Chelsea risk losing Earl’s Court option as redevelopment plans move forward

December 18, 2025 Oliver Obel

Chelsea’s long search for a bigger stadium is edging toward a decisive moment, with progress on a vast redevelopment at Earl’s Court threatening to remove what many inside the club see as their clearest alternative to Stamford Bridge.

The west London site has been discussed for years as a potential solution to Chelsea’s capacity problem. Stamford Bridge holds just over 40,000 spectators, well below several Premier League rivals, limiting matchday revenue and broader commercial opportunities. Yet the club has so far stopped short of making a formal move.

That hesitation is becoming more consequential. This week, Kensington and Chelsea council approved a £10bn housing and retail scheme proposed by the Earls Court Development Company (ECDC). The plan, which does not provide space for a football stadium, had already received unanimous backing from Hammersmith and Fulham council, the Guardian reported.

While planning permission does not prevent other bidders from coming forward, it reshapes the political landscape around the site. A senior London political figure, quoted by the Guardian, said Chelsea must now “put up or shut up” over Earl’s Court, a remark that reflects growing impatience among local decision-makers.

Chelsea’s ownership has accepted internally that Stamford Bridge is too small for the club’s long-term ambitions. Executives have held preliminary discussions with several stakeholders connected to the 17.8-hectare site, including Transport for London and the developer Delancey, and have identified the Lillie Bridge depot as the most viable location for a new stadium. The Dutch pension fund APG is also among the land’s stakeholders.

Those talks, however, have remained informal. Chelsea did not submit a public bid before the planning approvals were secured, and the value of the land is now expected to rise sharply. That increases the likelihood of competition from major international developers and institutional investors should the site be offered more widely.

Backers of the ECDC proposal argue it reflects rare consensus in London politics. Although the development company has not yet confirmed full financing, the Guardian reported that earlier concerns about costs have eased, with efforts under way to secure private and public investment. That level of support makes it harder for alternative proposals to gain momentum.

London mayor Sadiq Khan is expected to be asked to endorse the scheme. A project delivering around 4,000 homes, with 35% classed as affordable, would be difficult for City Hall to block, according to people familiar with the process. Once construction contracts are signed, the opportunity to incorporate a stadium would effectively disappear.

Chelsea’s fallback options are limited. Redeveloping Stamford Bridge remains possible but would be complex, given surrounding rail infrastructure and the likelihood of a lengthy temporary relocation. Decision-making has also been slowed by reported tensions between co-owners Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital.

People close to the situation believe Earl’s Court still offers Chelsea the most realistic path to a modern, high-capacity stadium in west London. But delay carries its own cost. As rivals continue to benefit from larger venues and expanding commercial operations, Chelsea face the risk that failing to act now could leave them structurally behind in the years ahead.

Sources: Guardian