Baroness Brady
Main Page: Baroness Brady (Conservative - Life peer)Football Governance Bill [HL]
Baroness Brady ExcerptsMonday 9th December 2024
(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Dec 2024)
Baroness Brady
“(d) differential impact on regulated clubs participating in, or seeking to qualify for, competitions organised by international football bodies.”
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 67A in my name addresses a critical oversight in the Bill. It is intended to properly recognise the clearly differential impact of regulation on certain clubs, specifically those participating in or seeking to qualify for competitions organised by international governing bodies. This amendment is essential to ensuring that the unique challenges faced by Premier League clubs, especially in the context of UEFA and FIFA, are properly understood and accounted for.
I begin with the elephant in the room: UEFA’s refusal to endorse this regulatory regime. We know that UEFA has explicitly raised objections to the Bill’s provisions, warning that mandatory redistributions and other aspects of state interference risk breaching its rules on the autonomy of sport. This is no small matter. UEFA and FIFA hold significant leverage over clubs competing in their competitions, and they have made it clear that this leverage could be exercised if the Bill’s provisions conflict with their frameworks. Premier League clubs that qualify for European competition—clubs that have spent years building their competitiveness and investing in their success—are now being placed in an unenviable and unique position. They face the very real risk that this regulatory framework could put them in conflict with UEFA and FIFA, creating ongoing uncertainty and jeopardising their ability to compete on the European stage.
The consequences of such a conflict are potentially catastrophic, not just for the clubs involved, although it affects them uniquely, but for the reputation and stability of English football as a whole. The differential impact of the Bill in this respect is stark. Premier League clubs, particularly those involved in UEFA competitions, are the only entities at risk of disqualification due to regulatory conflicts. They are also the only clubs that must navigate both domestic regulation and the additional compliance burdens imposed by UEFA licensing. This small class of clubs is being asked to shoulder very specific, disproportionate burdens and risks that directly affect their operations, financial stability and competitive standing. Let us not forget that these clubs are the financial engine of the football pyramid. They generate billions in revenue, attract international investment and support grass-roots football through solidarity payments. Yet the Bill places them in a uniquely precarious position, where their ability to operate and succeed could be undermined by regulatory uncertainty and conflict with international governing bodies.
Unlike lower league clubs, Premier League clubs that aspire to European success operate under the shadow of UEFA’s and FIFA’s leverage. This is not a temporary issue; it is a permanent dynamic. UEFA has already made it clear in correspondence, which the Government has refused to publish, that certain provisions in the Bill could jeopardise compliance with its framework. This gives UEFA and FIFA ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable.
The Bill compounds this problem by failing to address how the regulator would navigate these international conflicts. While it empowers the regulator to impose unprecedented interventions, such as backstop powers over financial distributions, it does so without requiring the regulator to consult or co-ordinate with UEFA or FIFA. This omission leaves clubs caught between competing regulatory demands with no clear resolution mechanism.
The potential consequences of these conflicts go beyond individual clubs. If Premier League clubs are disqualified from European competitions, or face ongoing regulatory uncertainty, it would damage the Premier League’s reputation, diminish its global competitiveness and, ultimately, reduce the revenues that flow down the pyramid. This is not scaremongering. It is a very real risk, uncovered by this Committee, which this the amendment addresses.
The amendment also speaks to a broader issue of fairness. Premier League clubs are being disproportionately impacted by the Bill, including the backstop, because they are the only funder of other leagues in the pyramid. Yet their unique position and vulnerabilities are not adequately reflected in the legislation. By explicitly recognising the different impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can at least begin to address this imbalance and ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently harm the clubs but helps drive the success of English football. If we are to create a regulatory framework that commands trust and confidence, we must acknowledge these differential impacts openly and honestly. The amendment is a vital step towards that goal.
