Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to the amendments in this group, I want to address the accusation from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that West Ham United has put its season ticket prices up mid-season. That is categorically untrue. We have the cheapest adult season ticket in the league, at £345. Since we moved into the London stadium, we have sold 35,000 season tickets for £99 to juniors. We have two “kids for a quid” games every year in the Premier League at the club. We are more than doing our bit.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

If I have got that wrong, I unequivocally apologise to the noble Baroness. I was reading an article about football supporters, including of West Ham, who were protesting about changes to season tickets. Maybe it is not within this season but next season, but there were fairly significant changes being put forward, and the argument was that children were not being given cheaper prices, which will stop them becoming regular fans at football matches. If what I said was wrong, I apologise.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I accept the noble Lord’s apology.

The hour is late, but as we debate this idea of a sunset clause, we should pause and reflect on what is truly at stake. We are all here during extra time because all of us—bar one, I think—love football. It is a cultural touchstone, an economic powerhouse and a source of immense national pride. At its best, football connects communities, inspires individuals and projects the best of Britain to the world.

The Premier League is only one part of English football. I operated in the EFL system for many years and know that it is hugely important to our pyramid, as is the National League. But the Premier League is special for our country: with its global reach, this fizzing, vibrant competition has an extraordinary ability to draw interest, investment and innovation into the game. It not only powers the football pyramid but supports £8 billion in gross value added to the economy, contributes over £4 billion annually to the Exchequer and supports more than 90,000 jobs. The Premier League’s influence extends far beyond the pitch, creating an affinity for the UK and showcasing our ability to create a product that the world wants to watch.

We all know the background and the well-made case for some sort of regulatory intervention, but with this particular Bill we are now at a crossroads. I am passionate about this and live it every day, so I can see the risks very clearly. But I also know that this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation with aims that we can all support. The reason we have been so forensic and questioning during Committee is that it genuinely has the potential to inadvertently damage the structures that have made English football the envy of the world. We are not imagining these deficiencies in the Bill, or the risks that could play out. This is why I am interested in the idea of assessing whether this legislation and the IFR have achieved their goals or inadvertently harmed the game we all love.

The Government have rightly made economic growth their overriding priority. In a time of global economic turbulence and domestic fiscal and productivity challenges, it is vital that we protect and nurture the UK’s most successful industries. Football is clearly one of these: a global export that not only generates revenue but enhances Britain’s soft power and investor appetite for the UK on the world stage. It is against this backdrop that I must express surprise at the puzzling reluctance so far of the Government to listen to the concerns we have been expressing.

At a time when the Prime Minister has asked all regulators to focus on growth—and has also apparently asked Ministers to cancel all anti-growth measures—here we are, about to create a regulator that has no growth duties or objectives. We even read in the newspapers that the Chancellor has told regulators this week that they need to go further and faster in stripping back unnecessary rules and creating an environment where companies can take risks.

But this new regulator will be principally charged with risk reduction and, effectively, a new form of taxation on specifically one part of football, the Premier League. This is a mandate that seems inherently restrictive, redistributive and therefore anti-growth. The signal this will send to global investors could be troubling. If we overreach in regulating one of the UK’s greatest success stories, what might that say about our ability to protect and nurture other industries?

Poorly executed regulation would not just chill investment in football; it would ripple out into broader perceptions of the UK as a place to do business. A sunset clause is an interesting idea. It is clearly important that we do not undermine the regulator from the get-go. We all want this to work. But it is important that an appropriate review and accountability mechanism is found, so that a future Government can assess whether this Bill is delivering the sustainability it promises or whether it is in fact creating regulatory uncertainty and systematic risk, and damaging investment—in which case, we would want to see urgent remedial action.

As I have said this evening, the Premier League and its clubs are not opposed to change. What we do ask, though, is for change to be thoughtful, measured and informed by the realities of what makes football so successful. This Bill has the potential to do some good, but it also carries significant risks that, I say to the Minister, deserve to be engaged with seriously and constructively.

Today, the Premier League is competing not only with domestic leagues but international competitions, other global events and new forms of entertainment in what is a rapidly changing media industry. The UK has created something so special in the Premier League. We should not stifle our ability to adapt in order to deal with these new threats. We should not be complacent when it would be so easy to be knocked off course. We should not gamble that the Premier League is now an unstoppable juggernaut, immune to even the unintended consequences of its own Government’s actions. Empires rise, but they also fall.

