Bayern Munich and EQT’s Failed Investment: How Germany’s 50+1 Rule and a CFO’s Departure Derailed a €4.28 Billion Sports M&A Opportunity

The strategic rationale for the transaction extended beyond simple portfolio diversification. EQT, which manages €266 billion in total assets under management as of June 2025, with €141 billion in fee-generating assets, has been systematically expanding into alternative investment categories beyond its traditional core competencies in private equity, infrastructure, and real estate.[37][34][52] The firm’s €1.1 billion EQT Ventures III fund and its recent €23 million investment in Baller League, an emerging six-a-side football format backed by German international players Mats Hummels and Lukas Podolski, demonstrate a clear institutional thesis: sports represent an increasingly attractive asset class characterized by stable, recurring revenue streams, high barriers to entry, and powerful brand equity that transcends traditional financial markets.[14][17][41] For EQT, a minority stake in Bayern Munich would have provided not only financial returns through commercial optimization but also a strategic foothold in European sports ownership at the highest competitive level, potentially opening doors to subsequent acquisitions in leagues where governance frameworks are more permissive toward external capital.

The timing of these discussions was significant. The conversations occurred in early 2025, during a period when European football’s investment landscape was experiencing notable acceleration.[29] Football Benchmark reported that between January and October 2025, 76 acquisitions involving European football clubs across all competitive levels were recorded, with 72 percent representing majority acquisitions and 28 percent involving minority investments.[29] Foreign investors drove this activity, participating in 55 of the 76 tracked transactions—approximately 72 percent of all deals.[29] The data pattern suggested that institutional investors had moved beyond skepticism regarding football as an alternative asset class and had begun deploying capital with increasing confidence and sophistication. Bayern Munich’s scale, profitability, and global brand recognition made it precisely the type of flagship asset that sophisticated PE sponsors target when entering a new sector.

The 50+1 Rule: Germany’s Structural Barrier to External Control and the Unique Global Governance Framework

Understanding why the Bayern Munich-EQT negotiations ultimately collapsed requires deep comprehension of Germany’s singular 50+1 rule—a governance framework unique among Europe’s major football markets and rooted in the country’s particular historical, cultural, and philosophical approach to sports organization.[4][7][40][51][54] The 50+1 rule mandates that clubs competing in the Bundesliga or second-tier 2. Bundesliga must ensure that members’ associations retain voting rights equivalent to at least 50 percent of total votes plus one additional vote in the operating company that manages the professional football team.[4][7][54] This seemingly technical regulation carries profound implications: it ensures that supporters organized through membership associations, rather than external investors or oligarchs, retain ultimate decision-making authority over how their clubs operate, what strategies they pursue, and what values they prioritize.[4][7] The rule represents a deliberate policy choice to subordinate profit maximization to democratic accountability and supporter preference.

The historical origins of the 50+1 rule illuminate its philosophical underpinnings. Prior to 1998, German football clubs operated exclusively as not-for-profit organizations controlled entirely by members’ associations, with private ownership strictly prohibited under any circumstances.[4][7][54] This structure reflected both practical realities and ideological commitments rooted in German social democracy and cooperative traditions. However, the professionalization and commercialization of football during the 1990s created pressures for capital formation that purely membership-based models could not adequately address. In October 1998, the German Football Association (DFB) authorized clubs to convert their football operations into public or private limited companies—a structural flexibility that would enable capital injection while preserving member sovereignty through the 50+1 mechanism.[4][7][54] This compromise has proven remarkably durable and influential, shaping German football’s development for more than a quarter-century and creating a distinctive governance ecology that contrasts sharply with other European football markets.