This amendment is not about special treatment for Premier League clubs. It is about recognising the unique challenges they face, ensuring that regulation does not create more problems than it solves. By acknowledging the differential impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can create a regulatory framework that is fair, proportionate and fit for purpose. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, to ensure that the Bill reflects the realities of modern football and the global stage on which our clubs operate. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to support my noble friend’s comments and amendment. We have already set out our concerns about UEFA and FIFA’s objections. The Minister has suggested that our concerns are somewhat misplaced. Given the comments that have just been made, our concerns have unfortunately not been allayed. The fundamental issue is that, rightly or wrongly, the letter from UEFA and FIFA was in the papers; we have seen concerns that were raised.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Minister has not been able to fully explain to the Committee exactly what has been said. She said that constructive conversations have happened. That is great news and we are all pleased to hear it but, up to this point, she has not been able to give us any detail to match the concerns that we have seen in this letter. Does she feel able today to give us a bit more detail and some categorical examples of where FIFA and UEFA have said that they are now happy with the Government’s position and happy with the Bill as it is? We could balance that with what we have seen in the papers and the press from the letter, and what we have heard in some—I am sure—well-intentioned comments from the Minister about what has been said, but with nothing tangible to back it up.
Does she have any correspondence with UEFA or FIFA, or any more tangible evidence that she can give us, to help us with the words she has been saying, which, I am sure, reflect conversations she may have had in meetings? This would give us some more tangible evidence that the issues that my noble friend has raised will not come to pass. Until we have that, we will have to return to this and, I am afraid, press the Minister for any more information she can give us.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I understand that the FA’s position on this point has not changed.
We completely agree that, in the course of regulating, the regulator should not unduly harm the ability of regulated English clubs to compete against their rivals and to succeed in those competitions. This is why Clause 7(2)(a) already relates to avoiding effects on the sporting competitiveness of one regulated club against another. This would cover the “differential impact” to which the noble Baroness’s amendment refers.
Clause 7(2)(b) also relates to avoiding
“adverse effects on the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs”.
This includes against international competitors, as the Explanatory Notes clarify. These provisions already achieve the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment to minimise impacts on competitiveness, and in fact do so more holistically, recognising that competitiveness matters beyond just the relatively small proportion of clubs competing in, or vying for, European football.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, while I remain confident that nothing in the Bill as drafted would jeopardise the participation of English clubs in international competitions, I do understand his concerns. On UEFA and FIFA, we are speaking to the relevant authorities and will give noble Lords the reassurance on the specific points raised by the noble Lord in the coming weeks before Report.
For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and other noble Lords for their contributions. However, I am deeply concerned about the assurances offered. While the Minister again claims that UEFA is comfortable with the Bill, the assertion is at odds with what we know. UEFA has explicitly raised objections to aspects of the Bill, including the risk of state interference breaching its rules. The correspondence exists, yet the Government refuse to publish it. If UEFA is so comfortable with the Bill, why the lack of transparency? Why not share its position openly with the House?
The Minister may be interested to know that, a couple of days ago, I spoke to Mark Bullingham, the CEO of the FA. He told me that only UEFA itself, not the FA, can confirm whether the Bill breaches its statutes, and that he believes that it will not give that confirmation because it will not want to give up its leverage. That is deeply worrying.
This amendment does not create complexity; it adds clarity. It ensures that the regulator considers the unique and unavoidable fact that Premier League clubs operate under dual compliance requirements—domestic regulation and UEFA licensing. Ignoring this reality risks leaving clubs exposed to significant conflicts with the governing bodies, which creates confusion and the instability that the Minister says the Bill seeks to avoid.
The claim that Premier League clubs are not disproportionately impacted is demonstrably incorrect. Only Premier League clubs are subject to UEFA licensing requirements, only they face the prospect of disqualification from European competitions, and only they are exposed to the dual pressures of domestic regulation and international oversight. They also fund the competition and the pyramid. This is not about prioritising one group of clubs over others; it is about recognising that their unique position requires tailored consideration.
The Premier League is not just a league; it is global powerhouse and the financial engine of our football pyramid. The risks of conflict with UEFA and FIFA are real, and they are uniquely borne by Premier League clubs. This amendment does not create division; it addresses it. It ensures that the regulator has the tools and the mandate to navigate these challenges fairly and effectively. I urge the Minister to reconsider her position as we progress towards Report and to reflect on the broader consequences of dismissing these concerns. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 68, 89, 120 and 121, which focus on ensuring accountability and transparency and are critical to protecting the Premier League and safeguarding its unique role in the football pyramid.