It has been said that the Premier League has become the goose that is laying English football’s golden egg. I would encourage all noble Lords to think about it that way, rather than as a cow to be milked or a magic money tree to be shaken. Above all, we should look after it. We should nurture it. Dare I say that perhaps we should even think about how we can help it, not hurt it? We should work together to ensures that it continues to be so successful. To do so, it is obvious that we need some sensible changes to this Bill, and I sincerely hope we can achieve them together as we move towards Report.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared on the register. I support Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, especially proposed new Clause 1(3)(f). This would set a clear success metric for the IFR that it should incentivise

“industry-led agreements on the distribution of”

the Premier League’s broadcast revenue. This is absolutely critical for the future collective success of the football industry.

We already know that UEFA has written an alarming letter to the Government which said, among other things:

“Mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”


and

“would … prevent amicable solutions being found”.

This is why UEFA says that the backstop should be “carefully reconsidered”. I understand and respect that this is what Ministers genuinely believe they have done in relation to the backstop powers, which we will discuss in much greater detail later. However, I profoundly disagree that the backstop provides any such incentives.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that earlier this year Dame Tracey Crouch, the chair of the fan-led review, called the backstop powers “nuclear … coding” never to be reached for. However, the Football League chair disagreed, and said he fully intends to use the mechanism and that it is entirely logical. To extend the analogy, in the Bill the Government are doling out nuclear weapons to football authorities. They are doing so in the belief that these weapons will somehow create space for diplomacy. However, the evidence is already very clear. In the real world, one side is ready to press the button and launch its missiles. The powers clearly do not place the incentives in the right place. If they did, we would already have a new agreement and the football bodies would not have been driven so far apart.

This is why I have tabled amendments to rebalance the backstop, so it can create proper incentives and space for good-faith negotiations and diplomacy. The fact that the Bill has led one party to believe it can launch a successful first strike is proof that these powers have manifestly failed in their purpose already. That is why I am so supportive of my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I have a couple of questions for the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but first, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said that the amendments provide clear metrics. I do not think they do; they are very subjective, particularly Amendment 12. What is

“globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”?

Regarding the phrase

“continues to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”,

what is “significant”? I do not think it is helpful to include words like that.

For what it is worth—my noble friend the Minister probably will not like this—I think paragraphs (e) and (f) of Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, make sense, because we can clearly see what they mean. I would say the same of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 7 is rather rambling and unclear and is not suitable for inclusion the Bill. We need something clear that can be measured, rather than words like “substantial”, which could mean anything or nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

It is absolutely worrying. These countries have the right to do what they like with their money, but we have a right to say, “I don’t really wish to engage with that”, because we become tainted if we do that to an unlimited extent. That is a slightly different argument from that of playing competitive matches in other countries. That surely is something that we all agree would be bad for the future of English football. There are plenty of ways of bringing money in from all sources—if clubs want to do that, it is up to them—but playing matches outwith this country is surely not where we want to go.

That impacts on the whole question of fans and my amendment, which is: what is a fan? I do not know whether my amendment is the way we should define it, but I think it is the narrowest definition of a fan that I have heard so far in relation to this Bill. How do you define the Liverpool fan in San Diego? What does she or she have to say about what is happening in the Premier League? They may watch it on television and that is fine. They may express a very definite preference for one club, and they are entitled to do so. But they do not have a vested interest in the club in the way that someone who pays their money to go and see a match does.

I will repeat the point that I made last week. Some people are unable to afford the price of tickets, particularly in the Premier League—although I have to say in all honesty that I bought a theatre ticket last week, which cannot really be equated with the cost of a Premier League football ticket. But the other question is whether some people are physically unable to go. It may be somebody who has been going since they were 10 years old; they reach the age of 70 and find they are no longer able to go. I would sympathise with that.

However, we have been talking in the Bill about the regulator ensuring consultation with fans. You cannot consult somebody if you do not know where he or she lives. There has to be a list somewhere of the people you are going to consult. You cannot just open it up online and say, “Anybody with an interest, let us have your view by email”. That is not consulting—or at least consulting properly. So people who have bought into the club by having a season ticket: that is a reasonable way of saying, “These are the only fans we can genuinely define”. You can put them in a box and say, when it comes to consultation, “That’s the group of people because they have put their names in”.

