Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-standing Norwich City season ticket holder and a supporter of King’s Lynn Town FC.

England is the home of football and English football is enjoyed by millions of people, as we have heard, who watch their team every week. The Premier League is the most-watched league in the world. It drives economic growth, generating £8.2 billion of GVA in the 2021-22 season, and supports 90,000 jobs across the country. The EFL is thriving; last year, one in four paid admissions to a UK sporting event were to an EFL match. Football is a much-loved, global British success story, and it is in this context that we should consider the Bill and its proposals to create a new regulatory structure.

This Bill is unquestionably novel. The Explanatory Notes themselves acknowledge that football

“was previously not regulated by statutory provisions”,

and explicitly state that

“the new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented”.

To avoid unintended consequences which could undermine the success story that football is, we need to be very careful in our deliberations to ensure that what is being regulated for and legislated for, as the Minister has said, creates a truly proportionate regime.

That means a light-touch regulator and clear boundaries to its powers to prevent regulatory creep and overreach. Indeed, we should assess the measures in the Bill against the words of the Prime Minister, who 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? … 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”.

Those seem very sensible benchmarks to me when considering a new statutory regime. We should make sure it fits within those parameters.

The key objectives of the Bill—particularly enhancing financial sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding club heritage assets and strengthening fan engagement—are all laudable aims for the regulator and will undoubtedly be an important focus of its work; I am sure that it can take things forward in that regard. However, the competitive and unpredictable nature of football must not be undermined by the new regulatory regime. We all know that football is about promotion, play-offs and passion. All fans dream of the possibility of their team triumphing against the odds, and sometimes they even get to see it happen. So football is clearly not akin to the typical regulated sector. As a result, the regulator in its actions needs to be mindful that football is a dynamic, risk-taking industry, with competition at its heart. That is a significant departure from the approach of other regulators, but it is imperative to protect this if the football regulator is not to unwittingly undermine the very sector it is there to support and help thrive.

The task of the new regulator will be considerable—for instance, to license clubs, it will have to review detailed business plans of all 116 and reach agreement on them. In addition to mandatory licence conditions, the regulator will have the power to impose discretionary requirements bespoke to a club. Clubs already deal with a lot on regulation, with the FA, the league and other bodies, so the new regulator needs to be careful that it does not overburden or duplicate requirements, adding unsustainable costs and bureaucracy, particularly for smaller clubs in the lower leagues.

All this will come at a cost, with money spent today by clubs on the game in future being spent on funding the regulator. Can the Minister provide reassurance that, in designing the levy, the regulator will be required to adopt a proportionate approach and ensure that costs to clubs, particularly those at the lower levels, are kept to a minimum? Can the Minister also give an indication of the expected costs or levels of staffing that will be needed for the regulator once it is fully up and running, to give us a sense of the scale of the task ahead?

How revenues are distributed through the financial pyramid is essential to the health of the game. The Bill introduces backstop powers to intervene in the currently voluntary distribution of the Premier League clubs’ TV revenues. These are unprecedented and untested powers, with the potential, if not carefully developed, to cause regulatory and investment uncertainty. It is critical that we consider the possibility of unintended consequences that may flow from this Bill and that we are confident there are strong checks and balances in the legislation to ensure that it sets out an approach that supports the continued success of football.

I am sure that we all find it disappointing that, since the introduction of a version of this Bill in the last Parliament, the latest round of financial negotiations between the Premier League and EFL have broken down again—and, to be honest, from talking to them it seems that both sides are anticipating that the backstop mechanism will be triggered. The use of these powers by the regulator may, rather than being a last resort as was hoped, be used quite quickly, once the regulator is set up. So when the process is introduced, it must not do more harm than good.

In that regard, I confess that I have some concerns about the process as set out in the Bill, particularly the binding final offer arbitration model. Rather than consider each proposal and determine the best overall approach, which may be a compromise between the two, the regulator instead must choose one of the proposals in front of it. To me, that does not make sense. In any negotiation, if both sides feel somewhat disappointed at the deal reached, it is likely to be fairer and achieve a balance between the two sides’ competing proposals. Yet in the current scenario, it seems that one side will take all. I am sure that we will explore this more in Committee, but can the Minister explain in more detail why the Government think that this is the best approach to include in the Bill?

Perhaps the most significant change to this Bill from its predecessor is the inclusion of parachute payments in any consideration that the regulator may make in relation to financial distribution through the football pyramid. I am afraid that I take a different view from the noble Baroness who spoke before me. I am somewhat concerned that this change may inadvertently incentivise bottom-half Premier League clubs in particular—and, going forward, newly promoted clubs—to cut squad investment, given the greater financial risk that relegation would present. That would be hugely damaging to the competitiveness of the league and a massive blow to fans of the clubs involved.

Rather than improving the level of competition, uncertainty around parachute payments could do the opposite and weaken the competitiveness of the Premier League—the very attribute that attracts the revenues that sustain the game. I know that that is not the intention and I look forward to more detailed discussion around these issues as the Bill goes through Committee.

To conclude, the reforms in the Bill mark a step change in the regulation of our national game. To ensure that they do not do unintended damage to the game millions of us love, it is essential that the board and those employed by the new regulator are mindful from the outset of the unique nature of football and the dangers that any ineffective regulation, or overregulation, may pose.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for withdrawing from the Second Reading debate at short notice because of an urgent personal matter, and also draw the attention of the Committee to my declaration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I have occasionally not paid for football tickets as a guest of the EFL and the Premier League, mainly in my former role as shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary.

It is right that we focus on definitions, and I should like to point out a couple of the amendments in this basket. We are saying that we want to protect the sustainability of football and are effectively or explicitly saying that football is so unsustainable that the state wants to intervene in a market to such an extent that we are going to create a new regulator—another regulator. I have been in politics for about 40 years and I have been in many debates where people often talk about the failure of regulators and regulation. If there is one lesson that I have learned from that, it is that the politics of regulation are this: you can always delegate power but you can never delegate responsibility.

What we are saying to 1.5 billion people on the planet is that we are so concerned that your weekly viewing of English football is so unsustainable that politicians, the ones who moved Clause 1 last year and the ones who are moving Clause 1 this year, are taking responsibility for your hopes, desires, heartache and disappointment every week when you watch English football. Well, in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, that is about the bravest and most courageous decision I have ever seen taken in either House of Parliament. Good luck with that.

My second point is this: I have been in another bit of the territory, trying to get the Secretary of State to define what she means by “football fan”. Whatever you think a football fan is, an English football fan—the ones I am thinking about today watch a lot of football, including the World Cup and European Championship —wants everyone in this House to guarantee that our national team will be able to play in every international competition.

