Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

That this House resolves not to approve the draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control” in the Context of the Football Governance Act 2025, as it creates uncertainty regarding the eligibility criteria; increases the likelihood of legal and ownership challenges; creates a conflicting regulatory regime for the licensed football clubs; and has the potential to damage the financial success and growth of the regulated leagues.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I have initiated this debate because the question of who is captured as a person of “significant influence or control” under the Football Governance Act inextricably links to the regulatory regime they will have to follow, and that will determine the success or failure of the Act. We need to get it right; clarity is the key word here. We need clarity to have effective regulation, and good regulation is essential for the success of EFL clubs and Premier League clubs alike. Unlike in debates during the passage of the Bill, we are all at one on this. We need to get this right, because that is the best way of ensuring the financial success of professional football.

Just one reason was given by the Minister for Sport in introducing the statutory guidance in another place on 27 October. She stated that the purpose of the statutory guidance on the meaning of “significant influence or control” under Section 1 of the Act was to

“ensure that fans can identify the real persons exercising control of their clubs, notwithstanding any opaque or complex ownership structures. This will give fans the much-needed transparency they deserve”.

She added just one further observation:

“This delivers the Government’s election promises to combat poor governance and financial mismanagement of football clubs in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/25; col. 1WS.]


Unfortunately, as drafted, it does no such thing.

As the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, helpfully contributed during the passage of the Bill, the concrete benefits to fans are a few statutory protections, mainly of heritage items, typically club names, crests— courtesy of my noble friend Lord Parkinson—home colours and home ground; and consultation, which already exists in most of the professional clubs in this country. There are no fan veto powers. What it does is create far tougher owners’ and directors’ tests than exist anywhere in the world, and it overlaps with UEFA and the Premier League and EFL’s requisite regulation.

There is no clear definition in the guidance of the meaning of “integrity” or “competence”, or indeed “source of funds”. In fact, the stated objective of the regulator is to go further than the Premier League does at the moment, requiring each and every club to list in the personnel statement those of “significant influence and control”. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the final rules on guidance and regulation will come before the personnel statements that are requested from clubs.

Most Premier League clubs sit inside a multi-club organisation and most of their owners live in jurisdictions abroad, where identifying those with “significant influence or control” is exceptionally difficult to determine. To say that the ownership of professional football in this country is complex is an understatement. In the Premier League, only two clubs have a solitary shareholder. The staggering complexity of the challenge for clubs is clear when you realise that the ownership of Premier League football clubs is primarily international. As of this summer, American ownership is 40%; Chinese, 5%; Saudi Arabian, 4%; Swiss, 4%; Egyptian, 2%; international institutions and others, 2%; Greek, 5%; the UAE, 4%; Uruguayan, 2%; and Czech, 1%. UK ownership stands at 22%. Yet clarity is everything, so let me ask the Minister about just one club. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I are both avid supporters of Leeds United, I have chosen that club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will have to defer to the Box on that point, but I will be happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I will pick up on some of the points she has made and try to answer the other interventions that came from the packed Benches on the Government side, which I am delighted to see for this debate. I have rarely been called a trout-fishing terrier. I love trout fishing and I also love terriers, so I take those both as compliments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, that I am passionately committed to football, both amateur and professional; I always have been in 40 years involved in sport. There is no one who would regard my intervention on this subject as coming from any other position than being passionate about sport and football.

The Act is detrimental to the future of professional football; it is a view I spoke about a great deal in Committee. This evening, I did not address any of those points but focused exclusively on the guidance. I say to the Minister and to others that the debate this evening does not stop the regulator for one day. The statutory guidance is laid before both Houses until 5 December, and there is the opportunity to debate it in either House until that point. It is not a delaying tactic; it does not delay the regulator getting on with its job. To say that and to imply that is fundamentally wrong. We cannot do anything about this until 5 December, when both Houses will have had the opportunity to consider it. We have had the opportunity in advance of that to have a debate.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, who are passionate about sport and highly knowledgeable about football—they may not take this as the greatest compliment coming from me, although it is meant to be a compliment at the highest level—that I tabled this Motion because, if we have secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to review it in the normal way, but if we have draft statutory guidance the only way we can debate it is by tabling a fatal Motion. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote, but I absolutely intended to make sure that what we looked at during the passage of the Bill—the decision to bring forward statutory guidance on this so that the whole of Parliament could consider it—was given due consideration.

Having read the guidance, I made it clear to the House this evening that I was concerned it went too closely along the lines—which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was inevitable and important in the drafting—of being kept purposefully and precisely vague, to use his phrase. I was a little nervous that, in responding, the Minister might do exactly what the noble Lord encouraged her not to do and provide clarity and precision. Understandably, she could not, because it is vague, and intentionally so.

