The Single-Account Financial Model of Eagle Football: The Case of Botafogo, Zenit, and Lyon Transactions

Abstract

This short article examines the financial strategy known as the “single-account model” adopted by Eagle Football, the multi-club ownership group led by John Textor. As demonstrated through recent transactions involving Botafogo, Zenit Saint Petersburg, and Olympique Lyonnais, the model centralizes financial resources across the organization’s clubs to address challenges such as liquidity shortages and economic sustainability. The analysis situates Eagle Football’s model within the broader landscape of multi-club ownership (MCO), comparing it with similar strategies employed by City Football Group and Red Bull GmbH. The discussion concludes with evaluating the model’s strengths and weaknesses, especially in regulatory and financial sustainability contexts.

Introduction

Multi-club ownership (MCO) has become a global trend in professional soccer, particularly among American investors. This model involves a single entity or group owning multiple clubs across different countries, leveraging synergies to optimize player development, commercial opportunities, and resource allocation. Eagle Football, led by John Textor, exemplifies an innovative approach with its “single-account” model, which pools the revenues and expenses of its clubs into a unified financial system.

This analysis investigates the single-account system’s operational mechanics through the lens of recent transactions between Botafogo, Zenit, and Lyon, illustrating its strategic applications and limitations. Additionally, it contrasts Eagle Football’s framework with City Football Group (CFG) and Red Bull GmbH, two other leading MCO entities.

Eagle Football and the Single-Account Model

Overview of the Model

Eagle Football’s portfolio includes Botafogo (Brazil), Olympique Lyonnais (France), Crystal Palace (England, minority stake), Molenbeek (Belgium), and FC Florida (United States). Under the single-account model, revenues from player transfers, sponsorships, and other sources are centralized. These resources are redistributed across the group based on immediate needs and strategic priorities.

This approach became particularly evident during interrelated transactions in January 2025 involving Botafogo and Zenit Saint Petersburg. The transactions included:

1. The sale of Luiz Henrique from Botafogo to Zenit for €35 million.

2. The acquisition of Artur (€10 million) and Wendel (€20 million) by Botafogo from Zenit.

The net financial movement ostensibly resulted in a €5 million surplus for Botafogo. However, the single-account model meant that the proceeds from Luiz Henrique’s sale were redirected to Olympique Lyonnais, which urgently requires €100 million to avoid regulatory sanctions and maintain its Ligue 1 status.

Regulatory Challenges

The French National Directorate of Control and Management (DNCG) has imposed a transfer ban and threatened Lyon with relegation due to financial irregularities. The single-account model has faced scrutiny from the DNCG, as the organization requires club-specific financial transparency. Textor’s argument that pooled resources serve the collective interest of the Eagle Football group was not accepted in November 2024, demonstrating the regulatory complexities of such a strategy.

Comparison with Other Multi-Club Ownership Models

City Football Group (CFG)

CFG owns an extensive network of clubs, including Manchester City (England), New York City FC (United States), and Girona FC (Spain). Unlike Eagle Football, CFG employs a decentralized approach to club finances while maintaining centralized oversight for strategic planning and branding. Each club is expected to operate with financial independence, supported by cross-club collaboration in scouting, coaching, and player development.

A critical difference lies in CFG’s resource allocation model. For instance, CFG does not pool transfer revenues but facilitates inter-club player loans and transfers to strengthen its smaller clubs competitively while maximizing returns for its flagship club, Manchester City.

Red Bull GmbH

Red Bull’s MCO model includes RB Leipzig (Germany), Red Bull Salzburg (Austria), and New York Red Bulls (United States). Its strategy focuses heavily on vertical integration in player development. Unlike Eagle Football, Red Bull maintains separate financial accounts for each club, but the transfer of players between its clubs is often undervalued to promote their progression.

Red Bull’s model contrasts sharply with Eagle Football’s, as it does not redirect resources based on short-term liquidity needs but prioritizes long-term competitive gains for the entire group.

Strengths of the Single-Account Model

The single-account model offers Eagle Football significant flexibility in addressing financial challenges, particularly for clubs like Lyon that face urgent cash flow deficits. The pooling of resources enables rapid responses to crises and allows the group to maintain competitiveness across its portfolio. This system also aligns with Textor’s long-term vision of leveraging player development within the network, as players signed at one club may later benefit another financially or competitively.

Weaknesses and Risks

However, this model faces several challenges. Regulatory bodies like the DNCG require club-specific financial accountability, complicating efforts to legitimize pooled finances. Moreover, the model risks undermining individual clubs' financial autonomy and strategic priorities, potentially alienating fans and stakeholders.

As seen with the Luiz Henrique deal, reliance on transfers to address immediate cash flow concerns also raises sustainability questions. Such practices may hinder long-term growth by prioritizing short-term liquidity over consistent investment in infrastructure and talent development.

Conclusion

Eagle Football's single-account model represents an innovative yet contentious approach to multi-club ownership. While it provides financial flexibility, it also exposes the organization to regulatory challenges and questions about sustainability. Comparatively, the CFG and Red Bull models illustrate alternative strategies that emphasize either decentralized financial autonomy or vertical integration in player development.

As MCO continues to reshape the global football landscape, Eagle Football’s single-account model's success will depend on its ability to balance regulatory compliance with its ambitions for competitive success. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term implications of this approach and its potential adoption by other MCO groups.

References

1. DNCG regulations and rulings (2024).

2. Eagle Football Press Releases (2024-2025).

3. City Football Group Annual Reports (2024).

4. Red Bull GmbH Football Operations Reports (2023).

5. Interviews with John Textor (November 2024).

6. Academic literature on multi-club ownership in football (2023-2024).

7. Botafogo, Olympique Lyonnais, and Zenit Saint Petersburg transaction announcements (2025).