The noble Lord, Lord Maude, has spoken to Amendment 6, which he has told the Minister is very helpful to the Government. On this occasion, I agree with him. This is explicitly saying to English football fans, “We will not allow our regulator to allow the rules of UEFA or FIFA to be breached such that there is a threat to England playing in future competitions”. We are not going to resolve this discussion today, but I guarantee that by the end of the passage of this Bill, this Parliament will have to say to 1.5 billion English football fans that we will guarantee that England can play in an international competition. I should be grateful if, in his summation, the Minister could reassure at least this English football fan that that will be the case at the end of this Bill.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 4, to which I have added my name. I must admit that I am slightly surprised that it seems controversial to want to make it clear in the legislation that the purpose of the Bill in setting up the new regulator is to ensure the continued success and growth of English football. That is exactly what the regulator, or part of the idea behind the regulator, is supposed to do. To achieve sustainability and resilience in the game, the regulator will need to preserve and encourage the conditions for growth and continued success. So, I do not quite understand the issues around having those objectives added to the Bill. As we have already heard, there is huge success that can be built on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this group as a point of clarification and reassurance, as has been asked for. I would expect the Minister to accept this, because she has been at great pains to stress that this is intended—I do not doubt her good faith—as light-touch regulation motivated by the best of intentions. But I think that there is a real problem with this Bill that could potentially destroy football, so I want that worry at least to be taken seriously.

The examples given by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, were in relation to UEFA and FIFA and what damage could be done. I understand that, but I think this is a point of principle. It is really important that the Government state at this point that they believe that the Bill is not to be used as a vehicle for government interference in football. That is what they agree with, so why not put it in the Bill?

Should I just be having a moment of paranoid delusions? I spent as much time reading the amendments last night as noble Lords spent on the first group, possibly longer—i.e. it took me a long time. They are, in many instances, the vehicle for what can be described only as a wide range of political hobby-horses for people who believe that this Bill and the regulator should be asked to do things that are extraordinarily contentious, political and have absolutely nothing to do with football. The fact that they are deemed in scope of the discussion on this Bill is nerve-wracking. Consequently, this group seeks—very importantly—to state as a matter of principle that the Government should not interfere in the autonomy and independence of football in England and Wales, and English football particularly.

I want to stress, and I said it at Second Reading, that this not just because of any technical matter; it is because football came from and remains at its heart a grass-roots part of civil society. The last thing it needs is an overbearing political hand that will try to shape it into the image of the particular Government of the day. The particular Government of the day might be one that the Government trust; it might be one that many football fans trust, but imagine if it was not? We do not want the political fashions of the day to dominate football—to destroy football. I think the Minister will agree and therefore accept these amendments willingly, because it will reassure us that we are not all being paranoid about it. It will reassure football fans that the Government are doing it in their best interests rather than trying to use football as a hobby-horse to push a particular political agenda.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister to follow up on something she said in her wind-up speech at Second Reading. She said that, that week,

“the Minister for Sport had a productive discussion with UEFA and they committed to continuing to work together”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1908.]

Obviously, it was just a reference, but I wonder whether she might be in a position to give more detail about that conversation, whether some issues raised in the letter have now been dealt with, and what continuing conversations might entail. As she mentioned it quite briefly at Second Reading, it would be great to get a bit more information if she can provide it to us. If she cannot do it now, could she perhaps write to all noble Lords to give us the latest on the discussions that have been ongoing?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. The important thing we are missing is the sweeping enabling powers in the Bill; I think there are 42 powers and a number of Henry VIII powers.

The Prime Minister said on 17 September in response to UEFA:

“I don’t think there’s any problem with the rules, because this is a truly independent regulator. But as you’d expect, we’re talking to UEFA, and I’m sure we’ll find a way through this”.


I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lady Evans and ask for an update from the Minister.

I am not sure if the Prime Minister has actually read the Bill. If he did, he would surely concede that particularly in Clause 11, “Football governance statement”, there are very wide-ranging powers. For instance, Clause 11(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may revise any football governance statement”,


while Clause 11(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”.


In paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes, there are significant powers that are open to future interpretation in a court of law. This is an unprecedented situation, but the notes state that

“guidance is intended to aid the IFR in interpreting the intention of legislation and to inform the detailed development and implementation of its regime. IFR guidance to the industry should give clubs greater information about the specific requirements of the regime, including how the IFR will operate and what is expected of clubs”.

With the best will in the world, that is a very pervasive, far-reaching, enabling power for the Secretary of State and Ministers in the department to exercise. If I can beg the forgiveness of noble Lords, I am slightly sceptical. I am not quite taking the side of FIFA and UEFA, but I have some empathy with the concerns they have about mission creep and a movement from financial issues into the minutiae and technical, granular operation of different football clubs. That is why my noble friends and I are raising this issue. I hope and expect the Minister to address those concerns.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I empathise with the noble Baroness’s pain, but this is what legislative scrutiny is about. It is about looking in detail at what is proposed and ensuring that we do not pass into law measures that will inflict damage on something that is both an incredibly important economic activity but also a source of great pleasure to millions in this country and more than a billion worldwide. So I hope the noble Baroness will suffer less and we will move as quickly as is appropriate in these circumstances.

We debated last time whether the ambition for football to be sustainable was sufficiently ambitious for the state of English football, and I think many of us in different parts of the House concluded that it was not so. However, if the Government insist that sustainability is all that is going to be sought then it is important that we define what is meant by sustainability in a way that does not circumscribe the mindset and the approach of the regulator that is going to be established.

Football is a very successful industry and activity. As we have heard, it remains the case that the Premier League is the most successful league in the world and the Championship is the sixth most successful in Europe, and we need to make sure that we do first do no harm but, secondly, because we know that there is no such thing as steady state any more, if it does not continue to grow and improve then it will be going backwards. So it seems right that, in addition to the addition suggested in my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, we should look at the four elements that I propose should be added to the definition of “sustainability”.

First, it should continue

“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”.

That is important because you cannot take anything for granted. The success of English football has been earned, but it has been harder over a period so we need to be extremely careful; this is a precious asset and we need to be concerned all the time with competitiveness. The costs that are proposed to be imposed on English football through the creation of this regulator—both the costs to be recovered through the levy and the compliance costs for clubs of accommodating themselves to this regime—will in themselves be a blow to competitiveness, so there needs to be at least an equal and opposite concern to offset that. Competitiveness is going to be incredibly important in relation to audience and quality.

