Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, emphasising again and again that the Government want proportionate and flexible regulation. Despite these reassurances, I am still nervous. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has just indicated, regulation has a tendency to run away with itself and lead to unintended consequences. Yes, we are all seeking to tackle problems in good faith and, yes, I understand that many football supporters feel frustrated by mismanagement and dodgy ownership of their own clubs. Still, the Bill is ultimately the state interfering in civil society.

Why football matters to so many of us was perceptively explained by Luton fan and writer Dr Rakib Ehsan in his Playing by the Rules report for ResPublica, which I read in preparation for today. Clubs that are supported by families over generations, especially in provincial towns and left-behind areas, are civic institutions that provide a sense of pride, belonging and identity to local communities. Crucially, they are the epitome of free association by free citizens, a core activity for their free time. The passions of football fandom are authentic precisely because they are organic and spontaneous, not the product of top-down statist curation by regulators. We restrict and undermine football’s freedom at our peril.

I probably would not intervene in the Bill if the legislation was confined to a focus on financial sustainability. However, my worry is that once the independent football regulator is established it may well expand its mandate and indulge in the sort of interventionist mission creep we have heard about and seen from other state-appointed regulators. What is more, the clauses added to the original version of the Bill point in this expansionist direction. My dread is of politicised attempts at shaping football clubs and their fans, continuing a broader trend of what has been, frankly, an elitist colonisation and sanitisation of football over recent years.

We are told that the proposed regulatory regime is all being done for the fans—I am rather sceptical. Yes, it is popular with many fans, but many other fans are suspicious about being used as a stage army to justify interference in what they consider to be “their” game. New provisions now require explicit democratic engagement with supporters to amplify the voice of the fans, but which fans and whose voices? I remind noble Lords that, over recent years, politicians have expressed a rather ambivalent attitude to football fans’ voices.

As the Minister explained, the plans to set a minimum standard of fan engagement and decision-making about key club heritage assets, such as home shirts, club badges, the name and so on, is important to the Bill, but it seems that not all heritage assets beloved by fans are to be protected by the Bill. What about the heritage football chants and songs? They are assets too. They are most likely to be silenced by the Government’s ever-expanding football banning orders, with the state laying down strict rules on proscribed lists of words or subjects never to be mentioned—let alone sung about—at matches. Politicians have targeted and punished those they consider to be the wrong kind of fans. Too often traditional working-class supporters—the heart and soul of British football—are viewed as “the deplorables”, in need of re-education.

Another government addition to the Bill is the demand that clubs improve their commitment to, and report annually on, their actions on equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI. It sends a shiver down my spine. This seems to contradict the Government’s claim that they want to stop the culture wars. If so, why oh why would they introduce one of the most divisive culture-wars-type policies into football? As we speak, EDI policies are political trip-wires in all workplaces across the public and private sectors—the vehicle for identitarian ideologies and assaults on free speech. Regardless of whether noble Lords agree with my hostility towards EDI, we can surely agree that these are politically contentious policies—just look at the toxic row going on at the Bar Council at the moment—so why are the Government using legislation to foist them on football clubs?

A couple of examples may act as cautionary tales. The first is the shocking case of lifelong Newcastle fan, 34 year-old Linzi Smith. Superfan Linzi, who over the years must have handed over tens of thousands of pounds to her beloved club in tickets and merchandise, has been banned by Newcastle United from attending home and away games until the 2026-27 season. What was her crime? She did not get into a fight on the terraces or abuse a steward or fellow fans; the ban was for expressing her belief in the biological reality of sex—not at a match but on X, or Twitter. In an example of remarkable EDI overreach, she has been punished for breaching the club’s trans-inclusion policy by posting her opinions outside the ground. Linzi’s story is now in the public realm because, with the support of the Free Speech Union, she is taking the club that she has been loyal to all her life to court.

It is worth reading the details of her ordeal—the way that NUFC’s EDI team worked in cahoots with the Premier League’s mysterious investigative unit to set up surveillance and compile a dossier that was handed over to Northumbria Police. Even when the police declared that no crime was committed, the club banned her anyway for breaching EDI policy. Not all clubs have such overzealous EDI officials but, if the Government use the Bill to push EDI as proof of good governance, does this not incite clubs to target and make examples of any number of fans for expressing views at odds with EDI’s rigid orthodoxies?

