Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Markham

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the proposition that Clauses 61 to 64 should stand part of the Bill and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I will also speak to my Amendment 310, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who unfortunately cannot be with us today. I appreciate that there is quite a bit of overlap here with the debate we have just had, so I will try to keep this concise.

For me, the main thing about all of this is, what are we trying to solve here? We all agree that we have a very successful league—the most successful in the world. I love the statistic that 40% of the best players play in it. I would say that even more of the best managers are there when you look at it.

I looked up the solidarity payments and compared the 14% that the Premier League pays with the UEFA figure—in terms of the solidarity payments it pays to clubs not in the European competition but in the leagues —which is 5%. So we have a situation whereby the Premier League is paying almost three times the amount, creating a very successful situation. Of course, a lot of the reason for that is because it realises there is a great degree of fluidity, as per the statistic that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned earlier and which I have mentioned previously. The fluidity means that over 50% of the 92 clubs at some stage have been in the Premier League, and by definition have fallen out again. So, it is in all of their interests to make sure that the whole structure of football is successful. The fact that the Premier League pays 14% in solidarity payments, far more than UEFA and other leagues, shows all of that.

The statement has been made that we need to step in here as a regulator because there has not been agreement for years. As soon as it was known that a regulator was going to come on to the pitch, so to speak, it is not surprising that you do not get an agreement at that point. If I was the English football league in that, it would be entirely logical to think, “Hang on a moment, if a regulator comes in with powers in this space, that is going to give me more leverage” So, clearly, under that circumstance, it is rational for me to hang on because I am likely to get a better deal under that situation. I cannot get a worse deal than the one the Premier League has already suggested, so why not hang on for the regulator to come into the picture? So, to my mind, it is not surprising that we have not had an agreement as a result. It is actually because of the offer of the regulator that this has not happened.

So my main question about all of this is, what are we trying to solve here? It is not clear to me that there is a problem. In fact, I would suggest the opposite. I do not believe that this is the time to give unprecedented powers to a regulator which no other regulator in the country has, as I mentioned before. The regulator’s only criteria are to promote the financial soundness, financial resilience and heritage of English football. There is nothing else: nothing to do with its success, its audience appeal or the rights money it gets in, just those very narrow objectives. To fulfil those, it is always going to look to the mechanism which redistributes the most amount of money, because those are the narrow criteria it has been given. So I believe that that really gives us a danger of setting in motion a set of unintended consequences.

Given that I accept that there is a small chance those points will not be agreed by the Minister, I will move on to the other amendments we have added. My Amendment 310 states that, when making a determination under Clause 62, to which a final proposal to accept is made, the expert panel must have due regard for Section 7(2), which establishes the negative outcomes that the regulator must take all efforts to avoid. I must say that in all of this I actually prefer the amendments made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, to any of these following ones that we put down. I am mentioning them in terms of completeness, but my first choice is that the regulator does not have the powers to redistribute at all. If it does, my second choice is that it adopts an approach similar to the one set out by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, which is a very well thought through process. I will speak to all of my amendments with that context in mind.

As I said, Amendment 310 tries to make sure that the expert panel takes into account the unintended consequences set out in Section 7(2), making sure that the expert panel has a duty to consider the impact on the leagues and on the competitiveness of English football, which is what makes it exciting and the best in the world.

I also support Amendment 304 in the name of my noble friend Lady Brady, which deals with precisely the issues that have been identified: the binary nature of the final proposals process. My noble friend’s amendment is simple and very reasonable. It permits the committee of the expert panel to include elements of both final proposals when making a distribution order. This will prevent the regulator simply choosing one proposal and ignoring the other, thereby achieving a real compromise while at the same time ensuring that the regulator is not imposing its will on the competition organisers. Amendment 304 seeks to strike a balance and better meets the aims set out in the Minister’s letter of incentivising compromise. I urge the Government to support these amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments, but the noble Lord, Lord Markham, has prompted me to do so. He said just now that he does not think the Bill or a regulator are necessary because his aim is— I am quoting him; I hope he thinks I am doing so accurately—“to make sure that the whole structure of football is”, and remains, “successful”.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Noble Lords will remember that, in earlier debates, I said that there are many good things that the regulator should be set up to do, so I agree with that. The MK Dons is a very good example. The “fit and proper persons” test and the breakaway league are both very positive reasons to have it. An earlier proposal was that every club should have two non-executive independent directors, which, from memory —I cannot quite remember—had widespread support. All those sorts of things are good; it is the financial redistribution of the moneys that I believe is a step too far.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but I do not thank him for mentioning MK Dons, which, as a supporter of AFC Wimbledon, strikes a bit of a raw nerve with me. But I understand the point he was making.

I come back to the noble Lord’s argument about making sure that the whole structure is “successful”—yes, I want that. As a supporter of a club in League Two, I want to make sure that more of the money available in the game filters downwards. I do not even want it to be contained within the Championship; I believe that the Championship has a disproportionate amount of the revenues that come from the Premier League.

