US-owned Irish football club Drogheda barred from Conference League by UEFA ownership rules
Irish Cup winner Drogheda lost its appeal on Monday against being removed from the Conference League next season for breaking UEFA rules for investors owning multiple clubs.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport said its judges gave an urgent decision dismissing Drogheda's appeal that was heard on Monday. On Tuesday, UEFA will start making the draws for qualifying rounds in the third-tier European competition.
Drogheda and Silkeborg of Denmark qualified for the Conference League second preliminary round but are owned by the Trivela Group from the United States.
UEFA rules to protect sporting integrity do not allow teams from a multi-club network to enter the same competition if one owner has 'decisive influence' over management of both.
Drogheda apologised to fans in a statement for the situation leading to a decision that caused 'great heartbreak and disbelief' and will cost the club at least hundreds of thousands of euros (dollars) in UEFA prize money.
The American-back club missed a March 1 deadline set by UEFA to anticipate a pending problem and make changes to the ownership or executive structure.
READ: Real Madrid the Club World Cup favourite: Sergio Ramos
CAS said the three judges agreed UEFA communicated key information which Drogheda 'knew or ought to have known about.' A 2-1 majority of the judges 'rejected (the club's) submissions on alleged unequal treatment by UEFA,' the court said.
Other cases involving Manchester City, Manchester United, AC Milan, Brighton and Aston Villa in the past two years were resolved by one of the ownership stakes being placed into a blind trust for the season. A UEFA expert panel also imposed transfer bans and limited cooperation between clubs in question.
The UEFA panel is also assessing if Crystal Palace and Lyon can both enter the next Europa League. Lyon's American owner John Textor has a 43 per cent stake in Palace though with limited decision-making power.
In the latest case, Silkeborg took priority with UEFA to get the Conference League place because it finished higher in the Danish league this season than Drogheda did in the Irish league last year.
Drogheda loses prize money of 350,000 euros ($406,000) that UEFA pays for playing in the Conference League second qualifying round.
'We believe it is unjust. Rules should protect opportunity, not prevent it,' Drogheda said. 'Nevertheless, we accept responsibility. And we're sorry.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
12 minutes ago
- News18
Irish Club Excluded From Conference League Due To Non-Compliance With UEFA's Multi-Club Rules
The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed Drogheda United's appeal against their exclusion from the Conference League by UEFA, due to non-compliance with regulations on multi-club ownership. The League of Ireland club, which won the FAI Cup last season, is owned by Trivela Group, a multi-club football organization that also holds a majority stake in Danish side Silkeborg. Both clubs qualified for the upcoming Conference League, creating a conflict with UEFA's regulations. According to the rules, the higher-ranked team, Silkeborg, will stay in the competition. Drogheda received notification of their removal last week and subsequently appealed to CAS but will miss out on European football for the first time since 2013. Drogheda mentioned their significant efforts to collaborate with UEFA to make the necessary ownership and governance changes to allow both clubs to compete. They also pointed out that rule changes, in their view, were inconsistently communicated and enforced. CAS determined that the change in assessment date was properly communicated by UEFA and that the club should have been aware of the change. CAS also rejected Drogheda's claims of unequal treatment by UEFA. In a statement, the club expressed strong disagreement with the decision, stating they had hoped for fairness and common sense to prevail. They described the decision as unjust, asserting that rules should protect opportunity rather than prevent it, while also accepting responsibility and apologising. Last season, UEFA permitted Manchester City and Girona to compete in the Champions League and Manchester United and Nice to participate in the Europa League, noting that investors had made necessary changes to avoid conflicts with the regulations. UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is currently investigating FA Cup winners Crystal Palace's participation in the Europa League, due to majority owner John Textor's involvement with Olympique Lyonnais, who also qualified for the competition. Last month, CAS rejected an appeal by Club Leon after the Mexican club was removed from the Club World Cup by FIFA for failing to comply with multi-club ownership regulations.