Secondly, it should continue

“to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”.

My own club, Tottenham, has invested hugely in a world-class new stadium; other clubs need to do the same. A huge amount of investment will be required in upgrading stadia around the country. They are extremely expensive commercial assets that are of great importance to their local communities as well. They are community assets that tend to attract in their wake, in their slipstream, other regeneration investment into the communities, often some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. It will be extraordinarily important that the regulator has in mind at all times that the return on those big investments that will be needed should not be imperilled by the way that the regulator itself operates.

Lastly, it should continue

“to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues”.

All these are fragile. None of these revenue streams—from broadcasting or from the asset and enterprise values—can be taken for granted. The success of English football has to be earned, every day of every week of every season there is, so this will be very important.

Given these approaches, I cannot feel that anyone will quarrel with these being elements that the regulator should think about and seek at all times to prioritise. What is the objection to them appearing in the Bill, since that shows the importance that Parliament attaches to these considerations? That can in some way help to make a difference to the way in which the regulator is set up, because much of that is left unclear. Much of it will be at the discretion of the board and its chair, yet to be appointed, of the regulator. This Committee should have no difficulty in supporting having these factors placed squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this away and think carefully about whether it would a be way of improving a Bill that currently leaves much to be desired.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.

A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.

English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.

Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and I commend him on his comprehensive demolition of the Government’s case. I have fundamental problems with this clause, as it stands, in respect of ownership. As my noble friend rightly says, it goes way beyond the admonitions and existing legislation of, say, the various Companies Acts. It is much more draconian and prescriptive than anything we have seen in company law. It is quite sensible, and not ignoble, for all Governments to take a value judgment on who is a fit and appropriate person to be a company director and to trade and take part in commerce. We all understand and support that, but what we see here is very oddly drafted legislation. It seems to me that it may be a reaction to the trade policy clause that existed in the original Bill, which was withdrawn.

At the same time, the Bill is extremely opaque, permissive and open-ended in the power that is bestowed on the Secretary of State. Looking at the schedule, I am very uncomfortable about giving those sweeping powers, not least because there is a differential between the “significant influence”, as contained in the schedule, that a director or a person involved in a football club may have and what we read in Clause 3, which is just “a degree of influence”. What does a degree of influence mean?

It is not all a case of the Saudi royal family and Newcastle United. We are talking about 116 clubs. Is “influence” popping into the dressing room at half-time and saying, “Great match, guys; here’s a beer”? Is it saying, “If you play better next year, my company might sponsor you more favourably”? It may seem ridiculous to use those examples, but this wording is so unclear—so opaque and permissive—in asking to give Ministers very significant powers that we need to think carefully, again, about whether it is appropriate to let it remain in the Bill.

For that reason, I strongly support the eloquent and comprehensive case made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and, in passing, of course I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Markham. This is a bad clause. It will give rise to very big risks of litigation. Ministers should think carefully about whether it remains in the Bill and we should think again, perhaps on Report.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Norwich City were very fortunate to have Michael Wynn-Jones and Delia Smith as majority shareholders for the past 26 years. They have been fantastic custodians of the club. They joined the board when Norwich were in a perilous financial position and helped steward the club through the highs and lows of six promotions, six relegations, two play-off finals and 15 managers. Of course, Delia was not averse to some direct fan engagement with her “Let’s be ’avin’ you” rallying cry, which we all know and love.

In October, Norfolk Holdings, a group led by the principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, assumed majority control of the club, so a new chapter has begun. While Michael and Delia have relinquished control, they remain committed fans, as they always have been. I know that all Canaries are extremely grateful for their unwavering commitment to the club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We cannot pre-empt or direct the regulator, which will make objective decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, I repeat that I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord to discuss and go through the unintended consequences that he appears to be concerned about. I will move on.

I turn to Amendment 30 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. When a club applies for a provisional licence, it has to submit a personnel statement setting out its owners, ultimate owners, officers and senior managers. The regulator will then approve the personnel statement, subject to any modifications, once it is satisfied that it is accurate. The club must then publish it, and this must be updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that it stays accurate. This, therefore, already provides clarity to the club, owners and fans as to who the owners, ultimate owners, officers and senior managers are.

A core part of ensuring that clubs have suitable owners and directors is the fitness test, which Amendment 177 seeks to expand. Let me be clear: the individual fitness test criteria for owners—honesty and integrity, and financial soundness—have been carefully designed. They are based on precedent and are specifically relevant to whether someone is suitable to be an owner of a football club. This amendment seeks for an owner’s competence to be assessed too. We do not believe that this would be relevant in the regulator’s assessment of someone’s fitness to be solely an owner. Some owners are hands off, and so their competence is not strictly relevant. If an owner also meets the definition of an officer, the regulator will be able to test them as both an officer and an owner. Therefore, as an officer, their competence would be assessed. However, an owner simply having a financial interest in the club does not mean that they make decisions that an officer would about how it is run on a day-to-day basis.

I turn to Amendments 181 and 183 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on the information that must be provided as part of a prospective owner’s application. I agree with the intention of the amendments —that the regulator will need information about an individual’s fitness in order to make an assessment—which is why Clause 28(2) already does that. It gives the regulator the ability to require information from an individual about their fitness. In fact, the Bill goes even further: it recognises that information about an individual’s fitness may come from, or be corroborated by, another source. That is why the Bill establishes information-sharing gateways with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. Specifically on Amendment 183, there is a risk that this amendment incentivises applicants to submit large volumes of unrequested information to the regulator, which could make it more difficult for the regulator to process applications efficiently.

The Government recognise and support the intent behind Amendments 182 and 184 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton: to ensure that football continues to be played in a club’s home ground and that owners are committed to this. However, in many instances, neither clubs nor club owners own their home grounds. This amendment would therefore place a requirement on prospective owners to commit to something that may not be in their control. The Bill already has a number of comprehensive home ground protections to safeguard against inappropriate sales or ill thought-out relocations, including duties on the club itself about selling the club’s home ground or relocating from it—an issue that my noble friend highlighted effectively today. Under the current proposals in the Bill, the regulator can hold senior managers to account if they are responsible for breaching these duties.

Amendment 186 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and Amendment 187 from my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton concern the timelines and deadlines for testing prospective owners and officers. I absolutely agree and understand that timely decision-making about the suitability of new owners and officers is highly important. Without deadlines, we have seen league determinations drag on, unable to reach a decision and leaving clubs in limbo. We believe it is important that the regulator has the time to conduct tests with an appropriate level of scrutiny, but it also needs to make decisions in an appropriate time- frame to ensure that clubs are not unnecessarily impacted in what is a fast-paced industry—I think all noble Lords can agree on that. That is why the regulator will be bound by a statutory timeframe, as well as by its objectives, general duties and regulatory principles.