In the specific case of Bayern Munich, the 50+1 framework manifests through a particular organizational structure that both enables and constrains potential external investment. The Bayern Munich members’ association—FC Bayern München e.V.—retains 75 percent voting control of FC Bayern München AG, the joint-stock company that operates the professional football team.[1][9][12][21][27][54] The remaining 25 percent equity is divided equally among three corporate partners: Adidas holds 8.33 percent (acquired in 2002 for €77 million to help finance the Allianz Arena stadium), Audi holds 8.33 percent (acquired in 2009 for €90 million to repay stadium debt), and Allianz holds 8.33 percent (acquired in 2014 for €110 million, which enabled Bayern to pay off its remaining stadium debt 16 years ahead of schedule).[1][9][12][21][36] These commercial shareholdings, though substantial in economic terms, are entirely subordinate to the members’ association’s voting control, meaning that Bayern’s three major corporate sponsors function as capital providers rather than strategic controllers.[9][12][36]

Critically, Bayern’s constitutional structure specifies that the members’ association must retain a 70 percent stake in the subsidiary that directly operates the football team’s competitive activities, leaving theoretical capacity for sale of only 5 percent to external partners.[21][27] This narrow aperture creates significant constraints on potential minority investment transactions. While the 5 percent buffer theoretically enabled EQT to pursue some form of acquisition, the resulting stake would have been immaterial in capital terms and functionally irrelevant in governance terms, raising fundamental questions about whether such a transaction would have merited the organizational disruption that discussions themselves generated. Moreover, neither Adidas, Audi, nor Allianz—the current external equity holders—expressed interest in diluting their existing positions through secondary offerings, according to sources familiar with the matter.[1][21][27]

The 50+1 rule’s exceptions deserve particular attention in evaluating Bayern Munich’s negotiating position. German football law permits exemptions from the 50+1 requirement in cases where an investor or company has substantially supported a club for a continuous period exceeding 20 years.[4][7][40][51][54] Three clubs currently operate under such exemptions: Bayer Leverkusen (exempt since 1999, owned by pharmaceutical company Bayer since the club’s founding in 1904), VfL Wolfsburg (exempt since 2001, owned by automobile manufacturer Volkswagen since the club’s 1945 establishment), and TSG 1899 Hoffenheim (temporarily exempt under a special arrangement granted to software billionaire Dietmar Hopp in 2015, though Hopp transferred majority voting rights back to the members’ association in November 2024).[4][7][40][51][54] These exceptions underscore that the 50+1 rule operates not as an absolute prohibition on outside investment but rather as a mechanism ensuring that external capital cannot translate into unilateral control absent decades of demonstrated commitment to a specific club and community. EQT, as a recently arrived investor with no prior football presence at Bayern Munich, possessed no pathway whatsoever to control exemption status. The firm would have been entirely bound by the structural constraints that the 50+1 rule imposes on capital-focused financial investors.

Michael Diederich: The Critical Relationship Manager and His Unexpected Departure

The ultimate explanation for why Bayern Munich and EQT’s negotiations collapsed reveals itself not in structural governance frameworks or regulatory prohibitions, but in the personnel decisions of individual executives. Michael Diederich, who served as FC Bayern Munich’s Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman of the club’s executive board, functioned as EQT’s primary contact during the exploratory discussions about minority stake acquisition.[1][2][21][28] Diederich’s background combined deep finance industry experience with intimate knowledge of Bayern Munich’s operational and strategic dynamics. Prior to his appointment at Bayern, Diederich held senior positions at UniCredit Bank, where he directed the firm’s corporate banking and investment banking operations, accumulating substantial expertise in structured finance and complex commercial transactions.[3] This background positioned him as an unusually sophisticated financial partner for EQT’s discussions—neither a sports novice lacking financial sophistication nor a finance professional unfamiliar with football club operations.

During his tenure at Bayern Munich, which commenced in 2018, Diederich established himself as a modernizing force within the club’s organizational structure. He gained board-level appointment in 2023, reflecting the confidence placed in his capabilities by Bayern’s leadership team and reflecting the increasing importance that professional financial management holds at elite football clubs.[28] His presence on Bayern’s supervisory board, which includes senior executives from major German corporations such as Herbert Hainer (former CEO of Adidas), Herbert Diess (former Chairman of Volkswagen), Werner Zedelius (senior advisor at Allianz), and Timotheus Höttges (CEO of Deutsche Telekom), positioned him within the highest tier of German industrial leadership networks.[9] These network connections and his credibility with sophisticated institutional capital partners made Diederich an ideal liaison for exploratory discussions with a firm of EQT’s caliber and profile. From EQT’s perspective, Diederich represented the type of professionally accomplished, financially sophisticated interlocutor required for serious discussions about structuring a complex minority investment in a multi-billion-euro enterprise.

