Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11A reliable “top eight” ranking cannot be established from the available official record. The documented cases differ in seriousness, evidence and how clearly conduct can be attributed to an individual owner—and there are not eight comparable, well-supported candidates here. This is a selective account of significant cases, not an official EFL classification or a definitive ranking. “Championship history” means the competition under that name since its 2004 rebrand.
How to judge controversy without overstating the record
“Controversial” is not an EFL category, and the League does not publish a ranking of its most controversial owners. A fair comparison needs to separate regulatory findings and sanctions from charges, admissions, club-level events and disputes about supporters’ experience.
The cases below are ordered by the kind of documented conduct and its apparent impact, not by a numerical score. The editorial criteria are: seriousness and recurrence; strength and outcome of the evidence; effect on the club, players, supporters or competition; duration and scale of disruption; and confidence that responsibility belongs to the named individual rather than the club or a wider ownership group. The available evidence does not support a defensible order across every factor.
Documented cases involving named individuals
1. Dejphon Chansiri — Sheffield Wednesday
Sheffield Wednesday’s record involves distinct events, which should not be collapsed into one allegation. In June 2025, the EFL said it had charged the club and Chansiri in connection with late or incomplete wage payments. A charge is not itself a finding of guilt; the cited EFL announcement establishes the charge, not a final outcome.
Recommended Free Tools
In October 2025, after Chansiri took steps to appoint administrators, the club entered administration and received the automatic 12-point deduction specified by EFL rules. That deduction followed the club’s administration; it is not, by itself, a separate personal disciplinary finding against Chansiri. The EFL has also described Chansiri’s 2018 purchase of Hillsborough in the context of the club’s profitability and sustainability proceedings.
In May 2026, the EFL reported that Sheffield Wednesday had been sold to Arise Capital Partners, would not receive a 15-point deduction on exiting administration, and would face a two-season budget restriction. Those are separate outcomes from the 2025 administration deduction. Taken together, the documented record shows substantial club disruption and regulatory scrutiny, but each event has a different legal basis and attribution.
2. Mel Morris — Derby County
Derby County’s Pride Park sale became part of EFL profitability and sustainability proceedings. The 2020 decision describes the £81.1 million sale to Gellaw Newco 202 Limited, a company ultimately owned and controlled by owner-chairman Mel Morris, and the EFL’s dispute over the valuation used for regulatory purposes. This was a club regulatory proceeding about the sale and its accounting treatment; it should not be restated as a personal finding against Morris beyond what the decision says.
Derby entered administration in 2021. The EFL later expressed concern about delay after prospective buyer Chris Kirchner failed to complete a purchase. That failed-sale episode belongs to the club’s administration chronology; it should not be attributed to Morris as his act.
Rank #3
3. Matthew Southall, Paul Richardson and Maxi Lopez — Birmingham City
The EFL said the three men admitted acquiring control of Birmingham City in 2022 without the League’s required approval. Its 2023 statement records the resulting periods of ineligibility and costs. The same statement says Southall admitted signing a false declaration.
This is unusually clear evidence of an approval breach and admissions by named individuals. It is also a specific control episode, not evidence that each person held a long Championship ownership tenure. The League’s statements support treating the three together for this episode, rather than implying that their roles or responsibility were identical in every respect.
4. Clemente Morfuni — Swindon Town
In 2024, an independent commission fined Swindon Town owner Clemente Morfuni £10,000 for failing to declare a share transfer required by regulations. That is a specific formal outcome and a clear example of an owner-related regulatory breach. The available record establishes the finding and fine, but does not show that this case should rank above or below every other Championship ownership controversy.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.A serious club record that cannot safely be assigned to one owner
Wigan Athletic’s 2022–23 wage-payment failures
EFL statements in 2023 record repeated failures by Wigan Athletic to pay players on time, the triggering of a suspended sporting sanction, and failure to make a required reserve deposit equal to 125% of the forecast monthly wage bill. The League announced further sporting deductions. These are material failures affecting players and the club, and they belong in any account of Championship-era ownership controversies.
But the cited statements establish the club’s payment failures and sanctions; they do not, on their own, establish a comparable personal finding against a named owner. Listing an individual as responsible without evidence of that attribution would turn a club-level record into a claim the record does not support.
Why this is not a ranked top eight
The named cases above do not form eight comparable owner entries. Birmingham’s three individuals are tied to one specific approval episode; Wigan’s record is club-level in the cited statements; and the Sheffield Wednesday and Derby cases combine different proceedings and outcomes. Treating each event as a separate “owner” entry, or filling remaining places from unverified fan lists, would create a misleading ranking.
The EFL’s judgments index is organized by season and distinguishes disciplinary and arbitration records, a reminder that different cases may have different procedures and outcomes. It is a route to individual decisions, not a league-approved controversy list. The EFL is also a party to some proceedings, so its statements should be identified as the League’s account; where a commission decision is available, describe what that decision actually found.
What has changed in the ownership rules
As of 8 October 2026, the EFL says prospective acquisitions are subject to both its own requirements and those of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR). The IFR’s Owners, Directors and Senior Executives regime began on 5 May 2026 and operates alongside the EFL Owners and Directors Test. The EFL also says Championship clubs approved new Squad Cost Rules to replace profitability and sustainability rules from 2026/27. These governance changes provide context for current ownership scrutiny; they do not retrospectively change the evidence or outcomes in the historical cases above.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
