Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 244 and to support Amendment 145, moved by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. My amendment seeks to formalise a duty which will prevent clubs, players and employees of clubs publishing political statements that bring division and conflict into a game that should be about generating unity.

We have seen over previous years multiple instances of virtue signalling, such as taking the knee before matches after the Black Lives Matter protests, and the wearing of certain armbands—as my noble friend has said—and laces, which are the latest attempt to campaign. I would say that it is a small “p” political campaign. I may differ somewhat from my noble friend Lord Hayward on this, so it is probably a good thing that he is not in his usual place.

Politics is not just about party politics. It is about the pernicious influence of political campaigning affecting—infecting—football, our national game. I remember the dark days of the 1970s, when a number of London clubs were perceived to be involved with the rise of the National Front and its racist politics. That gave rise, of course, to instances of football hooliganism. That was not a party-political issue, but it was a political issue. We do not want to go back to those dark days when, for instance, Millwall was associated with football hooliganism and some elements of racist behaviour.

I am not even sure that these initiatives work. The figures quoted a week or so ago in Committee show that 43% of players in the Premier League are Afro-Caribbean or Black African. They have achieved that through their skills, their abilities, their resilience and their physical fitness, not because they wore multi-coloured boot laces. UEFA already bans political statements such as these, but it has not been successful in implementing and enforcing such rules. The Government could really take a lead on that.

If the Government are so keen to have a regulator to enforce numerous other rules, many of which overlap UEFA’s rules, surely it is only right that the regulator impose rules on political statements and attempts to impose political views. My noble friend is quite right: we have seen recently the unpleasant behaviour of fans cheering on pro-Palestinian extremists; and of course, we have the ongoing debate, discussion and rivalry between Celtic and Rangers in Glasgow. That is very much a political issue.

Article 16 of UEFA’s own regulations, entitled “Order and Security at UEFA Competition Matches,” prohibits

“the use of gestures, words, objects, or any other means to transmit a provocative message that is not fit for a sports event, particularly provocative messages that are of political, ideological, religious or offensive nature.”

My own bugbear is bad language, particularly in front of children and young people. It is terrible, unacceptable, for grown men to be swearing and using really unpleasant language. However, do we really want to add into that mix the poisonous disputes of politics and political issues? I do not think we do.

Why do we not try to replicate, and perhaps enforce, UEFA’s rules in the Bill? We must remember how divisive such actions have been with supporters and fans. No one likes to be told what they should believe or how they should act. Fans themselves are diverse; they do not need to have these views forced down their throats—such as the preachy proselytising of Gary Lineker on any number of fashionable so-called progressive causes, or a pretentious new Jaguar advert which does not actually feature a Jaguar car.

Fans want to watch a football match and support a team; they do not want to be in the middle of a political bunfight. Fans turn up to watch their favourite team play, not to see a session of Parliament. For those reasons, the Minister should give consideration to this amendment. It would save us from further discord and conflict, which we do not need. Fundamentally, we have to trust the clubs themselves to do the right thing by their fans, their players and their boards and deliver good policies organically, rather than enforcing these kinds of initiatives, which have been proven not to work necessarily.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. What he said was exceptionally perceptive and wise. Look at Marcus Rashford, for example, who exploded on to the football scene in the UK in 2016, aged just 18, and scored on his Manchester United and England debuts, before becoming one of the country’s most exciting prospects. He became a household name at the same time and was recognised with an MBE for his work off the field, campaigning on child hunger, which he faced growing up in Wythenshawe in Manchester. He challenged the then Government in 2020, imploring Ministers to offer free meals to needy children in the school holidays.