The second case is of a 17 year-old autistic female footballer, which has been highlighted in the media and articulated so well here today by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. His persistence and courage in pushing this issue of fairness and safety in women’s football is to his credit and to be commended. This young 17 year- old’s “are you a man?” speech crime was reported by a member of the opposing team and the NGO Kick It Out for breaching trans-inclusive EDI rules. Ironically, she was put in the dock by the FA in the same week that it announced its new disability policy, entitled Football Without Limits—no limits unless you are a young autistic woman who offends gender ideology it seems; so much for inclusion.

EDI policies are regularly a political minefield. I urge the Minister to kick it out of the Bill. If the Government persist, and refuse to listen, perhaps it is because, to reference one bit of fans’ chanting wisdom, “You don’t know what you’re doing”.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit of a Brighton supporter myself. Tottenham is my first love; Horsham is my second; Brighton comes a very close third. I hope the letter from UEFA will be published so that we can see in exact detail what is said and therefore satisfy ourselves that the concerns will be dealt with comprehensively and finally so that there is no lingering anxiety.

I totally understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I wish I could be as happy as he is that there is no risk of subsequent mission creep, which is exactly the concern that UEFA raised. Some of us have raised that, in the Bill as currently drafted, there is scope for precisely the kind of mission and scope creep that UEFA seems to have identified. That is why it is so important at this stage that it should be dealt with and for it to be finally laid to rest that this concern need not be a concern.

My noble friend Lord Goodman spoke about the political risk for the Government if they come to be the people who have enacted a Bill which inflicts savage damage on English people’s expectations that their clubs will be able to participate in the Champions League, the Europa League and even the Europa Conference League, which West Ham so spectacularly won. It has to be dealt with quickly, cleanly and effectively, so that we no longer need to have sleepless nights over this.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a point about Clause 11. I have read it and I have also read the previous Clause 11. As far as I can see, they are absolutely identical. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, can help us, because he would have been in the DCMS at the time. Was it the case then that Ministers sought assurances from UEFA and FIFA that there was nothing in the Bill’s powers that would have offended them? If that is the case, and if Clause 11 is so important in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, this argument is probably a bit of a non-argument in the end, because we have had that clarification and assurance through the exchange of letters that took place in September this year.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think this is important. The last two contributions have just reminded me. I do not care what was in the previous Government’s Bill, which, to be honest, I would have stood up and argued against at that time as well.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I entirely accept that the noble Baroness would have done that, but I was more concerned about the argument coming from the Official Opposition.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I agree, but I was going to appeal to us myself to try to tackle the Bill—which is so important in many ways—with at least a little of the spirit of what is in the best interests of football, rather than what is in the best interests of the political footballs of political parties. That is just an appeal—it might not work—because Henry VIII powers, for example, are anti-democratic and illiberal whoever uses them. I do not therefore want not to be able to criticise them in case somebody thinks that I am on the side of the Tories or that I am anti-Labour. That is not the point, surely.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I take on board the Maude doctrine, which is that, had we had the opportunity to have scrutiny and oversight of the Bill at the appropriate moment, I would have made exactly the same points to my own Government when they were in power. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, he is flogging a dead horse by keeping on saying that this was a Tory Bill. We are today considering a Labour government Bill on its merits and its efficacy, which is why we are debating it.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my 10 amendments in this group on environmental sustainability. I want to support almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just said. If you are talking about sustainability, which is what we have been talking about for two days on this Bill, you cannot avoid environmental sustainability, because it will have an impact on the financial well-being of football, and every other business. At the moment, most clubs do not think very hard about this. Forest Green Rovers are fantastic; Liverpool are doing their bit; but, by and large, there are little tweaks that clubs are doing, which makes them feel good—or perhaps they cannot imagine doing anything more, I am not sure.

We know the climate is changing; we know that the weather is changing; we know there are more floods and more droughts; so it is very short-sighted not to include environmental sustainability when you are worried about the future of clubs and their financial sustainability. Football is at risk from climate change, as are many other sports. Flooded pitches lead to cancelled games, lost revenues and disappointed fans, and droughts demand expensive irrigation. As Carlisle United discovered, a flood can lead to the kind of jump in insurance premiums that could put you out of business. So fans need the confidence that these growing risks are being prepared for and that they are not going to have a detrimental impact on clubs’ finances. The Minister kindly gave me a meeting on this, although we did not quite agree, so does she agree that climate change will have direct impacts on the financial sustainability of football and, if so, how is that recognised in the Bill? At the moment, of course, it is not.

