Crystal Palace's Europa League Exclusion: A Controversial Decision in Football History
Crystal Palace's removal from the Europa League due to multi-club ownership rules has sparked outrage, with chairman Steve Parish calling it the biggest injustice in football history.


Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish has described the decision to exclude the club from the Europa League next season as "the biggest injustice in the history of football." This ruling came after UEFA determined that Palace violated multi-club ownership regulations. American businessman John Textor, who holds a significant stake in Palace, also owns French club Lyon, which has also qualified for the Europa League.
Parish expressed his devastation, stating, "It's a bad day for football. It's a terrible injustice. I do believe nobody wants to see this. We've been locked out of a European competition on the most ridiculous technicality." The club has announced plans to appeal the decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
UEFA's rules stipulate that clubs owned by the same entity cannot compete in the same European competition. Palace missed the March 1, 2025, deadline to restructure their ownership, leading to their demotion. Despite arguing that Textor has no decisive influence over the club, their defense was rejected.
Nottingham Forest, who finished seventh in the Premier League, may replace Palace in the Europa League. Lyon, having finished sixth in Ligue 1, takes precedence over Palace due to their higher league finish.
The controversy stems from UEFA's regulations aimed at preventing collusion. Palace's FA Cup victory over Manchester City initially secured their European spot, but the multi-club ownership issue cast doubt on their participation. Textor attempted to mitigate the situation by agreeing to sell his stake in Palace, but the deal remains incomplete.
Parish remains defiant, vowing to fight the decision: "This is a ludicrous decision. We will ask the appeal court to listen to our argument." The football community watches closely as this unprecedented case unfolds, potentially setting a significant precedent for future multi-club ownership disputes.