They do not go to every match, of course. I often laugh when I read the football results and they show the attendance. I do not mean any disrespect to Arsenal, but I will use them as an example. They are going rather well at the moment, but they were not going well five years ago in the latter days of the Arsène Wenger period. You would see a match the Emirates Stadium and it was perfectly clear that there were almost as many empty seats as filled seats, yet the next day the papers would say the attendance was 100 short of capacity. That means the club is saying, “Ah, now, but we’ve sold those seats. Season ticket holders have bought them but they’re not very happy at the moment so they haven’t come”. My argument is, “Okay, that’s fine, but the key to the attendance is the word ‘attend’. If people don’t go, there’s not an attendance”. Still, the point is that these people have made a financial commitment to the club, and that is a basis on which to go forward.

That is why I disagree with the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 17 from the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, which refers to those

“who have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.

That is so vague; we have to have some way of pinning it down. If there is a better way of doing that than through season ticket holders, I am open to that suggestion and I will consider it. But, until then, I believe that is the only basis on which we can do it. I also want to see it in the Bill.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

Suppose we base it on season ticket holders. If you take a club such as Bournemouth, whose capacity is 11,000-ish, it will probably have 4,000 season ticket holders—but they would not represent all the views of every Bournemouth supporter in the whole world.

In relation to supporters around the world, if a supporter gets on a plane from Sweden to watch Bournemouth play, are they a supporter or not? Some 5% of inbound flights to the UK involve taking in a Premier League game—I mean, the Premier League could run a successful airline. Putting that point to one side, though, it would be impossible for a regulator to try to rank supporters of the club in order of priority. We all know, respect and love our season ticket holders, but not everyone is lucky enough to get a season ticket—particularly if you are a Bournemouth supporter, because the capacity is only 11,000-odd.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s last point, I do not want the regulator to be doing this. That is why I want it in the Bill. This is not an issue where there can be any subjectivity. There has to be something tight.

Bournemouth may have season ticket holders in Sweden, I do not know, and if they come, they come. If they do not come, though, they are still a season ticket holder, so they are entitled to be consulted. But, if there is no financial commitment, I just do not understand how you can possibly meaningfully take the opinion of someone who just says, “Yeah, I’ve been at a couple of Liverpool games, I always watch them on TV and I’ve bought a scarf”. I am open to suggestions as to how we might pin this down better, but pin it down in the Bill we must.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Baroness Brady

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he had finished. On success, which the two noble Lords that I mentioned talked about, the whole question seems to me to be totally subjective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, what is success for one club is not success for another. I suggest that for at least half the clubs in the Premier League, success is not being relegated rather than winning anything.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

Just to clarify, I said that what sustainability is for one club is different from what it is for another, not success.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

That is interesting. Someone in the debate said that we should have financial sustainability and success. I think that in this setting the two, if not interchangeable, mean very similar things.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others, talked about the competitiveness and the jeopardy. As you can hear, although I am an AFC Wimbledon season ticket holder, I do not come from south London. When I lived in Scotland, my club was Dundee United. They were Scottish champions in 1983. Next season, Aberdeen were Scottish champions. There has been no team but Rangers or Celtic as Scottish champions in the 40 years since. That is a low bar, perhaps, but in fact only two clubs have won the Premier League more than twice in the 32 years of its existence. It is all very well to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, did, about Bournemouth beating Manchester City. Yes, it is always possible, but a club such as Bournemouth could never aspire to winning the Premier League. Only a very small number of clubs could realistically—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

We will have to see how that comes out in debate. I am not quite sure what the import of that amendment is. That is one of the issues about the role of the regulator. Noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, are seeking to give him or her greater powers or influence than intended in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said at one point that we do not need a regulator because nothing is wrong. There is something wrong, because the Premier League and the English Football League have been unable to reach agreement on the disbursement of the funds from the top level to levels below. That is one of the problems in the system at the moment.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

There is a deal in place agreed by all parties on how funds are distributed; 16% or £1.6 billion is distributed. It is also important to note that the Premier League has more title winners in the last 15 seasons than La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A, and the fewest number of titles won by one club than any other top European league over the same period, which shows it is competitive. That is why it is the best league in the world and the most valuable, and that is what we have to protect, because without that broadcast revenue the whole pyramid suffers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I know the noble Baroness has experience with one of the major Premier League clubs but, in a sense, she has made my argument for me. The other leagues are less competitive, but I am just saying that if only four clubs can win the championship twice in 32 years, it is not spread very wide, and I would like to see it spread more widely, as many other people would—no doubt including those at her own club.