My Amendment 103 requires the football regulator to include an assessment of football’s resilience against climate change in its “state of the game report” because, if the report does not consider environmental sustainability, it can give only an incomplete picture of the state of the game. Amendments 127, 131, 154 and 166 introduce climate and environment management plans as a mandatory licence condition for clubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it should be mandatory across all businesses, and these environment management plans would set out the clubs’ environmental impact and what is being done to mitigate it. Above all, they would also require clubs to identify the impacts that climate change is having and will have on the club and make plans to manage those risks.

Football, of course, also contributes to climate change and environmental damage; hundreds of thousands of single-use plastic cups and utensils are used every single matchday; fertilisers, herbicides and millions of litres of water are used to keep the pitch green; and cities and towns are choked up with traffic on match days. The definition of sustainability in the Bill, as it stands, allows all this to continue unabated. It would even allow clubs to damage the environment even more, as long as they keep on serving fans and making a contribution to the community.

It really is an own goal for the planet, but football clubs actually caring about the planet do not have to cost the earth. Forest Green Rovers, who have been described as the greenest football club in the world, are focused on sustainability across their business. Solar panels provide about 20% of the club’s electricity needs; the club organises coaches to away games, not planes; they have cut out single-use plastics in favour of reusable or refillable options; the pitch is organic and harvests rainwater for irrigation. This is a club that is at the top of their table, fit for the future and a role model that other clubs could aspire to. Liverpool, who are, regrettably, also at the top of their table, have their Red Way initiative, which is about environmental sustainability.

My amendments will lay the groundwork for greener pitches and truly sustainable sport, embedding environmentalism throughout the football regulator’s remit. Amendment 55 adds climate and environment to the football regulator’s objectives. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the football regulator must be focused on the financial sustainability of clubs. The Bill already lists safeguarding the heritage of English football as an objective, so why not safeguard the environment as well? Amendments 60 and 66 require the football regulator to act in accordance with the net-zero targets in the Climate Change Act and secure the long-term environmental sustainability of football.

If the football regulator cannot set sport on an environmentally sustainable footing, football’s long-term viability is at risk. Amendment 144 would have clubs consult their fans about climate and environmental issues facing the club. Sustainable football should not just be a luxury enjoyed only by vegans and eco-entrepreneurs. While Forest Green Rovers are showing what is possible, this Bill is an opportunity to embed best practice throughout the sport. I really hope that the Government can move on this issue.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose this whole group of amendments.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is good to get a laugh before you start. I genuinely worry about the overreach summed up in this particular group that, for example, requires football clubs to operate

“in a way that will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”,

or

“materially reduce their negative impact on the natural world and all species that inhabit it”.

That is just from Amendment 15.

We already know the potentially costly and devastating impacts such green policies can have for organisations and individuals, let alone the barriers on development and growth that they can pose. Imposing such regulatory requirements on football clubs seems ill-advised and could be financially draining. I appreciate that, as we may have heard from the response to my initial remark, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and many others, will not agree with me politically, but my main reason for speaking is that this group exemplifies what happens once the Government open the floodgates to political interference in football by adding, for example, equality, diversity and inclusion as a mandatory part of what the regulator must inspect in football. If EDI is in the Bill, others will argue “Why not ESG or net zero?” and mission creep will start in a dangerous way. Such politicised interventions threaten to make the game of football secondary to political priorities and jeopardise clubs’ autonomy.

We have already heard from a number of contributors about a kind of league table of worthy green clubs. Do not get me wrong: if football owners, or chairs, or the fans decide they want that to be the priority, that is up to them. But it should be nowhere near the role of a regulator to decide. We have already heard about the case of green multimillionaire Dale Vince, who is the major shareholder and chair of Forest Green Rovers; we have heard him lauded. Certainly, Forest Green Rovers are the world’s first all-vegan football team; they are also the world’s first carbon-neutral football club; but I note that, at the end of the 2023-24 season, they were relegated back into non-league football, coming 24th out of 24. It is not a scientific correlation, I am just noting it.

