This past May, Chelsea Football Club was a bustling machine of termination and change. For the second consecutive season, the men’s team saw a finish outside of the English Premier League’s (EPL) top four—something that had not occurred since the league’s first two seasons—1992-1993 and 1993-1994. The women’s side stood in victorious contrast, having secured their fifth consecutive Women’s Super League title (WSL). Just one weekend before, Mauricio Pochettino left his men’s-side managerial role, later to be replaced by former Leicester City manager Enzo Maresca.
Media and fan discussion continued to report largely on Chelsea FC’s stumbles, and experiments were being made company-wide. In what was framed as a celebration of the women’s achievements, Chelsea released a club statement announcing a restructuring that would position Chelsea Women “alongside, rather than beneath” the men’s team. This news prodded reluctant ambivalence from fans—even in hindsight, the vague language of the statement seemed to underscore a lack of meaningful change.
The true motivation became clear the following month, when the decision was not so much backtracked as it was obliterated from relevancy: Control of the women’s side was transferred from Chelsea FC Holdings to BlueCo, the former’s parent company. Thus, effective June 28, the men’s and women’s sides were no longer registered under the same holding company—a complete split in their financial assets, losses and profits, except for what Holdings might stand to gain from the sale of the women’s team. The teams became separate entities.
This shift came just before the year-end accounting cutoff on June 28. Under the EPL’s profitability and sustainability rules, clubs cannot exceed a £105 million loss over three years. Chelsea’s lavish spending during transfer windows under the collaborative ownership of Chairman Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital has brought them perilously close to breaching these limits. For instance, take Enzo Fernández, Wesley Fofana, Mykhaylo Mudryk, and Moisés Caicedo—all are transfers in excess of €70 million that have occurred within the past three years. The examples of these exorbitant transfers is unique in the world of football at large, and unheard of in women’s football, which never reaches these prices. By moving the women’s team off Chelsea FC Holdings’ books, the club reduces the financial burden on the men’s side. Though it was publicized as an opportunity for the women’s team to operate its own management and facilities, it is glaring that the move allows Boehly’s men to skirt potential penalties while keeping their focus on navigating the next season’s/quarter’s challenges, or potential profits.
Chelsea Women’s impressive success has been undermined by this financial maneuvering. What was painted to look like a strategic repositioning for equality over months of manipulative statements proved to be a way to grease the gears of the Men’s operations. The women’s team, despite their achievements, has been made a vehicle for financial futures—lest we forget the men, though better compensated, also essentially serve the same purpose for the financial suits.
The women’s side has already undergone significant change since May. Emma Hayes, London native and winner of 16 trophies with the club as manager, departed for the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Head Coach role. She is succeeded by former Olympique Lyonnais Féminin’s former manager, Sonia Bompastor. This is part of the broader reshuffling of Chelsea’s internal structures—another sign that the women’s team is adapting to fit the new order, rather than driving it.
The long-term effects of this financial separation, of course, remain to be seen. The immediate benefit for the men’s team is clear, their path to financial compliance is indubitably smoothed no matter the valuation of the acquisition (as yet unknown). But the impact on the women’s team is murky and uncomfortable in light of that fact. What happens when a highly successful team, like Chelsea Women’s, is repurposed to serve the financial interests of a less stable component? Can they continue to dominate? Time will tell if they are able to take advantage of their new independence, or if the shift in priorities undermines their momentum.