The position for international sports federations—and, indeed, for clubs in this country—is to recognise that a balance needs to be struck, which is what my noble friend Lord Parkinson was arguing for. The balance to be struck in the Olympic movement is recognising that the IOC Athletes’ Commission opposes using athletes for political propaganda or campaigns, while providing the opportunity for them to exercise their views and opinions in official media settings or on social media accounts, which are so powerful. Surely this is not a subject for the regulator; this is a subject for clubs and the organisers of the competitions in which they play.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, on the potential harms of overregulation, goes to the heart of this whole Bill. What we are discussing in this Committee is not just the role of a new regulatory body but the future of English football in its totality. The Bill introduces a complete overhaul of the entire system of English football. It creates an entirely new organ of state apparatus, which will no doubt introduce copious amounts of onerous rules and regulations that clubs and leagues will be forced to comply with—in addition to the already stringent rules that the leagues impose on clubs themselves.

The Premier League has a handbook on its rules and governance procedures that is 768 pages long. Contained within this vast document are reams of rules, regulations and duties relating to matters such as club finances, tests for the prospective owners and directors of clubs, the disclosure of relevant interests by club officers, requirements for directors’ reports, and so on. Under rule E.22, the league has the power to impose financial penalties, and under E.37 it can deduct points from clubs which violate those rules. All the things that the Bill seeks to address are already covered by the Premier League.

It is not just the Premier League that does this. The EFL already has an established financial regulation department, aptly called the club financial reporting unit, which monitors and ensures financial regulations that EFL clubs must abide by. The EFL can and does hand out penalties to clubs that fail to meet its standards. For example, in May 2023 Wigan Athletic FC was deducted four points, beginning the 2023-24 season on minus eight. That was because the club failed to comply with the EFL’s requirements that the club deposit 125% of its forecast monthly wage bill into a designated club account. In fact, in that season there were 15 disciplinary and enforcement proceedings against clubs by the EFL for breaching its rules. That existing self-regulation has clearly been effective. Despite some high-profile cases of failure, the vast majority of the time the current regulations do serve their purpose.

Since 2012, when the financial rules were strengthened, only six Football League clubs have gone into administration and only seven football clubs have been completely liquidated since 1945—these are remarkable numbers. Compare that to the finance industry, whose insolvency figures dwarf that of football. In the 12 months to September 2024, there were approximately 500 insolvencies in the financial services sector alone, according to the Insolvency Service’s official statistics. We talk about breakaway leagues, and yet we must not forget that the European super league was stopped in its tracks by the fury of the fans and the power of the current league regulators of football. Is that not a clear example of the self-regulation of the sport working very effectively?

It is not clear at all that self-regulation has failed. I put it to your Lordships’ House that English football is one of the great success stories of private regulation. The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions. They have robust mechanisms for punishing those clubs that do not act appropriately, and the evidence of the success rate of football clubs proves that that has indeed worked. So I ask the Minister: why strangle the flourishing industry that is professional football?

I also point out that that seems to be the view of the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park noted at Second Reading, the Prime Minister himself said at the recent investment summit that

“the key test for me on regulation is … growth. Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to inhibit or unlock investment?”

He went on to say that

“where it is needlessly holding back the investment we need … we will get rid of it … we will make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does”.

There we have it. The Prime Minister himself understands that regulation and overregulation are fraught with economic danger. If he realises the risks of regulation inhibiting investment in that arena, does he also recognise the risks of regulation and overregulation within football?

It seems we are suffering from, as Harold Demsetz termed it, the Nirvana fallacy. This is where people look at private solutions and seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real. If discrepancies are found, they deduce that the real is inefficient. Their usual yet unfortunate response is that the only possible solution must surely be more regulation, more rules and more state diktats. But when we are considering whether this new regulator will actually improve outcomes for football, we cannot merely have reference to the supposed limitations of self-regulation. We must look at what this independent football regulator will become.

For that, it is particularly instructive to examine the recent report on the Financial Conduct Authority by the All-Party Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. That report has found that the body that regulates the entire financial sector in this country is

“an opaque and unaccountable organisation”

that is

“incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.”

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, stated that the FCA was “complacent, conflicted and captured”.