Also, does having green credentials benefit fans, who we keep being told this Bill is designed for? Note the controversy over Forest Green Rovers’ home strip. The traditional black and white stripes were swapped for a lime green shirt and black shorts, in line with sponsorship from an eco-friendly, EV-supporting, green YouTube channel, despite what the fans wanted. So the Green Army was not necessarily kept happy by the green politics of the chair of the club. I simply raise this because, if a club wants to go green and fans want their club to be more environmentally friendly, that is fine. But the regulator should have absolutely zilch to say on it and certainly no power to impose it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate until I heard that last speech. I will, first of all, remind the Committee of my interest, because the company which I chair helps quite a number of people in football to meet the sustainability needs that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

There is no scientific society of any major country that does not say that climate change is the biggest material threat to mankind. All of them say and support the view that by 2050, we need to get to net zero if we are to have any possibility of keeping within a 1.5 degree increase in temperature compared with pre-industrial periods. All of them say that, if we do not do that, the effects upon people will be enormously damaging. You only have to look at what has happened with just a 1 degree increase: the recent floods in Spain, for example, the wildfires and the rest. What my noble friend says is not true and it is very dangerous, because that kind of attitude is what allows people to get off the hook.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not want to get into a fight among Tories, but I want to clarify my position. I disagree with both noble Lords, in some ways. My point is that I want football clubs to focus on football and not to have rows like this. This is precisely the thing I am objecting to: the introduction of at least in some ways contentious political or scientific matters. I simply say that this should not have anything to do with the regulation of football. That is all, and that is the reason I oppose it—not because I am taking a particular view on climate change or net zero.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have the last amendment in the group, which seems to be where my amendments are occurring today. I think we should have somebody at each club who addresses this issue. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this; it is an undeniable thing. You could probably quote one person who has said, “No, it isn’t”, but you cannot list everyone else who says that climate change is real without being here all week. They will then disagree about its extent, but they will not disagree on the fact that it is real.

There should be somebody at each club doing exactly these things to make sure that the business is sustainable, and to address the various problems. If it is just one person, as was suggested, it is simply a question of saying, “Please pay attention: can we raise the issue and see what is going on?” This could be someone who is managing the flood risk; the fact that grounds are being flooded is unarguable. Someone should be saying things such as, “What is the least damaging type of cup?” All of these issues will be important at different levels to different groups, but they are important. If other regulations are coming up to deal with this, you would be an absolute fool not to bring them into your plan.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is probably right on this, and it is nice to see him on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak against this set of amendments, which would add corporate responsibility requirements to the Bill. Before I do so, I want to say how much I respect and understand where the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is coming from. As a shareholder in the Premier League, I commit to him that we will meet with him to think about ways in which we can work together to deliver some of the aims that he spoke so passionately about, because we are all in agreement that they are important.

I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding in this House of the extraordinary social impact that football clubs already have in their communities and what drives this activity. Let me share some perspective on what football clubs already deliver. The Premier League provides over £500 million annually to support lower league clubs, fund youth development and invest in community facilities. We support every single football league club to provide its own community programmes, too. This is not a peripheral activity; it represents the most comprehensive community investment of any business sector in Britain. I cannot think of any other sector that voluntarily shares such a huge proportion—over 16%—of its central revenues in such a way.

The Premier League Charitable Fund’s £110 million three-year budget supports half a million people annually through targeted community programmes. Significantly, 45% of this activity takes place in our country’s most deprived communities. This April, the Premier League announced additional funding of £33 million per season from 2025-26 to further enhance this work.

The scale of impact that this work has is remarkable. Through the Football Foundation, Premier League funding has enabled over 70,000 grants to improve grass-roots facilities, supporting nearly 70,000 community teams last season alone. The Premier League Primary Stars programme reaches 84% of primary schools across England and Wales; that is 19,000 schools and over 18 million student interactions since 2017.

These are not isolated initiatives. More than 100 club-connected charities work daily in their communities. Programmes such as Premier League Kicks create opportunities for young people at risk of anti-social behaviour. Premier League Inspires develops personal skills and positive attitudes in young people aged 11 to 25. This work touches every aspect of community development.

Football has naturally evolved its social contribution without regulatory compulsion or diktats. What other business sector can demonstrate this level of sustained community investment? What other industry has built social responsibility so fundamentally into its operating model? Premier League clubs—indeed, all football clubs—understand their role as community institutions and deliver accordingly.

The Bill’s purpose is to address specific issues around what I think the Government mean by financial sustainability and governance. Adding layers of corporate responsibility requirements would not only duplicate existing good work but risk distracting the regulator from its core purpose. We have seen in other sectors how regulatory mission creep can undermine effectiveness. We must not let that happen here again.