However, in late summer 2025, the relationship dynamics shifted abruptly. In August 2025, Deutsche Bank announced that Diederich had been appointed Global Co-Head of the bank’s Corporate Banking division, a position that formally commenced on October 1, 2025.[3][6] This appointment represented a significant career advancement, positioning Diederich to lead Deutsche Bank’s push to reassert market share in German and European corporate finance—a strategically critical business line for Germany’s largest banking institution. According to Diederich’s official statement upon the appointment, he expressed particular enthusiasm for “developing the Corporate Banking business of Deutsche Bank together with David Lynne globally – with special attention to Germany as the industrial heart of Europe” during a period when “our economy faces tremendous transformations.”[3] The appointment reflected Deutsche Bank’s assessment that Diederich possessed precisely the combination of German industrial sector expertise, international banking sophistication, and strategic vision required to lead its corporate banking renewal.

Critically, this career transition created an immediate conflict of interest and relationship discontinuity that proved fatal to the Bayern Munich-EQT discussions. Upon Diederich’s departure from Bayern Munich at the end of September 2025, the personal relationship channel through which EQT had been pursuing its exploratory discussions simply ceased to exist.[1][21][28] Diederich’s replacement as CFO and key financial officer remained undefined during the critical period when the negotiations should have been accelerating toward formal transaction structures. More fundamentally, the departure of the individual executive who possessed both the financial sophistication to articulate EQT’s value proposition to Bayern’s board and the institutional standing to persuade Bayern’s leadership to seriously entertain external capital investment created an organizational vacuum that proved impossible to quickly fill. While Bayern Munich’s CEO Jan-Christian Dreesen and board member for sport Max Eberl assumed temporary responsibility for managing financial functions following Diederich’s departure, neither had been meaningfully involved in the EQT discussions, and both lacked the specific expertise and institutional relationships that Diederich had cultivated with EQT’s partnership team.

The loss of Diederich exemplifies a critical phenomenon in complex M&A transactions: the indispensability of certain relationship managers to deal completion. In private equity especially, where negotiations often involve dense technical requirements, sophisticated structuring, and alignment of multiple stakeholder interests, the presence of a trusted contact who understands both the PE investor’s perspective and the target company’s constraints proves extraordinarily valuable. Diederich’s combination of banking experience, sophisticated financial knowledge, and credibility within Bayern’s governance structures made him precisely this type of indispensable relationship manager. His unexpected departure during the critical phase when discussions should have moved from exploratory to formal structuring discussions fundamentally altered the transaction’s momentum. The transaction mechanics did not change; the regulatory environment remained stable; Bayern’s financial position did not deteriorate. What changed was the human relationship infrastructure through which the transaction was being negotiated—and that infrastructure proved essential to maintaining deal momentum.

The Broader Private Equity Sports Thesis and EQT’s Strategic Positioning

Understanding why EQT pursued the Bayern Munich transaction requires situating it within the firm’s broader strategic evolution and the larger institutional investment thesis that has driven private equity capital into sports assets with increasing aggression and sophistication over the past half-decade. EQT’s interest in sports investment does not represent opportunistic dabbling in a trendy asset class but rather reflects a deliberate strategic positioning within a broader thesis about sports’ evolution as a diversified, institutional-quality investment category.[5][8][16][26][34][52]

The firm’s sports-focused investment activity began modestly but has accelerated meaningfully. In 2004, EQT Expansion Capital I provided mezzanine financing for the acquisition of Sportfive GmbH, a leading European sports rights agency specializing in football broadcasting rights for UEFA Cup, Champions League qualifiers, World Championships, and international friendlies.[5] While this represented a bet on sports infrastructure and media rights monetization rather than club ownership, it evidenced early institutional conviction about sports’ financial durability and growth potential. More recently, EQT Ventures led a €23 million (approximately $25 million) investment in Baller League, the innovative six-a-side football competition backed by former German international players and backed by Premier League stars including Manchester United’s Mason Mount and Liverpool’s Diogo Jota.[14][17][41] This investment reflected EQT’s thesis that sports entertainment could attract capital through non-traditional formats, digital-first distribution models, and influencer-driven engagement strategies that appeal to younger demographics.