I say to the Minister that this could be far better written. I genuinely believe that it is important to take it away and write it with greater clarity, because the guidance needs to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need for the regulator to look into significant interest or control and, on the other, having to think about investors and the best interests of every club. It is my firm belief that, if you go too closely down the road of being so precisely vague and wide ranging, it could deter investors in professional football. That is why I felt it important to have this debate.

This Motion does not delay the regulator at all and gives this House the opportunity to consider something it requested in Committee on the Bill and which the Government granted. This debate has been very well attended. I am exceptionally grateful to those who have contributed. I avoided completely going down the line that the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, thought I might by focusing exclusively on and going into detail on this guidance. Having placed this on the record, I hope that the regulator and the world of football will be able to go away and consider whether there are ways to improve the statutory guidance and that, when we sit down with the football clubs, we avoid overlapping with the regulatory frameworks of UEFA, the EFL and the Premier League, which is also vital and to be avoided here.

I am grateful to the Minister for sitting through another debate on football and for the very helpful contributions from, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, feared that we will see this in case law; I fear that he is absolutely right.

It may help the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, if I repeat one point. I was absolutely opposed to this legislation all the way through and thought that it would be bad law. I believe it is bad law. I thought Boris Johnson’s knee-jerk reaction to go to legislation on the Monday after the Saturday announcement of the super league was wrong. That is not the right way for professional sport in this country. But I did not go down that road this evening. I focused on this because I want to make it as good as possible and passionately want this Act to succeed now that it is in statute, in the interests of football and investors as well as of regulation. I wish the regulator every success with this. I hope it gets it right and has the opportunity to reflect on what has been said on both sides of this House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are clear that there should be operational independence for the police; it is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The safety advisory group role has been much debated, but it is generally seen as a role that works consistently and has an advisory function. What would have been desirable here would have been for those discussions to have taken place and been escalated sooner, before the decision was made. That is a matter for the MHCLG to deal with going forward; however, at the moment MHCLG is working hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion. I think it is right that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but we also need that to happen within the wider context. Clearly, there was a much wider context, and there were much wider potential repercussions of the decision. That will be a matter for MHCLG to discuss with local government.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement says:

“It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the … safety advisory group are operationally independent of government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety”,


as the Minister has repeated today, but would the Minister agree that this is only half the story? The Safety of Sports Grounds Act, in legislation which I piloted through another place as the Minister responsible, ensures that safety advisory groups must routinely consider relevant government advice and policies, such as from the Home Office on crowd management. Why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are or their legally held beliefs? Can the Minister assure the House that discussions are under way with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups at matches this weekend and in the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In relation to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, absolutely: the safety of Jewish fans is of the utmost importance and priority to this Government. On the safety advisory groups, I have not been party to all the discussions with the people concerned, but my understanding is that the resource implications did not get escalated to the right level. That is not an excuse for it happening, but now that we know it happened, we can address it for the future. I know that my colleagues across government are desperately keen to make sure that this happens.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I have two football interests I should declare: one is historical and the other current. The historical one is that I served as vice-chair of the Football Task Force 25 years ago and in one of the four reports that we produced, the case for a football regulator was argued very carefully. We thought we had won the argument, but we were not able to persuade the Government of the day—not a Conservative Government, but a new Labour one—of the merits of football regulation.

The fact that we now have all-party support for a football regulator is an indication of how far that debate has progressed. I would like to add my congratulations, first, to my noble friend Lady Twycross for the brilliant way she steered the Bill through this House, where it suffered no defeats whatever in any Divisions; and to the Ministers in the House of Commons who, with support and willingness to listen, were able to change the Bill and, I readily accept, improve it.

This takes me to my current interest. I am vice-president of the National Football League, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, just referred. Its scepticism was there in the beginning but as far as I understand it, that has now gone, and it is satisfied with the form of regulator in the Bill and looking forward to playing its part. As he said, it is a very important part of the football family and the element closest to fans at local level.

There are two groups of people I want particularly to refer to, and I will be very brief. One is the Football Supporters’ Association, without whose support this Bill would never have come to light. It was, as noble Lords will recall, the product of the fan-based review and the interests of fans have been very strongly taken into account and represented in the outcome. It deserves a great deal of congratulation for the part it played in the debate. The second group are the supporters of Wimbledon Football Club—the club I was proud to support in the 1970s and the 1980s—who found that their club was being taken away from them and moved to another part of the country against the wishes of the fans, the local community and everybody concerned with it. That was the sort of dictatorial decision which will be impossible as a result of this Bill going through, as it will prevent the removal of a club to a new location against the wishes of its supporters. Wimbledon supporters’ ability to start a new club—which has been extraordinarily successful and, indeed, was promoted from the Second Division of the Football League to the First Division at the end of last season—is a testament to their resilience and skill in making the case.