We are confident that, with these existing provisions, the regulator will already conduct tests as quickly as reasonably practicable. However, putting a specific deadline in the Bill would restrict the flexibility for this deadline to be amended in future. That is why we have proposed that the determination period, including the maximum amount of time by which it can be extended, will be set by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. This will ensure that the regulator is bound by it but that there is still flexibility for the deadline to be amended in future. I hope noble Lords agree that future-proofing is a key consideration for this and any other legislation.

In the spirit of the debate, although the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not in her place, I will speak briefly to Amendments 187A and 187B in her name. They concern whistleblowing on the suitability of an owner or officer, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, highlighted. I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that concerned parties can blow the whistle on unsuitable owners or officers. However, I assure noble Lords that there is no need to amend the Bill to allow this. It is already open to anyone, including all those listed in Amendment 187A, to share relevant information with the regulator. Therefore, we do not see the need to create a separate obligation in the Bill for individuals to report information to the regulator.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, raised a number of pertinent issues covered by the subjects raised in Amendments 188 and 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. They seek to ensure that the regulator can test an incumbent owner or officer on their fitness only if it is in possession of information that gives it concern about whether the individual would meet the applicable fitness criteria. The Government very much agree with the intent behind these amendments, so I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the intent of these amendments is already delivered in the current drafting of the Bill. Clauses 34(1) and 35(1) give the regulator the powers to test incumbent owners or officers on their fitness if the regulator

“is in possession of information that gives it grounds for concern about whether the individual meets those criteria”.

If the regulator is not in possession of such information, it will not be able to test an incumbent owner or officer. The definition of an incumbent is clearly set out in Clauses 34(3) and 35(2). For the reasons I have set out, I will be grateful if the noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am very grateful for the Minister’s very clear answer on the Premier League and the regulator’s suitability test clashing. She said that the regulator is statutory and therefore would override the Premier League saying that it wanted someone the IFR did not. It may be a very unusual situation, but does it therefore follow that, if the Premier League decides through its test that an owner is unsuitable but the IFR decides that they are, the IFR can, in effect, impose an owner on a club? The Minister answered half of my question, and I am very interested to hear about the other half. If she cannot answer now, can she write to me?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

No, it cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

On these Benches, we broadly support these measures. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, because he speaks his mind and I like that. There is no ambiguity in what he is trying to say; he just says it. That, to me, is refreshing.

In supporting the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, with respect, we do not need Erskine May or Burke. It should be common sense to us that the regulator must be accountable to Parliament. We are the heart of democracy and the social fabric of the country, and we are funding it. So, if there were an overwhelming reason why the Government did not want this, I would find it unfathomable; the regulator should be accountable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, was passionate in what she said, and I understand the pitfalls she can see coming, but this is really about regulation and accountability. That is the fine line that we draw. We are not overregulating but we need that accountability. I suppose it is about scope and the number of times we may be calling people, and which Select Committees can call them. I would suggest it should not be just any Select Committee; it should be pertinent to the business.

The Government will ask that the amendments be withdrawn today, but could they commit that this will be somewhere in the Bill? Without an agreement that the regulator will be held to account by Parliament and will report to Parliament, this group of Peers—the small and happy band that we are—will be less than supportive of not supporting this, if that makes sense.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, building on what was just said—this comment is not particularly for the Government but is perhaps a reflection for both Houses—as this will be a completely new regulator, there should potentially be a committee of both Houses, unusual though it may be, with representatives from both sides. It might be quite useful for a committee to be set up to look at this regulator, not least because of all the issues we have been discussing, as it is something completely new.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The Industry and Regulators Committee, with outside organisations such as the Institute for Government and others, has looked at what might be appropriate going forward. There is a real concern that we do not have a drumbeat of accountability for all regulators, so some new mechanism might be appropriate, potentially even in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He makes a very strong point, which is that the current system of regulation for Premier League clubs, and the EFL doing it for its clubs, seeks absolutely to set up that competitive environment and those financial fair play rules. My point supports what the noble Lord said: there already is a system of checks and balances, which is working well and making sure that our English Premier League is the first in the world and the Championship is the sixth. Why do we need a regulator coming in between that?

I perfectly accept that there are certain things that the regulator is important for, such as the breakaway league, but is it really the best place to start to have financial distribution from one club to another? That is why I brought this amendment forward. We are fundamentally asking a regulator to do something that we have not asked any other regulator to do in the whole of the economic environment. I thank noble Lords for their interventions; they have added to the debate. I look forward to discussing this further.

Briefly, my other amendments, Amendments 126 and 130, again try to ensure that we do not get mission creep, that we are quite clear about the information the regulator should be asking for from the clubs, and that we cannot set up a regulator that is allowed to go on a complete fishing trip in a lot of these areas. The amendments would set out what information the regulator can ask for from clubs and what they should provide in their strategic business plans, so that we are all clear about that without an endless list that goes on and on. Again, I speak in the context not just of the large clubs; a lot of these are very small clubs, without a large amount of resource to reply to lots of information requests. We need to be quite clear about what we are asking the regulator to do.

I hope this has contributed to the debate. I hope noble Lords will reflect on the fact that we are asking the regulator to do more than we do in any other sector—in our most successful sector too—and whether that is wise.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with

“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—

in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.

The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.

It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.

The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.

This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.

The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.

This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words now. I remind the Committee that many of the people taking part today do not like regulation. I have heard that—a lot. I have a bad short-term memory because I am dyslexic, and I have got the message very clearly, so can we just leave it there?

The aim of the Bill is to create a sound framework for football. Even if you do not think those at the top are in trouble, everybody is agreed that, periodically, the other bits look as though they are going to collapse and fall away, or will have to be replaced, as well as all the little local dramas going on. That has been going on for decades, and we have all heard it.

We are going to have a regulator. The worst type of regulator is one that stands back and does not intervene until it is too late, and has to go in with a heavy hand. We want a regulator that we know will intervene and, as I put it at Second Reading, bite hard enough to leave a scar; a body that will actually do something and let people know that there will be consequences for not complying with the regulation. That is what the Bill is about—and what it has been about since the first version. I hope that we can progress on the line that we are trying to make the regulator work properly, and that we do not have too much repetition of points that have already been made.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, could we have the answer tonight as to what the state of play actually is? If we get some assurance that, “Providing we do not do X and Y, which we hope is not the intention of the Bill, we are fine”, then this will get put to bed. If the Minister can see some way of assuring us, even if it had to be on Chatham House terms or something, that would help, because we do not want there to be a problem. If we can get that assurance out there, this issue will go away. Let us face facts: it just would not exist.