The strategic value proposition driving these investments extends beyond simple equity returns. EQT appears to be constructing what might be described as a “sports platform thesis”—an institutional position where the firm can leverage its operational expertise and network effects to create value across multiple sports properties simultaneously. This approach mirrors EQT’s success in other investment verticals where the firm has built scaled platforms enabling knowledge sharing, operational best practices transfer, and network leverage across portfolio companies. The Baller League investment exemplifies this thesis: by backing an innovative sports format backed by high-profile content creators and professional athletes, EQT gains relationships and insights into emerging audience preferences, digital monetization strategies, and athlete endorsement economics that can inform strategy across other sports investments. A Bayern Munich minority stake would have occupied a different position in this platform ecosystem—less about innovative format experimentation and more about direct exposure to a mature, highly profitable, globally recognized sports brand with substantial commercial optimization opportunities.

Moreover, EQT’s sports interests reflect a broader institutional trend among mega-scale alternative asset managers toward treating sports as a legitimate asset allocation category comparable to infrastructure, real estate, or specialized equity strategies. As capital pools at the mega-fund scale have expanded, institutional investors have become increasingly willing to deploy capital into sectors previously regarded as “alternative” or speculative, particularly when those sectors offer characteristics like recurring revenues, pricing power, low correlation with traditional financial markets, and powerful brand assets. Sports properties combine many of these characteristics: professional football clubs generate predictable revenues through broadcasting agreements (which typically lock in revenues for multiple-year periods), sponsorship contracts, matchday operations, and merchandise sales; football fans as consumers display relatively inelastic demand for their teams regardless of economic cycles; broadcasting rights for elite football have demonstrated remarkable pricing power in auctions, with bidders from diverse geographies and media distribution models competing intensely for content; and football clubs represent some of the most recognizable brands globally, with fan engagement that transcends traditional commercial relationships.

German Fan Opposition and the Cultural Politics of Sports Ownership

The Bayern Munich-EQT negotiations unfolded within a distinctly German cultural context characterized by organized, structured, and deeply principled opposition to external investor control of professional football clubs. This opposition cannot be dismissed as parochial sentiment or irrational resistance to modernization; rather, it represents a coherent philosophical position rooted in particular understandings of club identity, supporter democracy, and the appropriate relationship between commercial capital and community institutions.[22][43][47][51]

The magnitude and persistence of German fan opposition to private equity investment in football became most dramatically evident in 2024, when the German Football League’s (DFL) proposed sale of media rights to CVC Capital Partners collapsed entirely under the weight of sustained supporter protests. The DFL had negotiated a deal valued at between €900 million and €1 billion with CVC for a 20-year slice of broadcast and sponsorship revenue—a transaction that would have provided immediate capital infusion while maintaining member club control of sporting and operational decisions.[22][25][49] The proposal received initial support from 32 of 36 clubs across Germany’s top two tiers in December 2023, seemingly ensuring deal completion. However, in subsequent months, increasingly disruptive fan protests—including incidents where fans deployed remote-controlled cars and airplanes to halt matches and attached bicycle locks to goalposts—made a “successful continuation of the process look impossible,” according to DFL board spokesperson Hans-Joachim Watzke.[22] In March 2024, the DFL board announced that it would not proceed with the CVC deal, representing a dramatic reversal and a clear victory for organized fan opposition.

This historical context directly informed the environment in which Bayern Munich and EQT contemplated their transaction. German football supporters had demonstrated not merely theoretical opposition to external capital but actual capacity to mobilize sustained, coordinated, and increasingly creative opposition that created material operational disruptions. Any announcement of a minority stake sale by Bayern Munich to a foreign private equity firm would have inevitably triggered fierce fan response rooted in both principled objections to external investor involvement and anxieties about what such involvement might signal about Bayern’s future direction. Club leadership could have pursued the transaction only at substantial reputational cost and risked creating the type of supporter discord that historically affects fan engagement, attendance revenues, and the intangible psychological dynamics that distinguish elite sporting organizations from mere commercial enterprises.