Football clubs are not just businesses that happen to do some good work in their communities. They are the beating heart of those communities, woven into their very fabric across generations. When a child steps on to a Premier League-funded pitch in a deprived area, when a struggling student finds inspiration through Premier League Inspires, and when a disabled young person discovers the joy of playing football through a club foundation, these moments represent something profound about football’s role in our society.

Premier League clubs understand their power and their responsibility deeply. They live it every day through their actions, their investment and their commitment to their communities. I do not believe any regulation could ever mandate or compel this level of social impact; it comes from an authentic and deeply felt understanding of football’s unique place in our national life.

Let us keep the regulator focused on its vital purpose and trust instead in football’s consistent commitment to social good: not because rules demand it but because it is already so fundamental to what makes English football so special.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, that eloquent and passionate explanation of football at the heart of community sums up for me the tension when we are talking about this Bill. Football exists as a positive force in society and in communities. We do not want to kick the life out of it by turning it into a box-ticking exercise that imagines the only way football clubs will help a community is if they have a regulator breathing down their neck, saying, “You must be corporately socially responsible”. Noble Lords must not make me repeat that.

I had concerns in general when I read the details of all these amendments. For example, Amendment 165 calls for environmental sustainability requirements and increasing diversity and inclusion requirements. I will not repeat the points that I made earlier and will make more fully when I speak to my Amendment 155, opposing the imposed duties of EDI and so on. I want to look at one aspect of discrimination that I think is hidden. It is focused on in Amendment 247, which says that regulated clubs

“must facilitate football training for young women and girls”,

and Amendment 90, which says that the independent football regulator

“must include facilitation for both sexes and separate development pathways”.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Secondly, the Premier League has made clear its intention to maintain its ownership tests. In our meeting last week with representatives of the shadow regulator, they said that they had had conversations and knew that that was the situation—so everyone is working from the same page. But, obviously, that test is different from the test that the IFR will follow. Can the Minister explain what happens if the situation arises that the Premier League finds an owner suitable through its tests but the IFR does not? An even more tricky situation is if the IFR finds an owner suitable and the Premier League does not. Can the regulator overrule the Premier League in both these circumstances? Importantly, how would that difference be resolved? Obviously, that would be quite a critical situation and, for fans, a seminal issue for their club.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the debate on an earlier group we heard some dilemmas around the fact that, for example, Welsh teams such as Wrexham might not be in scope of the Bill. It is possible that Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds will be relieved to discover that they might not be. Those following Wrexham’s progress will know that they spend a great deal of time complaining about the ridiculous regulatory framework that the football club has to negotiate. It is not football regulation but every other—as they say—bonkers regulation that means they cannot build. There are many hoops that they have to jump through.

This is slightly important because, when we have this discussion about suitability and fitness, we constantly see it as scrutiny because we are wary of charlatans. Everybody that has ever been involved in football is anxious about types of owner who might not have football at their heart, but the reality is that many owners of football clubs and many people with influence over them love the game and are nothing but great influences on the clubs. That is obviously why Rob McElhenney and Ryan are well-known heroes worldwide now. But there are also corporate interests that can be just as beneficial and important.

One reason why this is so tricky, why it needs to be clarified and why I am glad to see these amendments in this group is that any discussion about suitability and fitness that gives so much intrusive and overbearing power to a regulator has to be queried to understand exactly what it will mean. The last question from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, was important: what happens if there is a clash?

Outside of football, the debates on who is suitable to run what are subject to all sorts of subjective and sometimes malicious trouble, caused by people who do not have the best interests of the clubs at heart. If noble Lords have ever spent any time with football fans, they will know that many do not think that their club’s owners are suitable or would pass any suitability test—as I will tell you over a pint. It might well be the gripe of the day.

My point is that the Bill has to be reined in, in terms of how much power has been given to make decisions that are not straightforward or scientific. Until we recognise that there is a danger of unintended consequences, the Minister might—not through any desire to—open a can of worms that will be damaging to many football teams.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak about ownership definitions and tests proposed in the Bill, and particularly to support Amendments 27 to 29 tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

Although everyone can support proper scrutiny of football club ownership, I have concerns that the current provisions create unnecessary complexity and uncertainty. It is important that we are clear about the purpose of the Bill in this respect. As my noble friend’s amendments demonstrate, the Bill proposes a new definition of ownership that goes beyond current football tests, introducing the concept of influence. This goes beyond the football authority definitions, which focus only on control. Yet the Bill provides little detail about how this extended scope will work in practice or what problems it aims to solve. It will apparently be for the Secretary of State to decide what is meant by “influence”.