Above all, I congratulate the Minister in this House and the Ministers in the other place on producing a Bill that even the Premier League is now willing to accept and work with, and that is very commendable.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on many aspects of sports policy, I have to say that, in character, I am afraid I disagree with him again on what he opened up with this evening. It would be remiss of this House not to seriously congratulate Chelsea on winning the FIFA World Club Cup. To put three goals in the back of PSG’s net in the first half of a final—an often impenetrable net this season—was remarkable. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is one of the great football occasions in memory. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, an avid supporter of that club, on the extraordinary and magnificent performance of Chelsea only a few days ago. It matched the success of England’s cricketers in the Third Test.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, just for clarity, I am staying this week in the Chelsea Football Club hotel, and it is a fantastic set-up and a fantastic ground.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am glad the noble Lord added that because otherwise, I would have kicked his name off the register, if I had been him.

The key amendments before us this evening are undoubtedly improvements, and I thank all the noble Lords who worked so hard, not least the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Pannick, to bring those amendments to us this evening and worked so hard with the Government to gain those improvements. But, as my noble friend Lady Brady, has said, for many of us they do little more than remove some broken eggshell from the omelette, which many in the other place joined with us in describing as unpalatable to both the fans and professional football clubs.

One constant theme throughout my consideration of the Bill’s details has been the layering of regulation that exists within football and the dangers of adding an additional regulator to what is already quite a complex and competitive structure of football regulation. In respect of Clause 61, can the Minister say whether the changes have been approved by UEFA and FIFA, and whether they now see no conflict with the position that they stated very clearly only a matter of months ago?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for a constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place and for their very kind comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring the Bill back, which was to ensure that we get a better Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for their support for changing the backstop mechanism. I am grateful too for the support for, and confidence across your Lordships’ House in, the Government’s preferred candidate.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulator as taking a light-touch approach, and I am grateful to all those involved in helping us get this over the line in a much more match-fit state than it left us. I note the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. I will send a transcript of the debate to the chair designate, although I am confident that he is following the debate and is already aware of the need—and their call—to tread lightly.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, asked how we would incorporate evidence from the “state of the game” report. Under the amended model, it would be explicit that the regulator must use the “state of the game” as the basis for its decision. The regulator must explain in its notice how its solution addresses the evidence from the “state of the game” report. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals, which the regulator must take into account. The regulator can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a wide evidence base for making a decision. This is a more evidence-based and data-driven process than before. We are also proposing an extension of the final proposal stage to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution based on evidence.

The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. As noble Lords will know and as I have stated previously, UEFA has written to confirm that it is content with the Bill and the FA has confirmed it. Its issues were with the previous Government’s version of the Bill and requiring the regulator to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy, something we have removed and something your Lordships’ House clearly debated at some length.

Past examples of Italy and Spain legislating in relation to football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer reassurance. Italy in 2008 and Spain in 2015 legislated setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither association has faced consequences from UEFA. I will return to exactly where we are with the process a bit later.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I do not want to prolong this at all except to just place on the record that both the examples the Minister has given us are totally different and in fact reflected the model that the Premier League had in place, which was effectively a non-legislative agreement. Just for the record, we need to be clear that the very short legislation introduced in both those countries did not bear any resemblance whatever to the substantive Bill before us.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Appreciating the noble Lord’s point, I can confirm that UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands.

I am going to return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, on where exactly we are with the chair’s appointment. The lines I have in my pack do not entirely reflect his question, so I will try to answer it rather than just use the line in the pack.

In closing, I thank several noble Lords who have been involved throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was not able to be here today, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Grantchester. I also thank a number of Labour Back-Benchers who have been really restrained at various points in what has been a very long process, by rationing their contributions to try to get the Bill to move forward. As noble Lords are aware, most noble Lords—probably with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—are absolutely passionate about the game, so to not contribute as much as they wanted was quite painful for a number of them.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds for the excellent job she has done in supporting me, which continues now, and officials whose patience has been outstanding, and I was pleased that this was noted by noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House. They have worked with me, the Minister for Sport, the Secretary of State, stakeholders and many noble Lords to redesign the backstop over the past few months.

I also thank the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham. It is always a pleasure to face them across the Dispatch Box—occasionally, I might have wished it was slightly less late into the night. I particularly thank noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard of Stockport, not least for their good humour and constructive approach to raising and resolving their concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who took the time in his contribution today to focus on the fact that this is about how football speaks to local communities—that is at the heart of why the Government have pursued this.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords on the Cross Benches, particularly the A-team of the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. They raised issues that made us pause to consider. I was sorry we were not able to bring back amendments before we got to Third Reading, and I hope noble Lords understand why this was. We are keen now to make sure that the football regulator can get on with the job.