I do not believe in parachute payments. All the money, including the parachute payments, should be spread throughout the three divisions below the Premier League—I have argued that before in your Lordships’ Committee in earlier debates. We are told that clubs are disincentivised to get promoted to the Premier League if they cannot have some guarantee. But, from memory, I can think of some clubs who are in the Premier League for the first time and have established themselves after several years—Brentford and Brighton are obvious examples—without having parachute payments to get there. Bournemouth have been in for some time; although they dropped out for a season, they came back again. For this season, somebody mentioned Nottingham Forest, who are second place; they have been in the Premier League for 25 years or so. Ipswich have made it after a similar gap.

I do not think that the parachute payments are anywhere near as essential as has been suggested. However, the money used for parachute payments, if it is spread more equitably, particularly down to League One and League Two to a greater degree, would enable the structure of English football to be successful in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, suggested.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to Brighton and Brentford. I have spoken to the chair of Brentford and the CEO of Brighton. Both say that without the parachute payments—that safety net—they would never have invested in the players when they got promoted. If they were relegated without the parachute payments, they would have faced real financial difficulty. So it was the safety net of the parachute payments that gave them the confidence to invest in players, which then allowed them to have a strong enough team to stay up. I think that they would argue—in fact, they have argued this; it was in the letter that I circulated from the Brentford chairman—that the parachute payments were fundamental to their success in the Premier League.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The noble Lord is now making a distinction between solidarity and paternalism.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That is precisely the point of this debate. I think everyone agrees that the Premier League should be paying money over, no one more than the Premier League itself. The whole question is whether it needs a regulator to enforce a set number. As my noble friend Lady Brady said, the Premier League is more generous than other leagues. As my figures showed, the Premier League pays over 14%, which is almost three times the level that UEFA pays over in its version of solidarity payments. The real point of the debate is whether we really need a regulator to determine it.

We have had a good debate on parachute payments. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made a particular point about Brighton and how it did not need them. It is a little known fact that that a job I never got, although I was through to the final round, was being CEO of Brighton many moons ago, when it was a Championship team and was pressing for the Premier League. I recall very well a conversation with Tony Bloom when he was interviewing me for that job. I still think he is a brilliant chair, and I cannot argue against Paul Barber, the CEO; given how good he is, I cannot deny that he chose the right candidate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that this will be very simple and quick. All we are trying to do here is prevent the possibility of mid-season disruptions brought about by the implementation of the licensing regime. Clause 99 states that Part 3 will come into force on a day that the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. The licensing regime therefore could be implemented at any date; there is no specification of when this should come into force. We want to ensure that, when the licensing regime is implemented, there should be as little disruption as possible.

The intention of this amendment, therefore, is to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot apply the licensing regime in the middle of a season. My concern is that the licensing requirements in Part 3 could be quite extensive. The information that clubs will have to provide to the regulator to obtain their licence is not only vast but, at this stage, quite unknown. Of course, the regulator will start to work on publishing its rules and requirements for the licensing regime, although we do not know when because the Bill does not include a timeline for the regulator to do so. However, I would hazard a guess that clubs will have to compile a large volume of information and documentation.

We know the requirements that are in the Bill at this stage. Clubs will have to submit a financial plan, a corporate governance statement, an annual declaration, and a personnel statement. They will have to ensure that they have the appropriate financial and non-financial resources, and meet the fan engagement threshold. If a club cannot comply with these requirements and therefore cannot obtain a licence—I am thinking of the smallest clubs in the National League, with just a few employees—then that club would have to cease operating teams in specific competitions.

If the regulations to implement the licences came in the middle of a season then a club could find itself in the position of having to drop out of the league half way through. The disruption that this could cause would obviously be enormous—not to mention the financial ramifications of such an event. By stating that the Secretary of State may implement operating licences only at the end of a football season, the potential for the disruption I have outlined would be significantly reduced. This safeguard is therefore required to ensure that the licensing regime, when it comes into force, causes less disruption than could otherwise be the case.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The noble Lord may be surprised and not too pleased to hear that I support this amendment. It makes sense not to have in-season changes. This message needs to be got through to some Premier League clubs, including West Ham—I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to reply. Some clubs change their ticketing arrangements in the middle of a season, shutting out some fans—particularly children and seniors—from getting cut-priced tickets. This is apparently in pursuit of greater income. Manchester United are the main culprits. I understand that a group of fans from various clubs has come together to protest at these changes. It is wrong for this to happen in season, which is why it would be sensible for the Bill to incorporate an amendment similar to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, has just moved.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Markham

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I have got up a number of times today to say that a particular amendment is not controversial and I hope it will be an easy one for the Minister to agree to. I have not been correct yet, because the Minister has not agreed to any, but I think that with this one I am on to a good thing. Everything that I am trying to do here is to make sure that what is written down in the Bill really does happen.

To take the exact wording on the regulator’s regulatory principles, in a number of places it says that it “should” use its resources

“in the most efficient, expedient and economic way”.

We are saying no, it must. It “should”, as far as is reasonably practicable,

“co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”

with clubs, owners and competition organisers. Again, we are saying no, it must. There can be lots of good intentions, and lots of times when you can say that someone should do something. My mum told me that I should eat my greens. I cannot say that I always did. In all these instances, it is about making sure that the wording that the Minister and her team put in the Bill means that things really do happen.

