On Friday, Crystal Palace face a date with European destiny in Switzerland. Here, Mail Sport outlines exactly how lawyers representing the Eagles will seek to overturn their bombshell demotion from the Europa League – in what promises to be a David v Goliath battle between the underdog FA Cup winners and the might of UEFA…
Those in the red and blue corner will attempt to deliver the heaviest blows via UEFA’s own words.
In the governing body’s 2024 statutes, point seven in the definition of terms states the following: ‘”Fair play” means acting according to ethical principles which, in particular, oppose the concept of sporting success at any price, promote integrity and equal opportunities for all competitors, and emphasise respect of the personality and worth of everyone involved in a sporting event.’
Palace believe, and will seek to prove beyond any doubt, that in this case those ‘equal opportunities for all’ have simply ceased to exist.
That they have been unfairly singled out. That the decision to kick them out of the Europa League and demote them to the Conference League for alleged breaches of its multi-club ownership rules is one which is at odds with UEFA’s own DNA. That there are numerous examples of one rule for one, and one rule for many, many others.
Their task is a substantial one. They are in this situation because UEFA ruled that the US businessman John Textor held a position of influence at Selhurst Park. It is a fact that Textor’s Eagle Football Holdings group possessed a 43 per cent stake in the club, more than any other single party. It is also a fact that Eagle – whose name stems from Palace’s nickname – owned Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League.
Crystal Palace’s FA Cup triumph earned them a place in the Europa League, but they were demoted for alleged breaches of UEFA’s multi-club ownership rules
Eberechi Eze was the match-winner at Wembley in May as Palace beat Manchester City 1-0
John Textor owned a stake at both Palace and Lyon… both of whom were due to participate in this season’s Europa League
UEFA do not allow the same individual or legal entity to have ‘control or influence’ over more than one club participating in the same UEFA competition, and when such a conflict does arise, the team that finished lower in their domestic league is demoted.
So because Lyon finished seventh in Ligue 1 (and successfully appealed against a relegation for financial breaches), they take the slot above Palace, who qualified for the Europa League by winning the FA Cup but ended the season in 12th in the Premier League.
Palace, however, will argue there is much, much more to it than that. And on Friday in Lausanne, in front of a panel of three at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, they will present a catalogue of evidence they feel emphatically makes that point.
Their bundle will be wide and it will be varied, sources have disclosed. It will take aim not just at Nottingham Forest, who are in line to take Palace’s Europa League place, but also the likes of Barcelona, Manchester City and the two Red Bull clubs – Leipzig and Salzburg.
Another to come under the spotlight will be the European Club Association. The ECA is an independent body which represents more than 700 clubs. But Palace, unlike Forest, are not one of them.
Lawyers for Palace will point out that that those who are in the ECA were told that the March 1 deadline – brought forward for one season only – for those under threat of breaching UEFA’s rules on multi-club ownership was not set in stone, and that the powers-that-be would allow an extended time period up to May 31 to resolve such matters.
Indeed, when it looked like Forest and Olympiacos – both owned by Evangelos Marinakis – could qualify for the Champions League, Marinakis effectively placed the English side into a blind trust on April 30, relinquishing himself from the control of the club. Palace will say such a move was carried out thanks to the advice given by the ECA, which they were not privy to but Olympiacos and Forest are.
They will also claim that the ECA’s Head of Finance Strategy and Operations, Hugo Hamon, advised member clubs on how to set up such a ‘blind trust’ to navigate UEFA rules. Palace never got that memo and will forcefully make the point that this cannot be fair. They will also use a document, drafted for Forest by lawyers, which references a ‘preparatory period’ extending to ’April 30, 2025’.
Palace chairman Steve Parish believes the club’s demotion from the Europa League to the Europa Conference League is a ‘terrible injustice’
Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis relinquished his control over the club to ensure they did not fall foul of the multi-club ownership rules
In a similar vein, Palace will also raise the fact that correspondence making clubs aware of the March 1 deadline was sent to their generic email address – info@cpfc.co.uk, which is used by fans to register complaints or seek information.
