Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hampton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a lapsed Torquay United fan and a “606” listener. I thank the Minister for her time, both in the introduction and in her very good briefing beforehand.

This Bill is badly needed and I congratulate both Governments on bringing it forward. It may have been triggered by the breakaway attempt by the ESL, but I genuinely think there is a need to regulate league football in this country. Let us not forget that, in the 1985-86 season, after the Heysel and Bradford disasters, when football barely appeared on television and attendance was at a record low, there was no European football as English clubs were banned. More recently, there were lessons from rugby union in 2022-23, when three of the Rugby Premiership teams—Wasps, London Irish and Worcester—went bust with debts totalling over £155 million. So, however healthy the game may seem now, disaster is only a few unfortunate events away.

According to Fair Game, 58% of the top 92 clubs are technically insolvent. Now, I am not an economist, but my noble friend Lord Londesborough gave us a pretty stark analysis—stark enough to give the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, some problems to deal with.

Something needs to be done. Everyone has asked the question: can the IFR solve the argument about the levels of payment, let alone parachute payments? In the Bill, the badly needed scrutiny of owners seems to be toothless. The Explanatory Notes say that it can only have power over

“the suitability of an incumbent individual owner or officer where it is in possession of information which provides the IFR with grounds for concern about the individual’s suitability”.

This sounds suspiciously like a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation. There is no barrier to politically reprehensible countries and no concerns about modern slavery or sportswashing.

We talked about fans when we had the briefing. The Bill enshrines fans’ right to be consulted. This is the best place in the world to be a fan—but what is a fan? It is easier down the leagues, where you can say that it is someone who regularly attends a game. I was passing the Emirates—I did not go in—and took a picture of the display of Arsenal Supporters Clubs. I estimated that there were 140 different clubs, including Japan, Nagpur and the rather unwisely named Iraqi Gunners.

The Explanatory Notes try to define “fans”, referring to them as

“individuals who follow and identify with the club”,

which can

“include (where applicable) but is not limited to: members of any Community Benefit Society”.

They also include

“any fans who regularly attend matches played by the club’s first team”,

which is clear. They add:

“Clubs should have due regard to the views expressed by the representative group of fans but will not, however, be bound by the views of fans”.


How will the IFR police that? Maybe it is for each club to decide what the definition of a fan is—as long as they do not go down the road of Serie A, where the hardline ultras, with their violence and often overt fascism, are courted and sometimes sponsored by the clubs.

As we have heard, one of the main drivers of the Bill seems to have been an attempt to set up a European super league, and it aims include regulating clubs so that they are

“not … able to enter into, be a member of, or participate in a prohibited competition”.

The A22 website now says that the new European super league will have:

“Participation based on sporting merit … No permanent members … Participating clubs stay in their domestic leagues which remain the foundation of European football”.


Could Premier League clubs join the new European super league? I ask the Minister: would the Premier League be able to join, according to the Bill? Far from throwing out English clubs because of the Bill, I think that UEFA will unite with the IFR to challenge any outside competition. As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned, there could be a lot of legal work going on fairly soon.

The word “heritage” slightly worries me, too. As Jan Zglinski from the LSE points out:

“The sole issue on which support from a majority of a club’s fans needs to be established is the changing of the home shirt colours”


and the crest. He adds:

“For other changes, which can be just as significant for the fan community, such as a stadium sale or relocation, no such majority is needed”.


The Bill’s overview says:

“Heritage in this context refers to the tangible and intangible elements that define the unique historical identity of English football and its clubs, and which are passed on through generations of fans”.


This sounds less like law and more like a Hovis advert.

There is also a philosophical argument. I presume that the regulator is called the independent football regulator—rather than “Offoot”, the one name that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did not suggest—to avoid any taint of government interference. But will it have powers to inspect, rather like the dreaded Ofsted? I speak as a teacher when I say that you cannot accuse Ofsted of lacking teeth. Will it produce one-word judgments of a club’s performance? A RAG rating would be a good choice; it would be a sub-editor’s dream—imagine Man City getting a red card.

Currently, the Bill is a noble attempt to define the indefinable and tame the untameable. For that lucky person who becomes the IFR, three things are certain: they will need the wisdom of Solomon, the brains of Sherlock Holmes and the determination of Boudicca to succeed.