Again, we suggest that the regulator “must” act in a way that

“recognises the specific context of football and the fact that clubs are subject to rules, requirements and restrictions”;

it “must” act consistently,

“recognising the differences between clubs and competitions and the differences between the circumstances affecting clubs”;

it “must” act in a way that

“recognises the responsibilities of owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs in relation to the requirements placed on clubs under or by virtue of this Act”;

and it “must” act

“as transparently as reasonably practicable”.

Again, we are just making sure that everything that the Minister has put down by way of the wording of Bill must happen, not just should happen. I think, this time, I am backing up exactly what the Minister would like to see happen. There are also a couple of other sensible amendments from others that fans should be consulted and engaged with in all this, which I also hope would get a resounding yes from the Minister. I look forward to hearing her response in terms of making sure that what she would like to happen really does happen. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 78, and I would like to begin with a quote, that

“there is no reference to players as a group the regulator should co-operate with … There is not a single mention of players, even though they are the main employment group within the regulated clubs. This means that the decisions that the regulator makes could have a tangible impact on their employment. For example, if the regulator exercises its powers to withdraw approval for a competition or refuses a licence to a club owner, there would be a direct consequence on the contracts of and conditions for players … Just as with fans, the professional game could not exist without players, so will the Minister explain why players are not mentioned in this part or elsewhere in the Bill?”—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 16/5/24; col. 129.]

Those are the words of the then shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock MP, on 16 May, when the original version of this Bill was in Committee in another place. For that reason, I know that I am pushing at an open door here, because Stephanie Peacock is of course now the Minister for Sport.

As shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock not only robustly argued in favour of her amendment but then forced the matter to a vote, which, as is always the case with opposition parties in Committee in the other place, was lost. Therefore, it was both surprising and disappointing to myself and a number of others to find that this Bill—amended only in minor ways from the Tory Bill—did not include mention of players. Ms Peacock’s amendment in May this year included five categories of people and organisations to be added to Clause 8. I have taken out four of those so as to focus on much the most important: namely, the players.

Jock Stein, one of the greatest managers ever, once said, “Football without fans is nothing”. He was right, of course. As evidenced in 2020 during the pandemic, all games at the top level in England were played behind closed doors, and I defy anyone to say it was worth the effort. We all know it was driven shamelessly by the financial aspect of it, but as an experience it was, exactly as Mr Stein said, nothing.

Important as fans are—I am very much one of them—it was shown to be possible to play matches without them. Try doing the same without players. The players are not simply another stakeholder group in football, and it is fatuous, not to say insulting, that they should be categorised as such. Decisions made by the regulator have the potential directly to impact their careers and their contracts, as Stephanie Peacock said. It should not be left up to the regulator to decide whether they need to engage with them or not. In essence, this is, I believe, an employee relations issue rather than a football issue, as is the need for players to be viewed as distinct from other stakeholder groups.

The PFA—Professional Footballers’ Association—represents a very high proportion of the professional players in the Premier League and the English Football League. You might think that young men earning millions of pounds each season would not feel the need to join a trade union. You might, but according to the PFA, membership among Premier League players is close to 100%. Based on my experience as a full-time trade union official, that is remarkable in any sector of employment. But for such wealthy individuals to have calculated that there is benefit to them in becoming part of a union and working collectively, and having people work on their behalf, is astonishing. To suggest that players and their trade union should not be a group of people that the regulator should—to quote Clause 8—“proactively and constructively engage” with is frankly a nonsense.

The absence of players and their representatives constitutes a clear and obvious lacuna in this Bill so, with respect, I say to my noble friend, please sort it.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Markham

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House for the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to make it clear now whether he has not completed his remarks, in which case it would be appropriate for the noble Lord to wait a moment, or if he has sat down.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have had a good debate. When the Minister replies, can she explain why it is not felt appropriate to have these measures of success to get the overall financial wealth of the game? I will now sit down.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I think the noble Lord misunderstands what I meant by competitive. It is not just which teams can win the Premier League overall and, as the noble Baroness showed, more teams can win here than anywhere else. It is the competitiveness of every single game, because the value is that you have so many games that people all around the world want to pay to watch, so they are interested in watching all the games. Brentford might not win the league, but they know they are going to be competitive against Man City and Liverpool and Arsenal, and they are the games that people want to watch. When we talk about competitiveness, it means that every single game is competitive and that is what the viewership wants to see, and drives the value up of the rights.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

That point was made earlier. I would not say every game is competitive, but I take the noble Lord’s point. I do not want to say any more at this stage because it is important that we get some clarity on how we go forward after this initial debate, because there are many important sections of the Bill that we need to look at in detail. The regulator will have a role, and we have to use this to make sure that it is absolutely clear. Some of the issues raised by noble Lords are legitimate, and until we can have our debates on each of these, we cannot quite see what shape this Bill and the role of the regulator will have. I thank noble Lords for the points made, and I think there are a lot of issues that we will follow up.