Crystal Palace have launched a formal appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after UEFA’s decision to demote them from the Europa League to the Europa Conference League. The South London club is seeking a reversal of the ruling that has put their European campaign in jeopardy for the upcoming season.

The dispute centres on UEFA’s multi-club ownership rules. John Textor, an American businessman and key stakeholder in Crystal Palace, also holds a controlling interest in French club Lyon, who similarly qualified for the Europa League. UEFA ruled that this dual involvement breached its integrity regulations, designed to avoid conflicts of interest within European competitions.

As a result, Palace were dropped into the lower-tier Europa Conference League, while Nottingham Forest, who finished seventh in the Premier League last season, are now in line to take Palace’s Europa League spot should the punishment be upheld.

In their official appeal, Palace have challenged both the sanction and the interpretation of Textor’s role at the club. They have requested the annulment of UEFA’s ruling and reinstatement into the Europa League — replacing either Forest or Lyon, depending on the final outcome.

UEFA's statutes prohibit two clubs owned or significantly influenced by the same individual or entity from participating in the same European competition. Clubs must demonstrate by 1 March of the competition year that any such conflict has been resolved — a deadline Crystal Palace failed to meet.

Palace’s defence hinges on the claim that Textor, who owns 43% of the club through Eagle Football, does not wield decisive control over their sporting or operational matters. However, UEFA's Club Financial Control Body was unconvinced by this argument.

Speaking on The Rest is Football podcast last week, Palace chairman Steve Parish expressed his frustration with the decision and voiced confidence in the club's appeal.

“We don't think this is the right decision by any means. We know, unequivocally, that John [Textor] didn't have decisive influence over the club,” he said. “We know we proved that beyond all reasonable doubt because it's a fact.”

The Court of Arbitration for Sport is expected to deliver a verdict by 11 August, just one week after the draw for the Conference League play-off round. The play-offs themselves are scheduled for 21 and 28 August, while the Europa League group stage begins on 24 September.

Palace’s immediate European future hinges on this decision. If the appeal is rejected, they will be forced to compete in the Conference League — a significant step down from the prestige and revenue of the Europa League.

Nottingham Forest’s involvement adds another layer to the controversy. With Palace’s Europa League spot vacated, Forest stand to benefit — but they themselves have past experience navigating UEFA’s ownership rules.

Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis, who also owns Greek giants Olympiakos, avoided breaching the same regulations by diluting his influence at the Premier League side. It’s a legal workaround that UEFA has accepted, allowing Forest to remain eligible for European competition.

In a bid to follow suit, John Textor took similar steps. In June, he agreed to sell his 43% stake in Crystal Palace to Woody Johnson, the American billionaire and owner of the New York Jets. However, the sale has not yet been finalised, and as such, UEFA did not take it into account in their ruling.

Textor also stepped down from his leadership role at Lyon in a further attempt to eliminate any perceived conflict of interest — but that too came after the March deadline.

This case marks another high-profile example of the growing friction between UEFA’s traditional structures and modern football’s trend toward multi-club ownership models.

UEFA’s rules state that clubs cannot be “simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.”

With more global investors seeking stakes in multiple clubs across different leagues, the governing body is now facing the complex challenge of ensuring fairness while navigating increasingly intricate ownership webs.

Despite the setbacks, Crystal Palace remain confident that their case is strong. Their appeal argues that the club operates as an independent entity, and that Textor’s involvement, while significant in financial terms, does not equate to control.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for Palace. The difference between competing in the Europa League and the Conference League has major implications — from potential revenue and television exposure to player recruitment and fan engagement.

If the appeal succeeds, Palace will regain their rightful place in the Europa League and potentially displace either Forest or Lyon. If it fails, it could serve as a cautionary tale for clubs with shared ownership structures eyeing European competition.

For now, all eyes turn to CAS and the decision that will shape Crystal Palace’s European journey — and possibly set a precedent for how UEFA handles multi-club ownership disputes in the future.