Football Governance Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Anna Firth and Ian Byrne

Committee stage
Thursday 16th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Firth]

Q There is no equivalent of the Professional Footballers’ Association for the National League. Will the existence of the regulator and it having to consult other relevant stakeholder groups, for the National League, mean that players get slightly more consultation than otherwise?

Ben Wright: With the National League, the PFA has members who are constituted as current members of the Premier League, EFL and the WSL, then we have former members—approximately 80% of players in the National League are former PFA members, so they retain all that access and can come to us for support. At the moment, it is not constituted as a professional league. That may change and it might be that the regulator has a role in changing that, because it brings it closer to the EFL and the Premier League. But that is always something we will look at closely, ultimately.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

Q Thanks for the evidence so far, Ben. Some objectives of the IFR will be the financial soundness of regulated clubs and promoting and protecting the resilience of English football. How does the £410 million paid out to agents go with that? What is the PFA’s take on the payments to agents?

Ben Wright: In terms of regulation of agent payments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

Q On the strength of the fan engagement element, Tim, you have touched on what is happening now. We know that some fan advisory boards are already getting swamped by club employees and then they become toothless, which is a real worry regarding what we do, going forward. Alistair, you have touched on your good relationship with West Brom. That could change; those people could go. So how do we ensure that we have provided for longevity and the teeth that are needed for fan independence? What could that look like? And would you all support an independent voice on the IFR board? I think that is really important. We have not touched on it. I think it needs to happen as well. That is just my opinion.

Tim Payton: I always think independence is good and important, so I assume the IFR board will have INEDs in its process. I think you asked how we make the fan engagement processes better. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that a supporter trust must have the ability to go to the IFR and say that it does not think that the consultation has been effective. To do that it probably needs a checklist or a process of consultation to have been set out so that it can say, “This has not been followed”. That takes you back—it is starting to sound a little bit repetitive—to a supporter impact assessment or a regulatory impact assessment for all consultation issues.

Alistair Jones: You are right. We cannot guarantee that we will have constant and good communication with our football club—we did not for eight years, for instance. The IFR needs to put procedures and processes in place to address any lack of meaningful communication with the football club. That needs to be addressed in the Bill as well.

Sarah Turner: I agree. Fans are the best early warning signal of anything going wrong, so any independent body that you can go to will always be useful.

Alistair Jones: At the end of the day, if you have 12,000 people marching on a football stadium, it is too late. We need action before that. That is something that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

[Anna Firth]

Q Using a football stadium as collateral for large loans is a complex issue. Owners see it as a valid practice to raise capital, but, as has happened, particularly in Southend and at West Bromwich Albion, that capital then fails to materialise and be directed into the football operation. What more can the regulator do to prevent those sorts of situations happening?

Alistair Jones: From the point of view of West Brom, it fell upon Albion fans and Shareholders for Albion to get an asset of community value to try to protect the stadium. It was probably not the all-seeing answer that we hoped it would be, but again, that was reliant on us.

To put it simply, we need better governance. Our previous owner borrowed money from West Bromwich Albion to put into another business portfolio. He could do that without any governance at all. That was never paid back, even though he promised it three times. It was finally paid back by our new owner last month. There must be procedures in place where that can be stopped. If you have money from broadcast revenue, or wherever the money has come from from your football club, and you are using it for other areas of your business portfolios, that should be stopped and not allowed.

Sarah Turner: We would also like the other assets protected, such as the training grounds. We cannot get an ACV on our training ground because it is not a public property, but we think that should be protected in some other way so that it is for the use of the football club.