We want there to be a competition. Presumably, Europe wants the Premier League there. The reason why we have this Bill is about Europe. It was because of fans protesting that they were going to lose their competition and their traditions to Europe, and politicians saying, “We’ll intervene”, which most people agreed with. If we can get an assurance that there is something solid that means we would have to do something radically different to turn this bad scenario into a living nightmare, that is fine. We cannot guarantee the future; we can deal only with the Bill in front of us. If the Minister can give us those assurances she will have my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling this amendment, which gives us a further opportunity to have a discussion on international competitions. I understand that the intent of the amendment is to ensure that English clubs can continue to participate and compete successfully in international competitions. That is something we all want. As we have discussed at length previously, the Government are confident that nothing in this Bill as drafted will jeopardise the participation of our clubs in international competitions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised a point on UEFA statutes. As I have reiterated previously, in the strongest terms, we have engaged extensively with UEFA in the development of the Bill. As has been confirmed by the FA, we are confident that the Bill as drafted will not breach any of UEFA’s statutes. The regulator will be operationally independent of this Government and any future Government, and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. This was confirmed by the FA itself in oral evidence given to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on 14 May this year, during the passage of the previous Bill, introduced by the last Government. Both Ministers and officials have engaged regularly with the FA, UEFA and FIFA about the Bill, and they will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and beyond.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Obviously that is great, but the Bill has changed since then, particularly around the backstop provision. The noble Baroness on the Labour Bench was talking about before this new Bill came into effect: does that still stand? Has there been an update from the FA on that, because some of the provisions in the Bill have changed?

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 12 I will also speak to Amendments 113 to 115 in my name and Amendments 116 to 119 in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. These amendments address what is in my view a weakness in the Bill’s approach to regulatory guidance and consultation. They are important amendments because they go to the heart of how this new regulator will operate in practice.

The Minister has reassured us that this will be a collaborative regulator working closely with football; that is very welcome. Yet, unfortunately, the Bill requires the production of guidance only for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions. For every other major regulatory function, including some of the most significant interventions ever proposed in British sport, there is no obligation for the regulator to explain how it will act via guidance. Nor, indeed, is there any requirement to consult those affected as it produces that guidance.

I welcome my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s suggestion of a code of practice to guide the regulator’s approach in a number of important areas. Perhaps I can highlight just three crucial areas where I believe we need more clarity. The first is financial sustainability, the regulator’s core purpose. Despite extensive debates in this Committee about what financial sustainability means, or should mean, in practice, the regulator would have no obligation to define how it will assess soundness or resilience in guidance or what system it will use to make it work.

That means that a club such as my own, West Ham United, seeking to make long-term investment decisions, would have no clarity on how they might be judged. Worse than that, there is no requirement to consult with the industry on what these vital definitions should look like. Ministers have described the regulatory model as light touch. One of my amendments seeks to ensure that this is indeed the case when it comes to financial regulation, asking the regulator to publish guidance on the financial outcomes it wishes to see from clubs.

Secondly, there is the owners’ and directors’ test. This vital mechanism, critical to attracting responsible investment, is not written into the legislation. It is left—albeit with some considerations in the Bill—to the regulator to develop. Again, there is no requirement to consult clubs, leagues or potential investors on its design. I do not think it unreasonable to ask: how can English football expect to attract responsible, long-term investment without requirements for regulatory transparency or co-operation that would undoubtedly result in higher-quality and better-informed regulation?

Thirdly, and perhaps most concerning, is the backstop power over financial distributions. This unprecedented mechanism could fundamentally alter football’s financial flows, yet the regulator does not need to explain how it will approach such decisions or consult on its methodology. Billions of pounds are at stake, along with the very existence of the key competitive measures, tools, structures and incentives that currently underpin the English pyramid’s success. It is the most extraordinary of interventions, yet there is no requirement for even the most ordinary of procedural safeguards.

This absence of guidance risks creating real uncertainty. The Premier League recently agreed a new domestic broadcasting deal running through to 2029. Clubs are making infrastructure investments over similar timelines. As I have already said, academy and stadium developments require five to 10-year horizons. I must emphasise that it puts football clubs in a really difficult position to be able to make major commitments without any real clarity on how they will be regulated.

We have a real lack of a clarity on a range of areas in the Bill, compounded by uncertainty as to how the regulator will go about regulating in practice. My amendments in this group do not seek to constrain the regulator’s authority in any way. They seek only to ensure that its powers are exercised transparently and intelligently. They would simply require the regulator to provide guidance across all its functions and consult appropriately on its development. This is a minimal yet clearly critical requirement.

I hope and expect the Minister to say that it is her clear intention that this regulator will be collaborative. If that is the case, I think it is fair to ask: why not go the extra step and enshrine that approach in the Bill? What justification exists for allowing such significant powers to be exercised without clear guidance or consultation?

In conclusion, I encourage the Minister to examine these vital improvements and consider them clearly. Transparency and collaboration should not be optional extras. They should instead be the cornerstones of this new framework. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of this group of amendments. I particularly support those that would introduce a requirement for the IFR to consult those affected as it produces guidance. Consultation with key interested and impacted parties, particularly the leagues, is critical.

The IFR is an entirely new regulator operating in an entirely new regulated space with no real international experience to draw on. As I highlighted at Second Reading:

“The Explanatory Notes themselves acknowledge that football ‘was previously not regulated by statutory provisions’, and explicitly state that ‘the new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented’”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1850.]


A duty to consult on key areas, such as those set out by my noble friend Lady Brady, to ensure that unintended and potentially damaging consequences are avoided as the regulator begins its work and develops its guidance, is surely a no-brainer.

At our recent meeting with the shadow regulator, and in various responses from the Minister during Committee, the desire and expectation of the regulator to work in a collaborative and proportionate way have been repeatedly reiterated. Several amendments in this group simply put that consultative approach firmly and squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister can look favourably on them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too hope very much that the Minister and the department will look favourably on these amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans. They seem to be absolutely essential for reasons of efficacy and to give confidence to those who will be regulated that they and others will be properly consulted. I would be very surprised to be told that the regulator would not intend to do so. If that is right, it is surely essential, as in other legislation, that this is put in the Bill so that there is no doubt about it and so that the confidence that is absolutely essential is promoted.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 173A standing in my name on the Order Paper. Here, we are referring to Clause 32, and it is the Secretary of State who will be taking a power beyond this Bill, not even by positive resolution but by using a much lighter negative resolution procedure, to determine the time period for the approval of new owners and offices. I quote from the Government’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which states that

“the contents of the IFR’s suitability tests may likely change, compared to when the Bill is introduced … Once the contents of the IFR’s tests are set in statute, the Government will be better placed to set the time window in regulations”.

