France: The 2026 Reform of Sports Club Investment and Multi-Club Ownership
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Attorney at Law, Paris, France
Introduction
France has substantially reshaped the legal framework governing investments in professional sports clubs. Law No. 2026-725 of 3 August 2026, which entered into force on 5 August 2026 and amended Articles L. 133-1 and L. 122-7 of the French Sports Code (Code du sport), strengthens regulatory oversight of club acquisitions and ownership structures, with particular emphasis on financial sustainability, sporting integrity and transparency.
The reform reflects a broader approach to the regulation of professional sport, recognising that the financial viability of a club cannot be assessed independently of the financial standing and existing sporting interests of its prospective investors. Accordingly, the new provisions extend the powers of financial supervisory bodies; establish a more comprehensive framework for reviewing changes in club ownership; and reinforce the rules governing multi-club ownership, including cross-border investment structures.
The underlying objective is to reconcile the economic sustainability of professional clubs with the preservation of sporting integrity, competitive fairness and the principle of sporting uncertainty (aléa sportif).
I. Enhanced Regulatory Control of Investments in Sports Companies
A broader assessment of prospective investors
Under Article L. 133-1, the independent supervisory bodies established by the relevant sports federations, including the National Directorate of Management Control (Direction nationale du contrôle de gestion — DNCG) in professional football, are responsible for examining proposed acquisitions, disposals and changes in the shareholding of sports companies.
The assessment is no longer confined to the financial position of the club concerned.
Pursuant to Article L. 133-1(II)(C), the supervisory body must consider, in particular, the prospective investor's financial results over the preceding five years; its shareholdings in other sports companies operating in the same discipline; and, where applicable, the five-year financial results of other sports companies operating in the same discipline over which it exercises or has exercised exclusive control, joint control or significant influence.
The reform, therefore, places the investor's financial standing and existing ownership arrangements at the centre of the regulatory assessment, extending scrutiny beyond the immediate economic consequences of the proposed transaction.
Procedural safeguards and supervisory powers
Article L. 133-1(III) establishes a statutory framework for reviewing proposed acquisitions, disposals and changes in club ownership. The supervisory body must assess whether the proposed transaction risks infringing Article L. 122-7; adversely affecting the club's financial results, either immediately or in the longer term; undermining sporting uncertainty (aléa sportif); or failing to provide sufficient guarantees for any necessary financial recovery.
The supervisory body must issue its decision within three months of notification of the proposed transaction. It may approve the transaction, subject, where appropriate, to conditions or reservations; suspend its examination for a period not exceeding three months where further verification is required; or reject it.
Importantly, the power of the supervisory body to reject a proposed transaction is expressly circumscribed by statute. Rejection is permissible only where at least one of the specified risks is identified and no conditions or reservations would be sufficient to prevent its occurrence.
Where a transaction is completed in breach of a suspension or rejection decision, the supervisory body imposes sporting sanctions on the sports company concerned, which may take the form of a prohibition on promotion, relegation or exclusion from sporting competitions. The duration and conditions of these sanctions are determined by the supervisory body according to the seriousness of the consequences of the infringement.
The legislation also reinforces procedural transparency. The relevant sports federation must publish the commencement of the review on its website, identifying the sports company concerned and the prospective investor (Article L. 133-1(II)(C)). The supervisory body must subsequently publish the official record (procès-verbal) of its decision and the conclusions of its assessment, including a detailed opinion on each indicator and category of risk examined, no later than the day following the signing of that record, subject to legally protected confidentiality (Article L. 133-1(V)).
The record must also be transmitted to the relevant local authorities. Approved supporters' associations, qualifying national supporters' associations and local authorities, within whose jurisdiction the club has its principal establishment, are entitled to be heard upon request, under conditions determined by implementing decree (Article L. 133-1(IV)).
II. Multi-Club Ownership: Domestic Restrictions and International Investments
Article L. 122-7 prohibits the same private person from exercising exclusive or joint control, or significant influence, over several French sports companies operating in the same discipline. It also prohibits holding management positions in more than one such company, as well as combining a management position in one company with control or significant influence over another. Under Article L. 233-17-2 of the French Commercial Code, significant influence (influence notable) over a company’s management and financial policy is presumed where a company holds, directly or indirectly, at least 20% of its voting rights.
Non-compliance entails cumulative sanctions consisting of a financial penalty amounting to 2% of the legal entity’s worldwide turnover and exclusion from competitions organised by the relevant sports federation for the duration of the infringement.
International multi-club ownership is subject to a distinct approach. The legislation does not establish a general prohibition on an investor holding interests in both French and foreign sports companies. Instead, supervisory bodies must take into account situations involving exclusive or joint control, or significant influence, over both a French sports company and one or more foreign sports companies operating in the same discipline when assessing the risk to sporting uncertainty (aléa sportif).
The revised Article L. 122-7 also provides an exception for separate companies operating respectively in women’s and men’s sport within the same discipline. Furthermore, the amended provisions do not apply to situations already established when they entered into force.
III. The French Reform within the European Legal and Regulatory Landscape
From a European perspective, the French reform of August 2026 must be considered within a broader framework of sports regulations and EU law. Depending upon the circumstances of a particular investment, different European rules may come into play, each pursuing distinct objectives and operating under its own conditions. This interaction is particularly relevant for prospective investors, legal practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the acquisition, ownership and governance of professional sports clubs.
Article 5 of the UEFA club competition regulations for the 2026/27 season sets out specific requirements concerning multi-club ownership and the integrity of European club competitions. The UEFA multi-club ownership rules have also been scrutinised under EU competition law, notably in the European Commission 2002 ENIC/UEFA decision concerning Articles 81 and 82 EC (now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). More recently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has considered the UEFA multi-club ownership requirements in the Drogheda United, FK DAC 1904 and Crystal Palace cases, highlighting their practical implications for clubs seeking to participate in European competitions.
Beyond these sports regulations, the French legal framework should also be considered in light of EU internal market law, particularly the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital guaranteed by Articles 49 and 63 TFEU. Whilst safeguarding sporting integrity and preventing conflicts of interest may constitute legitimate objectives, national measures affecting investment are not exempt from scrutiny under EU law and remain subject to the applicable requirements of justification and proportionality.
A further dimension arises from Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, which may apply where financial support from non-EU countries constitutes a foreign subsidy capable of distorting competition. Unlike the French Sports Code, which focuses on clubs' financial sustainability and sporting integrity, the Foreign Subsidies Regulation addresses the competitive effects of foreign subsidies. Article 44(1) expressly provides that the Regulation applies without prejudice to Articles 101, 102, 106, 107 and 108 TFEU, Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the EU Merger Regulation.
Conclusions
The entry into force of the 2026 reform marks a significant development in the regulation of investments in French professional sport.
By extending financial scrutiny to prospective investors and their wider sports interests, the new rules strengthen preventive oversight whilst seeking to preserve the financial sustainability of sports clubs and the integrity of sports competitions.
Their significance, in practice, will depend upon the implementation of the new procedures and the manner in which supervisory bodies exercise their powers, particularly in relation to cross-border ownership structures and the applicable European legal framework.
For investors, legal advisers and other stakeholders, the practical challenge will be in identifying the legal and regulatory frameworks applicable to each transaction, including the relevant EU law, where applicable, and assessing how their respective requirements interact with the new French rules.
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