This Bill introduces a radical new framework for the governance of football, one that includes significant regulatory oversight and redistribution mechanisms. We are the first country ever to do this, and I am worried that we may well suffer from first-mover disadvantage. There are profound changes in this Bill that will impact every level of the game, and it is essential that the Government and the regulator are held to account for the consequences of these measures. Regular reporting is not just a bureaucratic necessity; it is a vital safeguard to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders, particularly those of the Premier League, are protected.
If we are to introduce a regulator with such extensive powers, it must be held accountable for the full range of consequences its decisions may have. The competitive balance of the Premier League—its very dynamism and unpredictability—is central to its global appeal. This, in turn, drives its ability to attract world-class players, managers and investment, generating revenues that flow down the football pyramid. Yet, without baselining these measures or requiring the regulator to report on its impact in these areas, we risk implementing a system that could inadvertently undermine the Premier League’s success.
Similarly, international competitiveness is a crucial factor for the Premier League. It is the most watched and admired league in the world, representing a unique soft power asset for the UK. The ability of Premier League clubs to compete at the highest level in Europe has been a driving force behind their commercial success, as well as their capacity to support the wider game through solidarity payments and grass-roots initiatives, all of which are voluntary. However well-meaning, if the regulator’s interventions dampen investment or create uncertainty, this international competitiveness could be severely compromised, and yet somewhat incredibly there is no requirement in the Bill for the regulator to monitor or report on this.
Investment is another area where the absence of reporting requirements is deeply concerning. Premier League clubs operate in a highly competitive global market for players, sponsorship and broadcasting rights. Long-term investment decisions, whether in infrastructure, youth academies or community programs, depend on regulatory certainty and stability. If the regulator’s actions lead to a chilling effect on investment, it would have profound consequences not only for the Premier League but for the whole football ecosystem. Again, there is no provision in the Bill to track or report on this impact, leaving us blind to the unintended consequences that could arise.
The amendments before us, particularly Amendment 68, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, seek to address these gaps. They recognise that we cannot introduce such a transformative regulatory framework without ensuring that it is judged against the metrics that matter most: competitive balance, international competitiveness and the ability to attract investment. Unless we retain these qualities, we will end up with a much smaller, less well-funded and far less successful football pyramid. The question of stability in a rapidly declining ecosystem becomes somewhat irrelevant.
We must ensure that we have a clear understanding of whether this legislation is achieving its aims or instead introducing unintended and potentially harmful consequences. For example, if the redistribution mechanisms introduced by the regulator begin to destabilise clubs’ financial planning or deter investment, we must know about it quickly and transparently. If the regulator’s powers are being applied unevenly or disproportionately, we need to be able to challenge and rectify that. If the Premier League’s unique role in funding the pyramid is being undermined by these changes, we surely need a mechanism to address that impact.
I encourage the Minister to consider the spirit of these amendments and, between now and Report, consider ways that the accountability and transparency mechanisms can be considerably strengthened.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 120 and following on from the point that my noble friend Lady Brady made, I hope to put some meat on the bones of what we would be asking the regulator to produce in its annual report.
Right now, all that the Bill says is that we are asking it to produce a summary of the activities undertaken during the year and for any other information that the Secretary of State sees fit. The whole purpose of our debates over the last few days is to make sure the regulator is fit for purpose in its objectives and that its performance is then measured against those objectives. My amendment—non-controversial, I hope—is about trying to hold the regulator to account. It seeks to add that the regulator should look at and report on clubs’ compliance against directed action, regulator finances, enforcement action, their performance against their own objectives, how much time it has taken to grant licences to clubs and any salaries above £100,000. It is quite a simple list that seeks to hold the regulator to account and get clarity on what its performance has been for the year, so it can then improve performance going forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have had my name down as a supporting figure on three occasions. I just cannot resist, with this talk of “should” and “must”. It does sound awfully like “may” and “shall”, which is something steady to go back to. My question for the Minister is: is there any difference legally between the two words? If there is not—in certain circumstances, there is not—can we just hear that?
On the amendments, I start with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I supported. Yes, you should consult your players. They are your primary asset; they are what the fans come to watch. It would seem sensible; that is why I am in support. I realise that I might be backing two horses in the same race by putting my name to these two amendments, but the fact is that various fan groups need some interaction with the regulator. How that is done is incredibly important.
