Crystal Palace have claimed “sporting merit is rendered meaningless” following UEFA’s decision to demote them from the Europa League and the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s rejection of their appeal.

The FA Cup winners were demoted to the Conference League by European football’s governing body UEFA on July 11 after it determined that, as of March 1, American businessman John Textor had control or influence at both Palace and French club Lyon.

Palace appealed, but on Monday the CAS announced the London club had lost their appeal, with Nottingham Forest expected to take the place in UEFA’s second-tier competition.

A statement from the Eagles read: “At a time when we should be celebrating our victory in the Community Shield at Wembley, the decision by UEFA and followed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport shows that sporting merit is rendered meaningless.

“When we won the FA Cup against Manchester City on that momentous day in May, our manager and players earned the right to play Europa League football. We have been denied that opportunity.

“It appears that certain clubs, organisations and individuals have a unique privilege and power.

“This growing and unhealthy influence does not bode well for aspirational teams all over Europe competing to progress when rules and sanctions are unevenly applied in the most flagrant way.”

UEFA has been contacted for comment by the PA news agency.

UEFA regulations state that where one or more clubs are found to have shared ownership, they cannot play in the same competition and Lyon held on to the Europa League spot by virtue of their higher league position.

Textor has since sold his shares to New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, a purchase completed in late July.

The Eagles’ stance, as outlined in a July statement, was that “it’s clear for everyone to see that we are not part of a multi-club operation and never have been”.

On Tuesday, Palace wrote in their statement: “Multi-club structures hide behind the charade of a ‘blind trust’ while clubs such as ours, who have no connection to another club whatsoever, are prevented from playing in the same competition.

“To compound the injustice, clubs that appear to have huge informal arrangements with each other are also allowed to participate and even possibly play against each other.

“While we respect the CAS tribunal members, the process is designed to severely restrict and, in our case, make it almost impossible to receive a fair hearing.”

Palace have called for UEFA to consider both its regulations and the application of those rules.

The club statement concluded: “UEFA’s decision has wider implications for the governance of the sport.

“A combination of poorly-conceived regulations and their unequal application means our brilliant fans will be deprived of the chance to watch this team compete in the Europa League for the first time in our history.

“This should be a turning point for football.

“UEFA must fulfil its mandate to pass coherent rules which are properly communicated and applied.

“The European Court of Justice has made it clear that rulings similar to this will be under greater scrutiny from national courts in future. Only then will fairness and due process be granted to every team.”

A full CAS explanation, with grounds, will be published in due course unless parties request confidentiality.

The CAS statement on Monday explained: “After considering the evidence, the panel found that John Textor, founder of Eagle Football Holdings, had shares in CPFC and OL and was a board member with decisive influence over both clubs at the time of UEFA’s assessment date.

“The panel also dismissed the argument by CPFC that they received unfair treatment in comparison to Nottingham Forest and OL. The panel considered that the UEFA regulations are clear and do not provide flexibility to clubs that are non-compliant on the assessment date, as CPFC claimed.”

CAS responded to Palace’s statement on Tuesday, by saying: “CAS rules are long standing and designed to ensure fairness in the sporting world.

“In line with this practice, all parties on August 8, 2025 were given a formal opportunity to raise any concern about the running of the process. No objections were raised to state that the right to a fair hearing was not respected.”