The philosophical foundations of German fan opposition merit serious engagement rather than dismissal. Supporters argue, with considerable coherence, that football clubs represent community institutions with cultural significance extending far beyond their function as profit-generating entertainment businesses.[4][7][40][51] When external investors acquire control stakes, they reorient organizational priorities from serving supporter interests toward maximizing financial returns—a reorientation that many argue fundamentally corrupts the authentic purpose of football as sport.[4][7][40][47][51] The 50+1 rule embodies a policy choice that clubs’ ultimate purpose should be sporting excellence, community engagement, and supporter experience rather than shareholder value maximization. Supporters further argue that when external investors gain substantial influence, clubs become vulnerable to destabilizing ownership changes whenever financial conditions change or investment thesis evolution prompts portfolio exits—a concern borne out by the chaotic histories of clubs acquired by volatile or distracted external investors in other leagues.

Notably, former Bayern Munich president and general manager Uli Hoeneß has articulated a counterargument, expressing concern that German clubs could be left behind European rivals financially given their structural limitations on external capital access compared to the Premier League and other markets where investor capital flows more freely.[4][7][51][54] Hoeneß has suggested that individual clubs should have discretion to open doors to external investment if they choose, potentially allowing smaller clubs greater capacity to compete with established powerhouses.[4][7][51][54] However, this minority position among German football leadership has failed to gain institutional traction, with repeated attempts to modify or eliminate the 50+1 rule failing decisively in DFL votes. The 2009 effort by Hannover 96 president Martin Kind to overturn the rule was rejected by 32 of 35 other professional clubs, demonstrating the broad consensus supporting the status quo.[4][7][51][54]

EQT’s Broader Sports Ambitions and the Comparative European Landscape

The Bayern Munich transaction represents only one component of EQT’s expanding sports investment thesis and reflects broader patterns through which European football markets have diverged substantially in their openness to external capital. While German football has systematically resisted PE involvement through regulatory frameworks and cultural consensus, other major European leagues have embraced or at minimum accommodated external investor participation with increasing sophistication. Understanding these divergent trajectories illuminates why EQT would pursue a German football opportunity even in the face of structural obstacles, and why the firm’s broader sports thesis remains compelling despite the Bayern Munich negotiation’s collapse.

England’s Premier League represents the most permissive regulatory environment for external investor involvement in European football. Approximately two-thirds of Premier League clubs are now owned or substantially controlled by external investors, including sovereign wealth funds (Manchester City, owned by the City Football Group backed by UAE capital), foreign billionaires (Chelsea, formerly owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, now owned by Todd Boehly’s Clearlake Capital consortium), and experienced PE sponsors (Liverpool, owned by Fenway Sports Group).[29][56] This openness to external capital has created a competitive dynamic in which wealthy investors from across the globe compete for Premier League assets, driving valuations to premium levels but also enabling sustained competitive investment. The Premier League’s governance framework explicitly permits majority external ownership, constraining only the debt financing mechanisms through which purchases can be structured—a policy that English football authorities justify on prudential grounds rather than on the theory that external ownership inherently corrupts sporting competition or fan interests.

Spain’s LaLiga and France’s Ligue 1 have negotiated middle-ground positions. Both leagues permitted CVC Capital Partners to acquire minority stakes in league-level media rights entities, generating capital for participating clubs while maintaining club-level governance control. Spain’s LaLiga reached a partnership with CVC in 2021, with CVC investing €2.1 billion in exchange for 8.2 percent of LaLiga’s media rights business for 50 years.

