Co-ownership in Football: A Recipe for Disaster? Chelsea’s Struggles Mirror Past Failures

The concept of co-ownership in football clubs has a troubled history, and recent events at Chelsea illustrate why it so often ends in failure. As The Athletic reported, tensions between Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali, co-owners of Chelsea, are beginning to surface. This dynamic isn’t unique to Stamford Bridge. Football fans need only look north to Liverpool’s failed experiment with co-owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks for a cautionary tale.

Liverpool’s co-ownership model disintegrated amid personality clashes, differing ambitions, and strategic conflicts. Chelsea, unfortunately, seems to be walking down a similar path. As the friction between Boehly and Clearlake Capital’s Eghbali grows, the structural issues that plagued other clubs threaten to destabilise Chelsea’s future.

Chelsea’s Ownership Model: A Familiar Story

For Chelsea fans, the parallels between their club and the troubled Liverpool ownership era under Gillett and Hicks are concerning. Both Boehly and Gillett come from American sporting backgrounds—Gillett with ice hockey’s Montreal Canadiens and Boehly with Major League Baseball’s LA Dodgers. However, in both cases, these wealthy owners found themselves needing additional investment to achieve their ambitious goals.

For Gillett, it was Hicks who entered the fray, securing the funds necessary to take control of Liverpool. At Chelsea, Boehly brought in Clearlake Capital to finalise the purchase of the club. As in the Liverpool case, time was of the essence. The UK government had imposed a deadline of May 31, 2022, for Chelsea to be sold due to sanctions on Roman Abramovich, Chelsea’s former owner. With Clearlake’s support, Boehly was able to complete the acquisition, but now, much like Gillett and Hicks, the partnership appears strained.

Why Co-ownership Models Fail

Football ownership, unlike many other businesses, demands more than just financial acumen. Clubs like Liverpool and Chelsea are not mere enterprises; they represent communities and carry significant emotional weight for millions of fans worldwide. This is where co-ownership often falters.

As we’ve seen, Gillett and Hicks clashed early on, with Hicks famously stating, “I’ll go first,” during their inaugural press conference. This ego-driven dynamic is all too familiar at Chelsea, where Boehly and Eghbali are reportedly struggling to align their visions. While Boehly has been the more public face of Chelsea’s ownership, Eghbali, like Hicks at Liverpool, has quietly wielded significant power behind the scenes.

The Athletic reports that at Liverpool, the partners fell out within months. George Gillett, after only two months, started referring to his views as separate from his partner’s. Similarly, at Chelsea, Boehly’s vision and Eghbali’s ambitions seem to be diverging. Although the percentage stakes differ—Clearlake owns 61.5% of Chelsea, while Boehly holds less than 13%—the strategic divide is unmistakable.

Power Struggles Behind the Scenes

One of the key issues at both Liverpool and Chelsea has been the handling of large-scale projects, particularly stadium developments. For Gillett and Hicks, the disagreements arose over whether to revamp Anfield or relocate. Chelsea finds itself in a similar predicament with plans to modernise Stamford Bridge. While both parties agree on the need for development, there are disagreements about how to approach the project, mirroring the Liverpool debacle.

Additionally, football ownership brings with it an unparalleled level of scrutiny. George Gillett, who had experience running a meat-packing business, was unprepared for the intense attention and emotional investment that comes with managing a Premier League giant. The same is true for Boehly and Clearlake Capital, both of whom are now facing the harsh reality of Premier League ownership. Football is not simply about returns on investment; it’s about navigating fan expectations, media pressure, and long-term sporting success.

Tensions at Chelsea are now rising to the surface, but these cracks are not new. Boehly’s high-profile media appearances and Eghbali’s strategic manoeuvres have not always aligned. This dynamic is reminiscent of the early days of Gillett and Hicks. At Liverpool, there was a constant question of “who’s in charge?” The same questions are beginning to emerge at Chelsea, with fans and insiders wondering how long the current ownership structure can last.

Other Co-ownership Failures: Crystal Palace and Everton

Chelsea’s co-ownership woes are not an isolated case. In recent years, Crystal Palace has faced similar challenges. Palace chairman Steve Parish sought American investment to boost the club, leading to private equity tycoons Josh Harris and David Blitzer buying stakes in 2015. While this partnership initially worked well, the strategic differences between Parish and the American investors eventually created an impasse. Parish wanted to focus on sustainable growth, while the American investors favoured an aggressive transfer market approach.

Everton, too, has dealt with co-ownership struggles. When Farhad Moshiri took over Everton in 2016, he brought in the late Bill Kenwright as chairman. However, Kenwright’s influence lingered, often leading to disagreements with Moshiri over managerial appointments and transfers. The result was a period of chaos for the Merseyside club.

These examples show that co-ownership structures in football are fraught with difficulties. Personality clashes, differing strategies, and unclear leadership hierarchies make it difficult for clubs to operate smoothly under such models.

Wrexham: The Exception to the Rule?

One notable exception to the co-ownership woes is Wrexham, owned by Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney. While their partnership appears to be harmonious, the club’s lower league status and unique circumstances set them apart from Premier League giants like Chelsea. As Wrexham rise through the leagues, it remains to be seen if their ownership model can withstand the pressures of top-flight football, with its vast financial demands and intense scrutiny.

Wrexham’s success under joint ownership may be more of an anomaly than a blueprint for success in the Premier League. As Chelsea’s situation continues to unfold, it’s worth noting that co-ownership rarely works in high-stakes environments. While smaller clubs can thrive under joint leadership, the financial and emotional complexities of Premier League football tend to strain such partnerships.

Our View – EPL Index Analysis

The situation at Stamford Bridge raises serious questions about the club’s long-term future. The parallels with Liverpool’s failed co-ownership model under Gillett and Hicks are difficult to ignore. Boehly and Eghbali’s divergent visions could lead to a destabilising power struggle that ultimately harms the club’s prospects.

For Chelsea supporters, who have grown accustomed to the relative stability of the Roman Abramovich era, this shift is worrying. While the club has continued to invest heavily in players, the behind-the-scenes tensions suggest that a coherent strategy may be lacking. If Boehly and Clearlake Capital cannot resolve their differences, Chelsea could find itself in a prolonged period of uncertainty, much like Liverpool experienced under Gillett and Hicks.

Chelsea fans expect success, and this fractured ownership structure threatens to undermine that. While Boehly has publicly embraced his role, Eghbali’s influence behind the scenes complicates the decision-making process. If these tensions persist, Chelsea may struggle to compete at the highest level, both on and off the pitch. The club’s future depends on its owners finding common ground, but given the history of co-ownership failures in football, the outlook is concerning.