To return to the players, without them you have no product. You have no financial resource; you have nothing to come behind. Not consulting them is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Many people will tell me that they are overpaid namby-pambies or whatever. I do not agree, but people will tell you that. The fact is that every time you run around as a professional athlete, you are risking your career, or risking it being shortened. Every time you are told to play that extra game when you are not quite ready for it yet, or you are a little bit tired, you are risking your career and your professional value. You may be playing injured, for instance. We should hear from this group. They have short, often very productive careers.
Often, though, they do not. What we tend to do in this debate is think about the Premiership, but we are talking about the entire structure, going down. Many people are just making a living—sometimes a good living—for a short period of time. We must make sure that they are consulted as well. The entire structure going down is something that we are in danger of forgetting repeatedly in this Bill. So I hope that the Minister will give us some clarification here. Players must be consulted and there must be a way of talking to the fans. Is this just another one of the hardy perennials of Parliament going down the “may” or “shall” route? Does the wording change in the lead amendment make any difference?
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I wholeheartedly agree that footballers are at the heart of football. Without them, we certainly could not achieve anything at all. The relationship with players is absolutely vital to football clubs. West Ham was one of the very few clubs during the pandemic where I and my footballers took a 30% pay cut to ensure that all other staff were paid in full and that nobody lost their job; that is part of the spirit and it is why footballers really must be consulted.
I also support Amendment 86, which would introduce vital principles to guide the regulator’s approach. These principles reflect a sophisticated understanding of how football actually works and what makes it successful. The existing principles in Clause 8 of the Bill appear largely defensive and process focused. In essence, they tell us that the regulator should use resources efficiently, co-operate with stakeholders and act proportionately. With respect, I would argue that these are descriptions of basic administrative competence, not meaningful regulatory philosophy. No one would argue for inefficiency or disproportionality, and that is really the test of whether these are real, consequential principles.
More concerning is what these principles admit. They say nothing about preserving what makes English football successful; nothing about maintaining the competitive tension that drives our game’s appeal; and nothing about enabling the responsible ambition that has created the world’s most watched sporting competition.
Let me begin with the fundamental point that I believe is captured by this excellent amendment: the need for clearly identified harm and least-intrusive measures. Football thrives on calculated risk taking and sporting ambition. A regulator consistently intervening without clear necessity will suffocate the very qualities that make our game exciting. This is not about weakening regulation; it is about making it effective.
Consider how successful football regulation actually works. The Premier League has developed sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining financial sustainability while preserving competitive tension. When issues arise, they are typically best addressed through existing structures that understand football’s unique dynamics. This amendment would ensure that the regulator works with those proven systems rather than creating unnecessary parallel requirements.
The principles around competitive tension and ambitious ownership are particularly crucial. The Premier League’s success rests on maintaining genuine competition, where any club can succeed through good management and investment. Aspiration can happen because clubs are empowered and incentivised to take measured risks in pursuit of sporting achievement. The amendments focus on commercial autonomy and innovation, reflecting another vital truth: football’s success comes from constant evolution. The Premier League leads the world precisely because it enables responsible innovation in everything from broadcasting arrangements to community engagement. Overly prescriptive regulation risks spoiling this competitive advantage that we have developed.
Most importantly, these principles would ensure that the regulator maintains proper focus by requiring clear evidence of harm and demonstration that the existing structures cannot address issues. We would avoid unnecessary intervention while maintaining proper oversight. This would help us enhance, rather than inhibit, what makes English football successful.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to seek clarity on a key point that does not seem clear in some of noble Lords’ amendments, in particular Amendment 79 from this group. From what I can tell in reviewing the Bill and debates around it—I beg your Lordships’ and particularly the Minister’s indulgence if I have missed something and this has been adequately addressed—we have not yet defined a fan. I make my sincere apologies, but I need to point out this abundantly obvious fact. Amendment 79 is a one-word amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, in introducing this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, used the phrase “hiding behind a paywall”. I wonder whether that is really a fair description of paying for something. When I got my phone, it was hiding behind a paywall: it was not given to me free; I had to shell out for it. I need a new car at the moment; my heap of junk of a Nissan has collapsed. The new one is hiding behind a paywall, and I have to pay for it. I had to pay for my dinner tonight; it was hiding behind a paywall.