https://www.marketsgroup.org/news/eqt-held-talks-to-buy-stake-in-bayern-munich, https://inforcapital.com/news/eqt-talks-to-buy-bayern-stake-collapse-after-cfo-exit/, https://www.db.com/news/detail/20250807-michael-diederich-appointed-global-co-head-of-the-corporate-bank?language_id=3, https://www.bundesliga.com/en/faq/what-are-the-rules-and-regulations-of-soccer/50-1-fifty-plus-one-german-football-soccer-rule-explained-ownership-22832, https://eqtgroup.com/about/current-portfolio/sportfive, https://www.finance-magazin.de/banking-berater/firmenkundengeschaeft/deutsche-bank-schnappt-sich-finanzchef-des-fc-bayern-muenchen-223773/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50+1_rule, https://eqtgroup.com/about/current-portfolio, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Bayern_Munich, https://www.mk.co.kr/en/world/11484964, https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/bayern-munich-loss-halted-fan-protests-private-investment/story?id=107330377, https://fcbayern.com/en/club/company/teaser-stockholder, https://www.sportspro.com/news/real-madrid-most-valuable-soccer-club-football-benchmark-may-2025/, https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/eqt-ventures-leads-25m-baller-league-investment/, https://www.arctospartners.com/sports/, https://eqtgroup.com/about/current-portfolio, https://www.sportspro.com/news/baller-league-eqt-investment-uk-us-launch-ksi-december-2024/, https://www.sportspro.com/features/insights/features/investor-profile-arctos-partners-investment-thesis/, https://eqtgroup.com/about/current-portfolio/funds/eqt-ventures-iii, https://www.arctospartners.com, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/05/bayern-munich-had-talks-with-pe-firm-eqt-over-stake-sale/, https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39569286/german-league-abandons-private-equity-deal-fan-protests, https://eqtgroup.com/about/history, https://www.marketsgroup.org/news/eqt-held-talks-to-buy-stake-in-bayern-munich, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-21/cvc-s-1-1-billion-german-football-deal-ends-after-fan-protests, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_AB, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/05/bayern-munich-had-talks-with-pe-firm-eqt-over-stake-sale/, https://bulinews.com/bayern-confirm-departure-club-boss, https://footballbenchmark.com/w/european-football-m-a-in-2025-fewer-mega-deals-broader-global-reach, https://www.marketsgroup.org/news/eqt-held-talks-to-buy-stake-in-bayern-munich, https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/bayern-munich-finances-board/108460/bayern-munich-parts-ways-with-cfo, https://www.citrincooperman.com/In-Focus-Resource-Center/The-Rise-of-Private-Equity-in-Sports, https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37391432/bayern-munich-pay-stadium-debt-almost-16-years-early, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_AB, https://www.sportcal.com/data-insights/top-10-sponsor-partners-bayern-munich/, https://www.sportspro.com/news/allianz_takes_us150m_bayern_munich_stake/, https://eqtgroup.com/en/news/eqt-ab-publ-half-year-report-2025-2025-07-17, https://fcbayern.com/en/club/partner, https://www.marketsgroup.org/news/eqt-held-talks-to-buy-stake-in-bayern-munich, https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/investments-in-german-soccer-clubs-attractive-for-investors-and-clubs-despite-the-501-rule, https://www.thesportsplaymaker.com/post/premier-league-players-back-baller-league-s-uk-and-us-expansion-with-23m-investment, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/05/bayern-munich-had-talks-with-pe-firm-eqt-over-stake-sale/, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-06-14/german-football-bundesliga-may-end-up-with-private-equity-investors, https://www.ragalahari.com/tollywood-news-2017-september/135027/kathalo-rajakumari-releases-on-september-15?s-news-17227646-2025-12-04-eqt-discusses-investment-in-european-football-giant-bayern-munich-takes-tilt-due-to-management-change, https://fcbayern.com/en/news/2025/11/ceo-jan-christian-dreesen-at-the-2025-agm, https://pe-insights.com/bridgepoint-cvc-capital-partners-and-kkr-all-in-the-running-for-a-25-stake-in-the-bundesliga-international-broadcast-rights-valued-at-2-2bn/, https://www.sennferrero.com/2025/01/12/growing-role-of-private-entity-in-football-opportunities-and-challenges/, https://www.goal.com/en-us/lists/we-don-t-have-anyone-handing-us-millions-bayern-munich-boss-defends-transfer-policy/blt666c4a02f1c4b79d, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-21/cvc-s-1-1-billion-german-football-deal-ends-after-fan-protests, https://www.stout.com/en/insights/article/youth-sports-became-magnet-private-equity, https://eteron.org/en/gerasimos-symeonidis-the-50-1-rule-in-germany-ensures-that-club-members-retain-the-majority-and-voting-rights-in-their-teams/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQT_AB, https://thefootballweek.com/2025/09/07/multi-club-ownership-football/, https://www.bundesliga.com/en/faq/what-are-the-rules-and-regulations-of-soccer/50-1-fifty-plus-one-german-football-soccer-rule-explained-ownership-22832, https://eqtgroup.com/about/history, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2023/06/us-private-equity-investments-in-european-football.pdf

Get M&A headlines on X!