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Money, money, money': White House talks up ‘no tax on overtime' under Trump's pet bill that came under fire from Musk
The White House has touted the benefits of United States President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which has seen pushback from many quarters and was the starting point for former DOGE chief Elon Musk's public critique of the president. A video posted by the official handle of the White House on multiple social media platforms Monday talked up the proposal to eliminate tax on tips and overtime. Asserting that 'you keep what you earn,' under the proposed bill, it proclaimed: 'More hours = More cash. That's America First.' followed by emojis of an explosion and the American flag. The White House captioned the post: 'Money, money, money, moneyyyy! Every overtime shift? TAX-FREE. Under President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, YOU KEEP WHAT YOU EARN. More hours = More cash. That's America First. US.' A post shared by The White House (@whitehouse) The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' seeks to shake up several aspects of the US economy, according to the Trump administration, including via Tax cuts: The bill promises permanent tax cuts, with a double-digit per cent decrease in tax bills No tax on tips and overtime: Eliminates federal taxes on tips and overtime pay for workers Tax relief for seniors: Slashes taxes on seniors' Social Security benefits Medicaid changes: Removes illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits; Prohibits Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors. Raises debt ceiling: It raises the upper limit on what the US government is allowed to borrow to keep itself running. The US government already runs a deficity. Why the bill has sparked debate The One Big Beautiful Bill has sparked intense debate and also ignited the infamous Trump-Musk feud. Days before exiting his role as a special government employee, Musk said he was 'disappointed' to see the bill. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,' Musk said, while speaking to CBS News. 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both,' he said. Once outside the government setup, his criticism was more scathing, calling it a 'disgusting abomination'. He also called on the Americans to tell their representatives in Washington to 'kill the bill'. Trump soon turned his ire towards his once staunch ally, warning him of 'serious consequences' if the Tesla boss proceeded with plans to fund Democratic candidates.
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Local firms' global aspirations: Can India birth the next big four?
Recent reports suggest that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is actively exploring how India can nurture the next generation of global accounting and consulting giants. This is a bold and welcome step one that aligns perfectly with the ambition of Atmanirbhar Bharat and recognises the strategic potential of homegrown professional services firms to compete globally. To appreciate the significance of this moment, we must first understand how the existing Big Four firms Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG rose to global prominence. Their ascent wasn't accidental it coincided with the post-war expansion of American and European multinationals. As clients went overseas, audit firms followed, building an international presence out of necessity. Over time, they evolved from audit specialists to multi-disciplinary giants, leveraging trust in their audit work to offer services in tax, technology, human capital, and beyond. In India today, less than 25% of the Big Four's revenues come from audit work, the rest flows from taxation services, advisory, digital transformation, government projects, and technology consulting. What began as compliance partners became transformation enablers. There was a critical moment in the last two decades when Indian firms could have seized this space. As Indian IT and pharmaceutical companies went global, they required international credibility to access capital markets. Naturally, they turned to the global Big Four for audits and certifications, often overlooking Indian firms even for domestic work. This created a paradox: Indian companies powered global markets, but Indian professional services firms were left behind. The question is no longer whether Indian firms should go global. It is how quickly they can. India's IT sector offers a clear blueprint. Firms like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro started as cost-efficient service providers and evolved into global consulting leaders. Today, consulting and systems integration drive over 40% of TCS's revenue, thanks to consistent investments in capabilities, leadership, and scale. This transformation was driven by a sharp focus on quality, bold scaling strategies, and strategic brand-building. Indian IT firms exceeded global standards, expanded through global delivery centres and acquisitions, and built strong reputations by engaging in thought leadership and global partnerships. To replicate this success in the accounting and advisory space, Indian firms must embrace three imperatives. Firstly, global trust comes from global standards. Indian firms must invest in training, governance, and cutting-edge technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) for audits, predictive analytics in tax advisory, or ESG benchmarking. Only then can they inspire the same confidence as their global peers. Secondly, the Indian professional services ecosystem remains fragmented. Many firms stay small by choice due to governance challenges, reluctance to share leadership, or legacy thinking. But scale is not optional. It brings depth, diversity, and staying power. Consolidation, collaboration, and strategic investment are the need of the hour. Thirdly, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), while rightly focused on ethics, must re-evaluate some of the restrictions. Indian firms are still barred from advertising, even from having prominent name boards. In a global digital economy, such rules are not merely antiquated; they would be counterproductive. Visibility is not vanity; it is a prerequisite for credibility. The PMO's support for Indian firms is laudable, but to create lasting impact, this support must be institutionalised. Just as the IT sector thrived in the 1990s with SEZs, tax breaks, and export incentives, Indian consulting firms now need structured support to scale globally. This could take the form of a Global Indian Firm programme offering financial and logistical aid for international expansion, along with simplified pathways for cross-border operations—including regulatory clarity on foreign affiliations and the mobility of Indian professionals. India already has the market size, talent, and credibility to build global consulting powerhouses. What's needed now is an enabling environment and the will to make it happen. We now stand at a crossroads. The convergence of government intent, regulatory reform, and firm-level ambition can change the game. If we seize this moment, India will not just be a marketplace for global consulting firms. It will be their birthplace. The next Big Four can and should have Indian names. Let's not miss this moment. This article is authored by Dinesh Kanabar, CEO, Dhruva Advisors LLP.
