logo, even the entire staff. Red Bull even insisted this was an entirely new team with NO history, although the Austrian federation still recognizes them as the successor to SV Austria Salzburg (Footballhistory.org). They’ve since made regular appearances in the Champions League and become the dominant force in their country, but it must be asked: is it worth sacrificing your history and culture for success? It is a similar story in Leipzig. After searching across Germany (always with the preference of a team in Leipzig), they were met with disinterest from owners and fans alike. When Red Bull’s interest in Fortuna Dusseldorf became public, fans immediately held intense protests; similar pushback occurred as Red Bull flirted with St. Pauli and FC Sachsen Leipzig. Ironically, St. Pauli fans had already joined in protests over Red Bull’s takeover of SV Austria Salzburg.


Finally, Red Bull struck a deal with SSV Markranstädt (Like Salzburg, known under many names) was founded following World War II. The team bounced around the divisions of East German football, other than a first place finish in 1947-48. Once Germany was reunified, they remained anywhere between the 4th and 6th divisions of German football. Like most other fans across Germany, the fans were unhappy. Following the takeover and complete rebrand, they “refounded” the club, and have been playing at Stadion Am Bad in front of 5,500 fans. They are still considered an “affiliate” of RB Leipzig. Red Bull had to jump through a tremendous amount of legal hoops to finally purchase the team. German football holds a “50+1 Rule”, which states members of the club must hold a controlling stake; this prevents corporations like Red Bull or perhaps in the current landscape, States, from purchasing controlling stakes over teams in Germany. The only true exception is for businesses that have owned a stake in a team for over 20 years, at which point they can apply for an exemption. Without going into painful detail, Red Bull was able to circumvent this by purchasing SSV Markranstädt’s playing license and placing Red Bull employees or collaborators as members. Lastly, there is a rule in Germany stating a team cannot be named after a corporation. Almost mocking the German Football Authorities, they named the club “RasenBallspor Leipzig” (shortened to RB Leipzig), translating literally to “Lawn Ball Sports Leipzig”.


While Red Bull may be the most rash example of this, it is evident that these multi-club systems pose consistent danger to fan culture. For teams that are new on the scene, perhaps it is not the worst idea. For example, NYCFC joining City Group is not as egregious, as they have little to know history, but if teams with a rich culture are bought and turned into mere stepping-stone clubs, you have to feel for the fans. There has already been pushback among Strasbourg fans after the club was purchased by BlueCo, and that comes even after assurances no huge structural or cultural changes will be made. When joining these models, fans rightly become concerned about on and off-field performance. Will they be pushed to the wayside, only used as a breeding ground for talent? With football becoming more commercialized and political by the day, these concerns cannot be taken lightly, and perhaps put ahead of desires to grow one's footballing empire.


Player Pathway: Is This Model Perfect for Player development?


Businessmen and Owners do not make these football groups for the sake of removing clubs’ identity, they do it because it enables them to (in most cases) produce and nurture youth talent far more effectively. Yet again, Red Bull is the most clear example. It is almost guaranteed that in each transfer window, we will see a player move between Red Bull clubs. In almost all cases, it is a move up the “ladder”; from the New York Red Bulls to Salzburg, or Salzburg to Leipzig. Tyler Adams, Dominik Szoboszlai, and Dayot Upamecano all moved throughout the system, and all benefited greatly from their involvement. In general, these Red Bull teams foster youth talent, with so many of Europe’s top level players passing through their ranks.


Having teams throughout the various levels of football is so important for truly developing talent, as opposed to simply throwing them in the deep end. Of course, some players will be able to make the jump from youth football to professional football in a top 5 league, but this is often not the case. Players can progress at a far more natural rate, thanks to loans or sales to their sister clubs. With Chelsea’s huge development into youth players, there’s no doubt that a fair amount of them will go on loan to Strasbourg or other clubs added to the network in the future. This is particularly key for the upper echelon of teams; Chelsea and Manchester City will rarely have a player ready to immediately step into the first team, but if they can send them on loan to further develop them in a first-team environment, they could be ready in a season. Another partnership that flies under the radar is Brighton and Union Saint Gilloise in Belgium. Both owned by Tony Bloom, the clubs have shared players multiple times, most notably with Kauro Mitoma, who lit up the Premier League this season. I have an article speaking on Brighton extensively (Linked Here) , so I won’t go into much detail. This partnership has already proven fruitful, but even with just two clubs partnered, Brighton have found a way to produce an exceptional amount of talent.


The City Group is a bit different, as we see loans out of Manchester City and between other clubs, but almost no network players breaking into the Manchester City first team. City have loaned out a plethora of players out to their network, and purchased/sold players from/within their network (uncommon, the only notable one I found was Pedro Porro, who was bought+sold years ago), but none have become a part of the first team fold. It looks like success plays a more primary role in this network than other clubs; Melbourne City and NYCFC have won titles, while Troyes and Girona have won promotions. This is not to say development is not important, clearly there is regular movement between teams that benefit the players, in addition to the strong academies of Manchester City and NYCFC, but the upwards trajectory is not as clear as the Red Bull system. Clearly the group benefits from a “shared network of players, coaches and scouts as well as data, knowledge, infrastructure and strategy”, but it appears City have yet to find the club that can bridge the gap between them and the rest of the network (The Athletic). Closing Thoughts


As is always the case in football, the discussion on Multi-club networks is extremely nuanced. Clearly, when done correctly, these networks can be extremely profitable, both in terms of literal finances and player production. However, there are often ramifications for smaller teams joining these groups: they risk losing or deteriorating their fan culture and overall standing among the community. Perhaps they become nothing more than a part of a system, forgotten until they produce a player that can be stolen by the club the network sees as part of the food chain. On the other hand, maybe it is a symbiotic relationship and they benefit greatly from the shared knowledge the network provides and they reap the benefits. This all comes down to the owners of the network, there are no hard and fast rules with this.


I also feel it worth noting that I have only discussed the most notable networks, as they have the most information available and I already have experience watching and reading about them. I say this because I do not want it to appear as if having this network at your disposal leads to success, owning multiple clubs only adds to the complexity of the footballing and business decisions that need to be made, which can create huge issues for those without extensive knowledge of the industry. For example, NewCity Capital had three teams relegated (Barnsley, Nancy, Esbjeg) all dropped out of the second divisions of England, France, and Denmark respectively. To answer the question in the title, are these networks the new norm? I think so, but that does not mean they will all be successful. It is clear the top teams are seeing the benefits, so there will surely be a foray into this realm from most top teams in one shape or form, but it will take intricate research and work throughout the club(s) for the network to be viable and worthwhile.


Well, that is all for today. I feel like I’ve covered a lot of bases, this probably could have been released in multiple articles. When doing research on the Red Bull group, I found there was a lot I want to get into with them, both on and off the field, so I am planning on writing an article on them. With it being the transfer window, I am also eager to jump back into some rebuilds and the like, so keep an eye out for those too. As always, thank you for taking the time to read this, and have a lovely day.


17 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page