Arsenal: Stan Kroenke (LA Rams, Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rapids)
Man Utd: Glazer family (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Man City: Sheikh Mansour (Deputy PM UAE, Abu Dhabi royal family)
Chelsea: Roman Abramovich (Russian oligarch; friend of Putin)
Spurs: 2 English businessmen
Liverpool: Fenway Sports Group (Boston Red Sox)
Real Madrid: supporter-owned
Barcelona: supporter-owned
Atletico Madrid: 2 Spanish and 1 Israeli businessmen
Inter Milan: Chinese holding company
AC Milan: Paul Singer's Elliott (hedge/vulture fund)
Juventus: Agnelli family (founders of Fiat, have stake in combined auto corporation Fiat, Chrysler, Citroen, Peugeot, Opel etc.)
So 1 of the English teams, 1 of the Italian, and all 3 of the Spanish have "traditional" ownership - a majority stake belonging to businessmen from the country, or supporter-controlled (with profits staying in the club). 4 have American ownership, and then there's 1 Russian oligarch, 1 Arab royal, and 1 Chinese company.
Foreign ownership isn't always bad - Leicester loved their Thai owner, who really seemed to care about football, and were devastated when he was killed in a helicopter crash a few years ago - his family still own the club. But there's a feeling that some, especially the Americans, see the clubs as just another asset - and are just looking to get more profit from them.
Having a permanent place in this league, if they manage to pull it off, would put these clubs at a permanent monetary advantage (thanks to global TV revenue), which would mean they could, if needed, spend more on players, limiting the teams that can bid for the best. This goes against the ethos of European football; the ability of clubs to rise, or fall, in national divisions or qualifying for European competitions is a big part of the idea.
= new reply since forum marked as read