Among the litany of failures that the report identified is one that is typical of regulators of all stripes: the culture of the organisation. The APPG found that the entire professional culture of the regulator was defective, and that

“errors and inaction are too common”.

The APPG has lined up a vast array of whistleblowers, who have shed light on the problems that the FCA faces. That report is backed up by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which points out that the FCA has been able to decide its own burden of proof and then levy fines running into billions of pounds, and all without proper accountability.

I will not reiterate the entire report for the Committee, but I was not surprised at all when I read it. The behaviours and the failures as described by the APPG are all too common when it comes to state-run bodies that seek to enforce their rules on to other private entities. They are too often encouraged to go further than necessary—mission creep—and then do not act when they are supposed to.

Why would this regulator be any different? Why would the independent football regulator break the mould and challenge these hitherto proven truths? I see no reason why the IFR would improve football in this country in any way. Previous state-run regulators have clearly failed, and I have no doubt that this regulator would potentially do the same. I therefore feel it is an absolute bare minimum to require the independent football regulator to have due regard to these risks of overregulation, as enunciated in my amendment. That should not be a contentious point.

I hope that the Minister can give me cast-iron assurances that the regulator will be ever watchful of the damage that it could very well inflict on football clubs and leagues. I ask her to guarantee absolutely that the IFR would be a light-touch regulator and not delve into the minutiae of each club’s finances and everyday operations. I want her to reassure the House that not one penny of a club’s income will be wantonly redistributed to another club, which would be tantamount to asking one private business to give its own earned assets to another private business. As I described last week in Committee, that would be a moral hazard. This is a matter of profound principle that I simply cannot disregard.

For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that this is a poorly drafted Bill. It was poorly drafted under the previous Administration, and it is worse now—but at least we have the opportunity to address its worst deficiencies and improve it in Committee. I hope that the Government and this Committee understand the dangers of the path that we are heading down, and that all possible efforts should be taken to shift us away from the constant move towards more regulation and to protect our nation’s proudest cultural export from the ever-encroaching arms and dead hand of the state.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak for the first time today to support my noble friend’s amendment, because it is important to set this Bill in context.

I, for one, am not in favour of the financial regulation in the Bill. I have a degree of support for many of the amendments that came out of the Tracey Crouch review, and the propositions on fan-led change are reasonable for the Premier League to consider. What worries me is that we are introducing—the only country in the western world to do so—the imposition of regulatory control over one of our major sports. Even countries such as Russia and China, which have sports laws, recognise the overall authority of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and UEFA. They do so in recognition that they would not be able to host or to participate in their sporting events if they did not accept that overall authority.

On the first day in Committee, it was clear that the Government were not prepared to countenance putting the important rider in the legislation that we would do nothing that would threaten the role and playing of our clubs in European competitions and the World Cup—and, if we include women’s football, in the Olympic Games too, but that is a matter for a latter amendment. I am concerned about the imposition of regulatory control, being the only country that does this, because, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, this does not in any way generate growth. On the contrary, it proposes a whole series of measures that will restrict the competitiveness of the clubs in the Premier League, which, in turn, will mean that the waterfall of financial support that comes through to all professional football in this country is lessened, not increased.

I speak from the position of somebody who has had the privilege of being involved in sport for 30 or 40 years. When I was interested in becoming a Member of Parliament, I wanted to go to Moscow as an athlete for the Olympic Games. Had we legislated that the athletes could not go, I would not have been permitted to go. As it was, I led a campaign for the athletes to go against the boycott that my then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly supported. I felt that, under the autonomy and independence of sport and the vital principle that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be political pawns, it was right for the competitors, who wanted to go, to compete in Moscow, however much they may have opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as indeed I did. I recognised that to use sportsmen and sportswomen as the only way to demonstrate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was wrong, when people could buy tickets for Aeroflot in Piccadilly and go to watch the Bolshoi in Leningrad, and while trade and diplomatic relations continued.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 3, and in so doing will cover a number of other amendments in the group. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that I see this as a Bill that is almost uniquely all-party. Both Front Benches are in favour of it. One introduced it in another place, albeit for another purpose; the Prime Minister at that time talked about dropping a legislative bomb in the path of a possible breakaway super league. It has morphed quite considerably since that time to take into account many other issues.