There is an assumption here that there is no such thing as private property or free contract and that everything ought to be somehow at the disposition of regulators or of state officials. That is not how we got here. If you do not respect the fundamental ability of sporting clubs or indeed broadcasters to do what they think is in their best interests, you end up with suboptimal outcomes. This is a very neat demonstration of why, once you create these regulatory structures, they expand and expand—because people airily demand things and feel very virtuous in demanding them without any thought for the practicalities of the people who have to implement them.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 91 and 92 because they try to make the regulator a consultee on listed events and would place a duty on it to have regard to the desirability of making more domestic games free to air. I have huge respect for the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard, and their colleagues, and I know that these amendments relate to a manifesto commitment made by their party, but I hope it is helpful to talk a little about how football’s broadcast economy works in practice.
The Premier League’s domestic broadcasting rights are contracted through to 2029. Of course, they represent far more than a simple commercial arrangement: they form the foundation of English football’s entire economic model, and their thoughtful and innovative packaging is a hugely important part of the Premier League’s success. The substantial revenues they generate enable the Premier League to provide £1.6 billion of support to the wider pyramid, representing 16% of central revenues, of which—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, may like to know—£25 million goes to funding the PFA. That is why it keeps its joining fee at £20 and its subs at £150.
The sophistication and complexity of broadcasting arrangements is enormous and a huge source of competitive advantage for English football. Each broadcasting slot and each package of rights exists within an intricate ecosystem where values are fundamentally interdependent. These are not discrete assets that can be easily separated; they form a carefully balanced whole that has taken decades to develop to create value and appeal. Forcing certain matches to be free to air would not just affect those specific fixtures; it would fundamentally undermine the value proposition of every broadcasting package.
Premium broadcasters invest based on exclusive content that attracts subscribers. Remove that exclusivity—even partially—and decouple certain packages from each other and the entire model becomes unsustainable. The consequences that would cascade throughout football are significant. A significant reduction in broadcast values would not just affect Premier League clubs but immediately impact the entire pyramid through reduced solidarity payments, youth development funding and grass-roots investment. The damage to football’s economic ecosystem would be profound and potentially irreversible.
Of course, this sort of intervention would create exactly the kind of seismic instability the regulator is meant to prevent. In an attempt to increase access to certain matches, it would risk destabilising the very mechanism that funds football’s broader development and sustainability. The Premier League’s success in maintaining the growing broadcast revenues, which benefit the entire game, comes through very careful and innovative management of these arrangements. While I respect my noble friend’s motivations and good intentions here, I must strongly oppose the expansion of the scope of the IFR in the way proposed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 265 falls in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who has tabled it with me. I know he shares my gratitude to the public service broadcasters with which we have discussed this matter.
Our amendment and the two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, all attempt to bring protections for the listed events regime into the scope of the Bill, or at least to give us the opportunity to have the debate that my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly says is needed and perhaps even overdue. In saying that, I am very mindful that we were likely to have had that debate in the exchanges on the now Media Act earlier this year, had the general election not intervened and had the then Bill not gone through the abbreviated processes in wash-up. I think my noble friend is right and that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have agreed, had he been here, that these issues deserve some consideration.
The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I have brought forward is intended to probe the Government about how they plan to protect digital on-demand rights for the listed events regime. While live television viewing of events is currently included in the regime, there is nothing to stop clipped videos of digital on-demand rights from going behind a paywall. My noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere would certainly have enthusiastically taken part and would have made some very interesting points in the debate we could have had on the listed events regime. This is in the context of public service broadcasters that are broadcasting things that have been deemed particularly important for the public to see in a way that is different from the commercial suppliers, which can provide so many other things to people in the differing ways that they do.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which seeks to address one of the most significant and unresolved issues in football governance: the regulation of football agents. The amendment is not just about imposing stricter rules on agents; it is about protecting the financial stability of English football and ensuring that the resources within the game are directed towards its growth and long-term health.