This is, after all, an important clause which addresses the scope of powers to attach or vary discretionary licence conditions. I would have thought that the consultation period should be very specific and placed on the face of the Bill. There is a risk here that the regulator may not consult the clubs in the leagues and just hurry the process through, which I am sure is not the intention, but why on earth not put it on the face of the Bill—not only which clubs and leagues are affected—which is not part of the Bill, as we have previously debated?

The very least the Government can do on this occasion is amend this clause, given the scale of these powers, and change the scope of the manifold discretionary licence conditions that the Government, not the regulators, are imposing on football clubs here. They must consult them. It seems eminently sensible that they should consult them, and I would have thought that the Minister would be the first to say that they will consult them. If they will, I cannot understand why we would not put that in the Bill.

My amendment says simply that, before submitting a request under subsection (6), the regulator must consult, first, the clubs; secondly, “each specified competition organiser”; and, thirdly, such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate. The consultation, as it stands, is not specific enough and risks the regulator not consulting the clubs and leagues on this issue. I really do believe that there would be every intention for the regulator to do so, so let us just clarify that in the Bill so that there is no danger that the regulator would avoid that possibility. I hope my amendment gains the approval of the Minister when she comes to wind up.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 173B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hayward, who I hope feels better soon. It introduces a number of key principles for the governance of capital buffer requirements that the IFR could potentially impose. This amendment fills an important gap in the Bill. I am also supportive of other amendments encouraging the IFR to adopt an outcome-focused approach, allowing the leagues to develop detailed financial rules within the overall statutory framework, as this will help to preserve the competitive balance with the design of common rules for all clubs. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this approach reflects the light-touch model that she has been describing.

As we heard in our debate on Monday, the Bill allows for a more interventionist approach for the IFR with individual clubs, through its discretionary licence conditions. In these cases, it is important that some clear parameters are set out in the Bill to ensure that any capital buffer requirements that may be developed are workable, proportionate and reflective of football’s realities.

Football clubs operate in vastly different financial contexts, even within the same pyramid. At one end, a relatively modest capital buffer of, say, enough to cover six months of operating costs might have saved a club such as Bury, for instance. But, at the other end, the challenges faced by Premier League clubs are of an entirely different scale. For a Premier League club relegated to the Championship, or indeed a club expecting but then failing to qualify for the Champions League, I understand that the financial shock can amount to as much as £90 million to £100 million.

Crucially, the way these clubs manage such risks is fundamentally different from clubs in lower leagues. At this level, as we have heard, clubs do not rely on cash reserves alone. Instead, they utilise a range of financial tools, including player trading, which is a core part of football’s economic model, as well as secured credit facilities—often backed by guaranteed revenues—and parachute payments, which I know we will discuss later and which help with the transition on relegation.

Without explicit reference in the Bill, there is a danger that the IFR might impose overly rigid liquidity requirements that would privilege clubs with access to unlimited working capital—I am thinking, for instance, of those backed by sovereign wealth funds—while unfairly disadvantaging others. This amendment would ensure that capital buffers reflect the real-world financial tools that clubs use to manage risk, including non-cash assets, as I have just described.

The single most important liquid asset for football clubs towards the top of the pyramid is their players. As I am sure my noble friend Lady Brady can tell us, player trading is often one of the first mechanisms that they turn to when managing financial shocks—yet the Bill provides no clarity on how the IFR will treat these assets. Even when player liquidity is recognised, valuation of these assets is critical. Under current UEFA financial fair play rules, players developed through academies are often valued at zero, for instance, based on book value, rather than their actual market worth. The purpose of UEFA’s rules is different, but, if copied by the IFR for the purposes of capital buffers, for instance, this could penalise clubs such as Crystal Palace, Southampton, West Ham or Arsenal, which have brought through many talents into their first teams in recent years.

This amendment therefore seeks to ensure that the IFR adopts sophisticated valuation methodology, including proper independent valuation of players and, in particular, a proper recognition of the value of academy players. Without these safeguards, the IFR risks undervaluing clubs’ most significant assets, forcing them to meet capital buffer requirements that are, in practice, unnecessary.

We have heard many times in this Committee that the competitive balance is the lifeblood of football, but poorly designed capital buffer requirements could easily and accidentally disrupt this balance. We must avoid this outcome, so I hope that even if the Minister is unable to accept the level of specificity in Amendment 173B, she will recognise that this area of the Bill is a source of anxiety for clubs. I hope she will agree that the principles within this amendment are important and that it is the Government’s intention that the IFR pursues a tailored approach, informed by guidance, that will protect the competitive balance and investability of the English game.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments in a very large group—enormous, in fact—but they all have at their core an impact on the way in which the independent football regulator could make financial distribution decisions.

I will run through some of the more important ones briefly. Amendment 260 would mean that it is not only a specified competition organiser that can trigger the mediation process. Amendment 261 would provide for competition organisers to obtain consent before determining the distribution of revenue and would require the IFR to be satisfied that the distribution proposals comply with its general principles which are contained in Section 62(2).

Amendment 267 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult people who represent the views of regulated clubs and the views of fans of regulated clubs before making regulations which specify the source or description of relevant revenue. Amendment 268 would amend the definition of distribution agreement. Amendment 269 is also part of this series and would mean that it is not only a specified competition organiser which can trigger the mediation process regarding the distribution of revenue.

Amendment 276 seeks to provide that a competition organiser can apply to the IFR to trigger the resolution process if there has been a change to rather than any reduction in the revenue received by a competition organiser. Amendment 284 would require any notification that a competition organiser gives to trigger the resolution process regarding distribution revenues. Amendment 293 would insert an amendment to trigger the resolution process. Amendment 318 would narrow the circumstances in which the independent football regulator may revoke a distribution order where the competition organisers have agreed a distribution agreement to circumstances where that distribution order complies with Section 62(1)(a) or (b) or Section 62(4)(a) on the principles in general set out in that section.

Why are these amendments necessary? It is principally because we require a degree of flexibility for the regulator. We want to ensure that the regulator can trigger a mediation process and impose its own deal if the parties fail to reach agreement by mediation. Currently, it seems to me that the regulator will be presented with a binary choice, and neither of those choices might be perfect.