In a sense, it is a Bill of two parts, and they have not always completely aligned. On the one hand, there is the role of the regulator with regard to the financial success or otherwise of English football. We will come to what that means in a moment, because it is fairly important. On the other hand, there are the many recommendations that came out of the fan-led review. The noble Baroness and I have both been around a long time; it is about 40 years since I started in the other place, and I have rarely seen a Bill with 340 amendments tabled from all sides of the House before we got to Committee. That is because many Members of your Lordships’ House are interested in the fan-led review; equally there are those—I echo the words that she has just said—who are concerned indeed that a regulator should not diminish or damage the success of the football league on which the waterfall payments depend. The more successful that Premier League is, the better for football and the better for everything that we are looking at.

My noble friend in sport—dare I say that?—the noble Lord, Lord Mann, looked just a moment or two ago as if he felt that spending too much time on the Bill was nearly as depressing as three minutes before the end of the Swansea-Leeds game at the weekend, and some noble Lords opposite look as though that is how they feel. However, at the weekend he was awakened by a wonderful goal that led to a 4-3 victory by Leeds, which we both celebrated.

I want to focus first on the important issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because it is important that we recognise and understand clearly what it stated. It said:

“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football.’ … One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State—albeit by the affirmative procedure”.


The report stated:

“‘English football’ means ‘all regulated clubs and specified competitions, taken together’. A regulated club means a club that operates a relevant team. A relevant team means a team that is entered into, is a member of, or participates in a specified competition. A specified competition means a competition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.


That means that the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill that we are debating in this critical Committee. The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of “specified competition”. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear. The report goes on to conclude with a recommendation that

“the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill. Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.

My noble friend who has just spoken from the Back Benches is also aware that, as we have discussed, there is a question of hybridity about the Bill. When the Minister comes to respond to this set of amendments, I would be grateful if she could say, first, what she intends to do to give clarity to the issue of English football and what it means in the context of this legislation and, secondly, answer the question on hybridity. Until we have answers to those two questions, we have a number of challenges. I think there is widespread agreement across both sides of this House that there should not be a whole series of major decisions left to secondary legislation. They should be in the Bill and we should be considering them in detail as we progress.

On the question of sustainability, which is key to this series of amendments and the first part of this legislation on the role of the regulator, I hope that Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude commands widespread agreement across the House. It provides that football needs to continue

“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality … to attract significant domestic and foreign investment …. to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues, domestic and international broadcasting agreements, and asset and enterprise values”

and continue

“to produce industry-led agreements on the distribution of revenues”.

Capital will travel overseas if that is not the case. Fans will benefit from ensuring that they and their clubs see success in English football, and that success is driven by a successful Premier League.

We can debate at length how much money flows through to the rest of English football but, unquestionably, the more successful the Premier League is, the better for the fans and better for the clubs that should benefit from that. The regulator is appointed in part to opine on that relationship, so it is critically important that the regulator takes into account the success of the Premier League and of English football. Indeed, the Prime Minister is very much on that page as well. He has recently pledged to get rid of regulation: his view is that he would

“do everything in my power to galvanise growth including getting rid of regulation that needlessly holds back investment”.

So we need to explore in detail the powers of the regulator and what it is going to do—and immediately, that is a highly complex area of regulation.