In the last five years, Premier League clubs alone have spent a staggering £1.65 billion on agents’ fees. This represents an extraordinary extraction of wealth from the game. It is money that could otherwise be invested in stadiums, academies, community projects, et cetera. The agent market is riddled with dysfunction. The incentive structures are fundamentally misaligned, with practices such as dual representation creating inflationary pressures on transfer market fees and wages. Without reform, the unchecked escalation of agent fees will continue to threaten the financial stability of clubs, and limit the growth and potential of the industry.
While the amendment addresses a critical issue, it also highlights a broader concern: the lack of meaningful engagement from the Government on how to support English football beyond the confines of the Bill. The Bill creates significant new regulatory obligations and risks for damage within football, particularly for Premier League clubs, without addressing the areas where government action could help the game thrive. Let me be clear: the amendment provides an opportunity to have that conversation. It forces us to ask why the Government have not engaged with clubs on how to help clubs grow and succeed while addressing the inefficiencies in football or the opportunities we have to grow with government assistance.
For example, on access to talent, since Brexit English clubs have faced significantly restricted access to international talent compared with competitor leagues. Reforming these laws could reduce player acquisition costs, improve competitiveness and enhance the financial health of the pyramid. On tax incentives for investment, football infrastructure is a national asset. Other countries, such as France and the US, recognise this through targeted tax incentives for stadium development and training facilities. Yet here in the UK we have no similar framework to support clubs to make these long-term investments. These are areas where constructive government engagement could make a real difference. Yet, instead of addressing these opportunities, the Bill focuses on imposing new obligations without offering the tools to support growth or mitigate the unintended consequences. Premier League clubs would really welcome engagement on these potential growth opportunities.
Turning back to agents, the lack of effective regulation has been an ongoing issue for decades. The Premier League has already attempted to address this through initiatives such as its 2017 review into intermediaries, which identified serious problems, including the lack of qualifications, excessive influence, and weak enforcement mechanisms. While clubs are willing to take bold unilateral steps, including banning dual representation, these measures were ultimately not implemented, because FIFA launched its own reform process. However, FIFA’s efforts have stalled due to the legal challenges my noble friend mentioned, and its proposed cap on agents’ fees has been deemed unlawful in the UK. Without primary legislation, meaningful reform remains out of reach.
The amendment is therefore timely. It provides a legislative framework to ensure that agents act in the best interest of their clients, comply with FIFA regulations and disclose key information about their activities. These measures would not only bring transparency but reduce the inflationary pressures caused by the current dysfunctional system. Whether the Bill is deemed the appropriate place for action or not, I hope the Government will engage with clubs and leagues on how to pursue much-needed reform in a way that safeguards competitiveness.
In this respect, this amendment also serves a broader purpose: it highlights the imbalance in how the Government are approaching the Bill. Clubs are being asked to shoulder significant new regulatory burdens, yet there is little or no discussion about how the Government could support them in other critical areas. Whether it is addressing the dysfunction in the agent market, widening access to talent or incentivising infrastructure investment, so much more could be done to help English football grow and succeed.
This amendment addresses a pressing issue that has gone unregulated for far too long. The influence of agents on the game and the resources extracted through their fees cannot be ignored. At the same time, this amendment is a reminder of the broader need for the Government to engage with football on how to support growth and sustainability, not just impose new obligations. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to engage meaningfully with clubs and leagues, not just on the regulation of agents but on the wider opportunities I have mentioned, to ensure that English football remains the most dynamic and competitive league in the world.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support both my noble friends who have spoken to this amendment.
We spoke earlier about the importance of taking into account the players—the noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised that. Agents push, not least to increase the opportunities for the players to earn money, and one of the biggest problems and the reason why we should engage with players—for example, with the Club World Cup coming up—is that further strain is placed on the elite players. Agents are directly involved in that market; they go right to the heart of the financial stability of the game.
The agent market is central to the infrastructure of professional football. If we are to have a regulator, it is inconceivable that it should not consider the impact of agents, which some see as heavily dysfunctional and others see as beneficial if regulated—FIFA has gone through huge challenges recently in terms of the overall regulation of that market.
The regulation is difficult enough, but it is impossible not to regulate football as is proposed under this legislation without the regulator taking into account the impact of agents on the financial stability of the clubs. That is the key point. To a great extent, the financial stability of clubs relies on the good working of the agent market.