At the moment, the deal is primarily controlled by the Premier League. Overall, 88% of broadcast revenue goes to the Premier League and 7% of the remainder goes to clubs who get parachute payments, meaning that the remaining 5% is split between the next 138 clubs in the pyramid. I accept the case that has been powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that the Premier League is a great league, that it produces incredible and impressive revenues and that those revenues have worked to solidify the excellence of the league and improve the quality of the clubs, the entertainment on offer and the players who are available to it.

However, it seems to me that we ignore at our peril the rest of the pyramid. Currently, for every £1,000 that goes to a Premier League club, just £313 goes to a Championship club and, if you take it down to a National League South club, it gets just 14p. Yet, if you look at the attendance figures, 45% of football fans, roughly speaking, go to a Premier League match and the remaining 55% go to games in the Championship, League One, League Two, National League, National League North and National League South, so there is a case for better distribution. I am not saying what that distribution should be—that is obviously a matter for which the regulator will be responsible—but the regulator needs to be able to make that decision based on the best possible circumstances. So these amendments are designed to facilitate that and to allow the regulator to act freely, working with football industry bodies and ensuring that they have the best possible information.

That is why my amendments seek to generate some flexibility and why a distribution deal must pass parameters set by the regulator, so that the gap between the various levels of football can perhaps be narrowed. It was never intended to be as wide as it is today. Initially, the gap between the Premier League and the Championship level was a lot narrower, and then again between the Championship and Leagues One and Two. It is the important development of football TV rights that has allowed the Premier League to become as rich as it has and to pay the wages that it can pay. International comparisons put the Premier League way ahead of any similar leading leagues.

We have a strange situation where some 64 clubs in the top four divisions have gone into administration since the start of the Premier League. That is clearly an unhealthy situation and a better distribution deal that is properly regulated would begin to address some of the gaps and some of the disparities. That is the spirit behind these amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord will be well aware that the EFL has just signed a very great deal with Sky, with revenue coming in, and I do not believe that that money is distributed down the pyramid either. One hopes that the Championship and the EFL will continue to improve and get better deals. Does his amendment include the fact that perhaps that league needs to start looking to distribute and that if its income starts to increase, as we all hope it will do—we have heard that it is the sixth-richest league anyway—it is not just the Premier League that needs to be involved in this but the EFL itself? At the moment, it does not distribute any of the income from the money that it gets in from broadcasting. Perhaps it needs to look at distributing some of its income down the leagues as much as the Premier League does.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a compelling point. It is the case that the EFL is dominated by the Championship clubs. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the EFL has secured a beneficial deal. It is not for me, her or anyone else in this Committee to say what the right sum of money is. I am merely pointing out that the distribution has changed over time. The available money for distribution has grown as the game has become more successful as a product unique to England and Wales, and it is for the IFR to get the distribution right. The point that the noble Baroness makes is that we should not be arguing the case for either the EFL or the Premier League; we should be arguing the case for football, because it is all of football that we want to see benefit, so that the pyramid truly acts as a pyramid and acts well in strengthening the national game.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for their amendments on this important topic. I thank my noble friend for outlining why distributions are so important to the football pyramid. I will aim to take the amendments in a sensible order, with logical grouping where possible. In appreciating comments on the size of the group, I note that there is a logic to this, as outlined by my noble friend, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that I do not think we have skimped on debate during Committee—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, both that the hour is getting late and that it does not feel like the debate has finished or will finish any time soon.

I acknowledge the probing intent of the amendments and it is really helpful to have this debate. I know that subsequent groups will go into this a bit more as well. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is important that we do our absolute best to work through the issues that noble Lords have raised and to get the regulator right, which was the point that he made.

I reassure my noble friends that we agree on the importance of regulatory intervention on distributions— I appreciate that not all noble Lords have exactly the same view of this. Amendments 260, 269, 270, 293, 295 and 288 would broaden the powers that the regulator has to intervene by allowing it to trigger the back- stop process. I understand the intention behind the amendments, but we must maintain the backstop process as a last resort, to be triggered by the leagues only if they cannot come to an agreement themselves.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness keeps saying that, and I understand that it is what we hoped was going to happen, but I do not think that anyone in this Committee believes that it will be a last resort. From the briefings that all noble Lords—including, I am sure, the Minister—have had from all sides, we know that the backstop is likely to be triggered very early on by the regulator. I really hope the Minister can move from what we hoped might be the position to where I think we are, whether we like it or not, and look at these processes on the basis of what is likely to happen. This could be one of the first things that the regulator has to deal with.

We have heard concerns about the nature of the conversations and the way that those might set up leagues against one another. I know that the Minister would hope that it was a last resort, as I think we all did, but I urge her to accept that if we are being genuinely honest—and other noble Lords may have heard differently from the various leagues we have all been speaking to—it seems to be a view that this is likely to happen. It would be much more helpful for our discussions if we could stop saying, “It’s a last resort”, and accept that it is very likely to happen quicker than we all wanted.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, may take a different view and I completely understand people’s concerns that it will be a front-stop—as a spoiler alert, and with apologies to my noble friend, I am not going to accept these amendments; we will come to that in a moment. However, we genuinely think that the model we have established is very similar, apart from the possible inclusion of the parachute payment—for want of a better word; it is not the phrase used in the Bill, but that escapes me for a moment—should the “state of the game” report suggest to the regulator that it needs to allow that to be taken into account.

My view is that the model we have presented should incentivise the leagues and the parties to come to an agreement themselves, and that opportunity to do so does not go away once the regulator is established. That is the design of the model and an essential part of it, as it was in the previous iteration of the Bill, so this is absolutely intended as a backstop process. We can go on to debate that in later groups as well as in this group. I am happy to do that and to meet people individually to go through why we think this will be a backstop and not a front-stop whereby the minute the regulator sets off in motion, everybody will claim that they want to have the backstop triggered.

However, there are things that the regulator will need to take into account if somebody asks for the backstop process to be triggered. It is not the necessarily the case that the regulator would have to accept that that process was set in motion. The whole model is designed around the principle of trying to get people to come to an agreement themselves. It is really important to ensure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not going to comment on what people did or did not say in that committee meeting at this point. The backstop would be applied only if certain high thresholds were met. The regulator will be an independent regulator and it will have strict measures to meet—high thresholds which it must be satisfied of if the backstop is to be triggered. If there is still no agreement, the parties will move to a final proposal stage and, at that point, the regulator would convene an independent expert panel and invite final proposals from both relevant leagues with accompanying analysis, and the independent expert panel would choose the most appropriate proposal. This model incentivises both parties to compromise, as unreasonable proposals would not be chosen.