While that may not seem the most powerful argument in the world, it adds to a picture of a club which feels it was left in the dark and punished through no fault of its own.
As Mail Sport revealed, Palace believe further correspondence exists between UEFA and Forest on the matter. They have asked for such information to be disclosed to the panel but their pleas are thought to have fallen on deaf ears. A question over why that is the case could well be asked.
On the subject of blind trusts, UEFA advised clubs that they would be acceptable for the purpose of complying with the rules, but Palace failed to get that particular memo.
A huge chunk of the case, inevitably, will centre around Textor, who has since sold his stake to fellow American Woody Johnson, the former US Ambassador to the UK and owner of the NFL’s New York Jets. The point that the situation has now been resolved will be made, but Palace will claim that it was never really a situation in the first place.
Textor’s 43 per cent stake came with just 25 per cent of the voting rights. It is widely understood that he did not make the greatest deal when he decided to become involved, something Textor himself admitted to Mail Sport when we spoke to him at Palace’s hearing with UEFA last month.
Chairman Steve Parish and co-owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer also hold the same rights, and the latter two – viewed as hands off – vote with Parish, rendering Textor effectively powerless.
Palace will also argue they were never part of a multi-club model. That resources, expertise and data were not shared across Eagle Football Holdings and that only one player was ever moved between the clubs involved. Indeed, when Textor arrived in south London, there was no group, with the other clubs – Lyon and Brazilian champions Botafogo – acquired further down the line.
Woody Johnson (left), who has bought Textor’s Palace stake, was Donald Trump’s ambassador to the UK in his first presidential term
Textor with the Copa Libertadores (South America’s Champions League) trophy that his Botafogo club won last November
Lyon’s treatment via UEFA will also get a mention in what is likely to be a fast-paced hearing lasting a few hours.
That they were permitted to compete in last season’s Europa League, despite being provisionally relegated to Ligue 2 and handed a transfer ban, will be mentioned, as will the fact that UEFA waited for the result of the appeal against their latest relegation before ruling in this case. The picture they will paint is that when it comes to deadlines, only one club is being strictly policed.
The net will be spread far and wide. In Barcelona’s case, Palace’s team will draw attention to recent quotes made by club president Joan Laporta to Spanish media, in which he suggested UEFA had assisted the Catalan giants in reducing a fine.
Laporta also said president Aleksander Ceferin has ‘a special sensitivity’ when it comes to the club because ‘he knows football, he knows Barca’.
Palace will also point out another statute which states that ‘the participation in UEFA competitions is based on sporting merit’. The rules are that whoever wins the FA Cup gets the right to enter the Europa League, not the team that finished seventh in the Premier League, so the lower league placing should not, in their view, count.
UEFA may well counter that with the argument that Palace broke the wider rules and so such an argument is irrelevant. They declined to comment on this ongoing matter when contacted.
The rules themselves will also be attacked. How can they be effective when, in 2018, RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg were not only allowed into the same competition, but were drawn in the same Europa League group?
(For the record, Salzburg’s position is that they are merely only sponsored by Red Bull rather than owned by them due to a restructuring, and are known only as Salzburg in UEFA competition. Leipzig are officially known as RasenBallsport – lawn ball sports – Leipzig.)
Palace will cite quotes from Barcelona president Joan Laporta (left) in reference to a decision made by UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin (back centre)
Red Bull clubs Leipzig and Salzburg faced off against each other in the 2018 Europa League group stage
Manchester City and Girona took the necessary steps to ensure they could compete in last year’s Champions League, while Manchester United and Nice did likewise in the Europa League, as well as Aston Villa and Vitoria de Guimaraes, and Brighton and Union Saint-Gilloise.
Palace will claim there is a loophole that not only exists, but that its use is actively encouraged by UEFA – only they never got the message.
CAS say a verdict will drop no later than August 11. On May 17, Palace’s players delivered a landmark day in the 120-year history of the club by winning the FA Cup.
After the euphoric open-top parade through the capital, Palace fans will be hoping for a case of London buses, and that their lawyers can ensure another memorable celebration arrives in quick succession.
