Beneficial ownership in elite sports: Transparency, financial crime risks, and regulatory oversight

Elite club sports are attracting significant levels of investment from domestic and international sources, creating opportunities for growth and global reach while also introducing potential risks associated with complex ownership and financial structures. Regulatory frameworks such as the European Union’s 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD) and revised national governance measures aim to address these risks, but effective oversight depends on access to standardized beneficial ownership data. This article examines the scale of investment, potential risks posed by opaque ownership, current regulatory responses, and how structured beneficial ownership data—available through Moody’s—can assist governments in assessing potential risk indicators and supporting transparency and oversight in elite sports.
 

The growth of investment and ownership complexity in elite sports

Elite sport is estimated to be a $3 trillion industry, attracting cross-border capital at unprecedented scale.¹  The powerful combination of lucrative media rights, the limited number of clubs available for purchase, and prestige associated with ownership has seen club valuations across many sports rise sharply.

Football (soccer) exemplifies this trend. The sport involves networks of players, club officials, owners, shareholders, sponsors, agents, lawyers, and staff who are linked by diverse financial flows. In cases where these flows are not transparent or well-regulated, teams may be exposed to potential misuse.²
 

Money laundering risks in sports clubs and elite competition

One of the most concerning risks is sportswashing, or the use of sports to legitimize questionable or illicit financial activities. The absence of standardized beneficial ownership data across jurisdictions can create a transparency gap, making it harder to identify who ultimately controls clubs and where investment funds originate or land.

Regulators have taken note of this gap with the adoption of the 2024 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD), which aims to address financial crime risks in elite sports by designating professional football clubs, agents, and European Football Associations as “obliged entities.” This generally requires them to verify identities of entities and individuals with whom they conduct business, monitor transactions on an ongoing basis, and report any suspicious transaction to financial intelligence units (FIUs).³

Ownership structures are a particular area of risk for corrupt financial flows. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has previously flagged football as a high-risk sector, citing “complex and often impenetrable” ownership structures and offshore holding companies.⁴ Today, the use of consortiums, layered investment vehicles, and other complex structures to buy clubs can further dilute visibility into the source of funds, increasing the need for regulatory oversight.
 

How beneficial ownership in elite sports enables illicit financial flows

Cross-border ownership and offshore risk exposure

Foreign and institutional investment in sports clubs is increasingly prevalent. Private equity has entered NBA franchise ownership;⁵ state-backed investment funds have expanded into golf, boxing, Formula 1, tennis, and cricket;⁶ and even sanctioned foreign entities have gained footholds through broadcasting sponsorships.⁷ While some ownership is publicly declared, others may be hidden or obscured behind intermediaries.

FATF findings on money laundering in football

The FATF identifies real life, anonymized cases of complex ownership and investment by foreign entities:

• A football club looking for several million euros to avoid bankruptcy was approached for investment by a South American financial group. This group was later found to be linked to an individual who invested in many foreign clubs and whose funds were thought to be of illegal origin. 
• An investor in a third-division sports team began paying unusually high salaries and infrastructure costs compared to teams in the same category. Subsequent investigation later identified the investor as the leader of a drug trafficking network. 
• A football club in Latin America with high debts received a bail out from an unknown investment collective registered in a tax haven. The club then acquired a player from an Argentinian club for 20 million USD, transferring the funds to an account the selling club has in a third country.⁸

These cases of complex ownership and high-risk financial behaviors linked to illicit activity illustrate the importance of assessing club ownership for financial crime risks.

Red flags for financial crime in sports club ownership

As demonstrated in the above scenarios, potential red flags for illicit activity include:

• Multi-jurisdictional ownership structures, 
• Offshore holding companies, 
• Nominee shareholders masking the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO), and
• Unusually high-value, cross-border player transfers.⁹
   

Regulatory responses to ownership transparency risks in professional sports

The EU’s 6AMLD is being transposed into national laws, with member states given 24 months from its publication on May 31, 2024, to complete implementation. Beyond EU measures against sports-based corruption, national frameworks are also evolving. The English Premier League Owners’ and Directors’ Test, introduced in 2004 and revised with a broader scope in 2023, assesses the “fitness,” or integrity, honesty, and financial soundness, of prospective owners. The UK’s Football Governance Act 2025 is expected to establish an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) with the power to vet prospective owners’ source of wealth, among other measures.¹⁰ Germany’s longstanding 50+1 rule, which keeps majority voting rights with fans,¹¹ may help to limit money laundering by curbing control by private investors.
 

Using beneficial ownership data to strengthen oversight of sports clubs

Sports clubs and franchises now attract cross-border capital flows comparable to mid-sized financial institutions. While the EU 6AMLD and national laws across Europe help curtail sports club-based fraud and money laundering, bad actors may adapt quickly, often increasing the complexity of schemes. An important source of structured data for investigators assessing sports-related financial risks is beneficial ownership data, which can help clarify who ultimately owns or controls assets through holding companies, nominee arrangements, and multi-jurisdiction corporate chains.

Organizations responsible for the oversight of professional sports clubs—including bank compliance teams, league regulators, FIUs, financial crime enforcement units, and tax authorities—can combine ownership data with financial transaction records to support the review and assessment of potential risk indicators associated with sports investment schemes.

How Moody’s supports sports investment oversight

Moody’s risk intelligence platform offers global coverage of over 600 million private and public companies, including entities registered in offshore jurisdictions where sports ownership vehicles are frequently domiciled. Moody’s database of over 21 million risk profiles, with sanctions, politically exposed persons (PEPs), and adverse media screening checks, can be cross referenced against 2 billion ownership linkages within an integrated workflow.

Users can continuously monitor changes in financial status and ownership changes and see automated alerts highlighting potential risk-relevant changes. By integrating Moody’s ownership intelligence with financial data, sports club regulators and compliance professionals can enhance transparency, support governance frameworks, and inform risk-based oversight efforts. 

Get in touch with Moody’s public sector experts

To learn more about how Moody’s data and risk insights can help your organization monitor and investigate complex ownership structures in professional sports and beyond, please reach out.