The whole model, which is almost identical in every detail to how the previous Government were planning to do this, is intended—

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Minister keeps coming back to the previous model. I think most of us here thought the previous model was nuts, and we still think it is nuts. We never discussed this in the House, so to keep saying that is quite insulting to quite a lot of us who always thought this was a bad idea. We are trying to engage with the Minister now about why we think it is a bad idea, and we would really like her to talk about the detail rather than keep saying, “Well, it was your Government”. Honestly, I would never have voted for this beforehand and, in my ex-position, that would have probably been quite a bad thing, but I am sorry, I would not have done so. I would like the Minister to focus on what we are talking about rather than keep using those issues to deflect from getting into the detail.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure how many times I have said that this evening, but it is really not very many. I am trying to establish that this model has been worked on and discussed for some time. I appreciate that noble Lords in this House did not get the opportunity to discuss it under the previous Government. It is a model that has been worked through, with examples from different organisations. It encourages compromise and tries to get people to reach a deal that everybody can work through and which meets the criteria of the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

So, for all that the Minister maintains that it is somehow improper for us to be questioning this, we have the Government bang to rights on this one. I therefore hope that she will take this away and give it careful consideration, because she is playing with something quite dangerous here. I am no longer a politician—I sit in your Lordships’ House—but I am still alert enough to the political dangers of getting something like this badly wrong, and I have to say to the Minister and her colleagues in the Government that, if this goes badly wrong, they are going to own it.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I support Amendment 263 and declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City, who, over a number of seasons, endured the pain of relegation and then the joy of promotion on a regular basis. So, unlike my noble friend Lord Maude, I am well aware of the benefits of parachute payments, although unfortunately not for a few seasons now.

As we have heard, parachute payments are a critical foundation for the competitiveness of the Premier League. They help clubs manage the financial impact relegation from the Premier League can cause and give a degree of stability at a time of significant challenge to allow them to adjust to their new financial and footballing reality. That is true of all clubs. Well-run clubs like Norwich City could not have survived, even with the benevolent owners they had, without the benefit of a parachute payment. A parachute payment does not, however, in any way ensure that clubs continually go up to the Premier League, as, unfortunately, the last few seasons for Norwich City have shown.

I am sure a number of noble Lords will have seen the letter from Cliff Crown, chairman of Brentford FC, who said:

“For Brentford FC the parachute payment model provided an essential safety net, enabling us to invest in the team and infrastructure when we secured promotion. This support was pivotal in ensuring we could compete effectively and establish ourselves in the Premier League.”.


Like other noble Lords, I am concerned that the Bill as it stands may inadvertently incentivise bottom-half Premier League clubs and Championship clubs seeking promotion to significantly curb their investment over time, given the greater risk relegation would undoubtedly present. As my noble friend Lady Brady said, relegation would become a real financial cliff edge that would see clubs lose enormous amounts of revenue overnight, while having to continue to cover the costs predicated on their involvement in the Premier League. If that were to happen, the competitiveness of the Premier League would be severely weakened, and I believe the Championship would be significantly weakened too, undermining the very attributes that attract the revenues that sustain the game.

I urge the Minister to look again at this issue and to carefully consider the concerns raised in our discussions today. In particular, if she has not already done so, I urge her to talk to the clubs whose first-hand experience of the stabilising effects of parachute payments surely must be central to any discussion of this issue. I really hope that their experience will not be dismissed out of hand.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for this amendment and all noble Lords who have taken part with a degree of passion that shows their commitment to the game and to the legislative scrutiny process.

First, I acknowledge that all noble Lords—I include myself in this—agree that parachute payments are a significant part of football’s financial landscape. I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise that they play an important role in supporting the survival of relegated clubs. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that they can provide a lifeline. However, the regulator needs to be able to consider all relevant revenue sources as part of the backstop process to get an accurate picture of the proposal’s impact on financial sustainability. That is why parachute payments have not been excluded in this Bill’s definition of relevant revenue.

We believe that allowing the regulator to make a more informed decision, rather than restricting what it can consider, will only help to achieve the best possible outcome for the future of the game. Notably, parachute payments will be reviewed as part of the process only if the regulator deems them a relevant consideration. The current drafting does not require that parachute payments be considered; it allows them to be so only if they are deemed relevant by the regulator. So, if it agrees with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, based on the state of the game report, it will act accordingly. What that means in practice—

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Minister talks about the state of the game report, which I completely agree is going to be extremely important, but the fact of the matter is that the backstop could be triggered before the state of the game report is published. From what I remember, it is quite a long time before it needs to be published. It could be that both leagues—the EFL and the Premier League, or whoever—will trigger the backstop before that, so parachute payments will be included. Unfortunately, the state of the game report may have no impact whatever on an initial decision by the regulator. The timescales simply do not work. I am not expecting a particular answer today, as the Minister can well say that she is not in charge of the regulator, but it is important to note that the timing of these things does not necessarily tie up, so unfortunately, reassurances like that are not really reassurances.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Clearly, it does not need to wait for the state of the game report to decide whether they are relevant. The approach we have adopted in the Bill means in practice that if the regulator has clear evidence, whether from a different source or from the state of the game report, that parachute payments are causing sustainability issues to the wider pyramid, it will now be able to address them. In our view, this was a potentially serious gap in the legislation that we feel has now been rectified. I stress “potential”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will intervene again, and I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Labour tabled an amendment on this in opposition, so I am surprised that there seems to be so much surprise that the Government have now put this in the legislation. I accept that perhaps it was not noted at the time.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Minister will also know that Labour tabled a lot of amendments, many of which we are also now pushing, but are told they are not going to be considered. So, yes, but equally perhaps the Minister might like to look through all the amendments tabled by her colleagues in the Labour Party in the other House and see whether she is now prepared to accept them all.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope we can move constructively on this point. I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to give clubs as much time as they request. I appreciate the amount of time the Minister has given all of us in all this. It feels that that may be a point worth taking forward, particularly on parachute payments.

To my mind, the biggest proof on all of this is the fact that 51 of the 92 clubs in the whole pyramid have been in the Premier League at some point. That is way over half. That speaks to how fluid the system is and how much it is working. Over half the clubs have spent some time in the Premier League. To me that speaks volumes. That is the biggest concern I have. We have a system that works; we have competition throughout the pyramid. The real fear from all my noble friends who have spoken on this, and why we speak with such passion, is the fact that we endanger all of that. I will withdraw my amendment.