The regulator that we are appointing here also has to work alongside the regulations put in place by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and FIFA. We have already seen what happened when UEFA came forward and said, “We don’t like one of the powers that you’re giving to the regulator”. The Government immediately said, “You’ve told us to jump—how high? We’ll remove that from the Bill”. We therefore have a highly complex tapestry of regulation and are adding significant further regulation to that. I am going to look, in further deliberations of this Committee, at how we align the work of the regulator to the UEFA financial fair play regulations.

The point that the Minister made in Committee was really about the number of Premier League clubs that have been in trouble over the years. She kindly referenced and name-checked my comment in her letter, which we have very much appreciated today. She said:

“The Noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referenced there having been ‘only seven liquidations since 1945’. For the fans and communities who bore the brunt of those failures, that is seven too many. There have also been over 60 instances of professional clubs entering administration since 1992”.


Yes, I agree that there have been seven liquidations since 1945 and seven too many, but that is nothing like the number of liquidations and insolvencies we see in society at any given time. The numbers for the country at large are substantially greater and football has been highly successful. Only last year, something like 25,158 companies went into liquidation in the country at large, with 2,827 of those being compulsory liquidations.

So I think that the success of English football has been underestimated by the Minister and by those have been compiling the arguments that, in some sense, we should not on the face of the Bill recognise the importance of growth, financial success and financial sustainability, which are at the core of the amendment that I have tabled.

With those initial comments, I will just add one other very important point for the consideration of the Committee. All the indications are that in France, which has far greater regulation, and in Germany, which has much greater regulation as well, there is no evidence that that regulation has forestalled the insolvency of some of the clubs made insolvent under those two regulatory bodies. On the contrary, it is not the regulation that stops insolvency after all. I am very happy to give way to the Minister on this. If there is a club that seems to be in financial trouble, what will the regulator do about it? At what stage will he or she intervene? At what stage will they therefore state whatever steps they feel should be taken at that point?

That is not on the face of the Bill because, no doubt, it is the Minister’s view that that should be left to regulation and it is up to the regulator. But the reality is that you appoint a regulator only if you really believe there is a serious problem and you know exactly what that regulator would do in any given circumstance. That has not been the case in either France or Germany, which are the two major case studies relevant to us at this stage. So I would echo the points that have been made. We need to make sure on face of the Bill that the regulator recognises that football should be as successful financially as possible, and that nothing the regulator does should inhibit the success and growth of the financial success of football. With those comments, I am supportive of both my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment and, clearly, my own.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in Committee on the Bill, and obviously at Second Reading as well. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her helpful and comprehensive letter today, which also referenced my reference to Woolworths. I think she might have misunderstood what I was saying, but we will let that pass.

I will focus specifically on Clause 1, which is the centre of this Bill: it is the cause, the purpose and the raison d’être of this Bill. As I mentioned at Second Reading, if you cannot adequately identify what the problem is that you are seeking to solve, you are very unlikely to reach an efficacious solution. This Bill—this Act, assuming it gets Royal Assent at some point—will be a living document. It will be the Government, the state, via a large regulator with unique powers, intervening in what hitherto has been a very successful commercial activity—perhaps one of the most successful commercial and business activities in the whole of our country, and certainly one that is globally very well regarded.

Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to look seriously at the excellent amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and to take on board some of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward. The odd thing is that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it ignores some of the key points made in the impact assessment. The first page of the impact assessment contains a commitment to “improve financial sustainability”, which is in my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment. However, in the Bill the wording is quite opaque and that wording does not appear.

Equally, focusing narrowly on Clause 1—which is the reason the Bill is coming to this House—I note that it seems odd that the local community is not defined in primary legislation. Ministers will say, “That’s because we need the leeway to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation and statutory instruments for unusual circumstances”. That is not an ignoble or unfair interpretation, but it is a difficult proposition to put to this Committee when we have to judge what is in front of us and not what might happen in the future in a very complex market model. So that omission is still problematic, which is why I repeat it from Second Reading. The other issue is that clubs’ fans are not defined definitively in the Bill, probably for the same reason.