I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, she will reflect on that and on the importance of this amendment, and that she will look to see whether advice, even, can be given to the regulator to ensure that this is fully taken into account, to ensure a smooth functioning of the professional football market and, above all, the financial stability of the clubs.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I support many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has raised under Amendment 94. I see that the Chief Whip is in his place; he will be pleased to note that nine of the amendments that we are considering now came from the Labour Benches, and that we have reached page 6 of the Bill.
The noble Baroness made the important point that Parliament should receive and debate the “state of the game” report. I am perfectly happy for the regulator, if we are going to have one, to present the report. However, in presenting the report, full attention needs to be paid to factors relating to the community and social impacts of regulated clubs and the women’s game. It is impossible when looking at this overall—and the Bill says that:
“A state of the game report must include … an overview of the main issues that the IFR considers to be affecting English football”,
—not to consider the development in the women’s game. It is a central part of English football, as cited in the Bill.
There is one other area at which we need to look at a later stage, on which I have no intention of detaining the Committee this evening. The regulator is looking at English football clubs and the game in England, but 14 Premier League clubs are in multi-club ownership, which stretches far beyond our shores. That is much more than in any other league in Europe. That has significant impacts on the financial regulation of the game. It provides greater bargaining power in commercial contracts and increases significantly the brand reach of those clubs, while allowing for the pooling of resources. There is flexibility with player transfers and loans. Certainly, within the English game, there is prohibition control over the management of more than one club, and UEFA states that you cannot have one controller covering two or more clubs in the same European competition. All these are actually central financial issues, and they have to be considered in any assessment of the health of the game in England.
I am concerned—I hope the Minister can respond and help me with this—that, if the regulator is prohibited from looking at the impact of multi-club ownership, there is a huge amount of important material when it comes to understanding the financial health of the game in England that would be outside the remit of the regulator. If I am wrong on that, no doubt the Minister will say that the regulator is absolutely entitled to look at each and every aspect of the multi-club ownership that takes place, principally in the Premier League. I will not detain the Committee by going further, but I simply table the fact that I think it is an essential and central point in any state of the game report and of the work of the regulator moving forward, and I would appreciate any clarity that the Minister can throw on that this evening.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 101 in my name. It seeks to address a fundamental imbalance in how we will assess the health of English football under this new regulatory framework. The Premier League has become the world’s most successful sporting competition through a sophisticated balance of sporting merit and commercial innovation. Every weekend, millions watch matches where any team can beat any other, where promoted clubs can dream of European football and where calculated ambition is rewarded. This competitive drama has created extraordinary value that benefits the entire football pyramid, yet this Bill creates a concerning issue in how we will measure success. While the regulator must produce a state of the game report, its content focuses almost entirely on identifying problems and assessing risks. There is no requirement to evaluate how a regulatory intervention might affect the very qualities that have made English football successful.
This amendment would require the regulator to assess and report on three areas: first, competitive balance and sporting merit, the foundation of football’s appeal; secondly, our international position, crucial given the growing competition from other leagues and competitions around the world; and, thirdly, our ability to attract investment, which is essential for maintaining the quality that drives broadcast value and pyramid funding.
Without proper assessment of the competitive matrix, how would we know whether regulation was inadvertently creating barriers to sporting achievement? Without tracking our international position, how could we identify whether intervention was damaging our ability to attract global talent? Without measuring investment impact, how would we spot whether regulation was deterring the responsible ambition that drives football growth? If the state of the game report is to be as Ministers have described it—the definitive evidence base of football’s health that will drive the regulator’s whole agenda—it is crucial that the report considers both the risks and the success factors. We cannot protect what we do not measure. We must not allow these protective regulatory principles to become completely meaningless.
The amendment would create crucial feedback loops. It would allow Parliament and stakeholders to identify early-warning signs if regulation begins to damage football’s essential qualities. It would provide evidence to enable the regulator to adjust its regulatory approach if unintended consequences emerge. Most importantly, it would ensure that we protect proper oversight while preserving what makes English football so special. Without this amendment, we risk creating a regulator focused solely on managing decline rather than protecting success.
I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could explain why, in her view, the state of the game report should not assess regulatory impact. Will she also explain how Parliament will otherwise be in a position to judge whether this world-first and intrinsically risky regulatory approach is going to be able to maintain English football’s success, growth and vitality?