Equally concerning is the lack of clarity regarding existing owners. As has already been asked, do the Government envisage using these new powers to retrospectively challenge current ownership arrangements? If not, why create a broader definition than the existing tests? If they do, this represents an extraordinary intervention into private property rights that demands much greater scrutiny.

The Premier League has significantly strengthened its owners tests, including in relation to the Abramovich case, and sanctioned individuals. What evidence suggests that parallel tests, with differing criteria, would improve outcomes, rather than creating uncertainty and potential legal conflict? Without such clarity, we risk creating a framework that deters responsible investment, while failing to address any real problems in football governance.

Let me be clear about another point. As my noble friend Lady Evans pointed out, the EFL is, I believe, very happy to give up its own ownership test to the regulator because it views the exercise as costly and time consuming—that is its right. But the Premier League fully intends to maintain its own ownership tests—why should it not? It is a fundamental right of a members’ organisation to determine its own composition, and the Premier League really is a membership body. We have only 20 clubs, not 72, and it is a fundamental part of how we drive forward the Premier League, grow in international markets and make collective decisions about the future of the game, together with the FA.

Determining who can come into the group is therefore a key part of how we collectively run the Premier League as equal shareholders. I would argue that we have one of the most sophisticated ownership tests in world sport. Yet the Bill would introduce a parallel test, and it would do so without defining its contents. Naturally, this creates immediate uncertainty.

The Bill is troubling, too, on detail. The planned test, which will be for the regulator to create and define at some stage in future, would appear to include more subjective elements than the Premier League’s existing criteria. That would be very strange. Surely it would be quite a good idea if prospective investors and owners could know with confidence, from the outside, whether they qualified to buy a football club. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a simple question: is the test provided for in the Bill going to be a subjective or an objective test? It obviously cannot be both. As my noble friend Lady Evans said, the practical implications run deeper. What happens when the regulator approves an owner, but the Premier League does not, or vice versa? Can the IFR force the Premier League to take in an owner that it does not want? The Bill makes no provision for resolving such conflicts. Instead, I worry that it creates the perfect conditions for prolonged litigation—exactly what proper regulation should avoid.

Of course, all this uncertainty is likely to be very damaging to investment. Put yourself in the shoes of an investor examining Premier League football as a potential opportunity. They now face not one ownership test but two, both with different criteria. One test is not even defined in legislation. Either could result in rejection. Both could trigger lengthy legal challenges. What serious investor would begin spending the millions of pounds required to explore a transaction in football —on the investment bankers, the lawyers, the due diligence, the regulatory compliance, the tax advisers and the rest of it? Why would we want to introduce such fundamental uncertainty?

I worry that, without far more clarity in the Bill, we risk deterring the very kind of responsible, long-term investors that football needs and wants. I urge the Minister to carefully consider these points. At a minimum, we need clarity on: how conflicts between tests will be resolved; exactly how and why the IFR’s test is intended to be materially different from the existing tests; what provisions exist for managing litigation; why the definition of ownership is wider than that used by the football authorities today, and what the implications are; and, above all, how investment confidence will be maintained.

The goal of proper ownership scrutiny is, of course, completely correct, but we must achieve it through clear, workable mechanisms and not parallel systems that create uncertainty and confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, perhaps I could have a clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he had lots of experience of regulators. He referred to the Online Safety Act and Ofcom and his dealings there. I found it incredibly unhelpful to be constantly told by Ministers at that time that something was not up to them, it was up to Ofcom, even when we were making a decision about what the Ofcom regulator was going to do.

There are times when it feels as though Governments of any political stripe can outsource authority to a regulator. They tell the regulator what to do and then, when you try and hold somebody to account, the Government say, “Oh no, it’s the regulator that makes that decision”. So it actually removes any accountability. I am very keen on a mechanism for accountability and I am very anxious that, when we constantly stress that they are independent, arm’s-length regulators, that can be a way of avoiding any kind of political accountability.

However, I am also sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the kinds of things you can imagine happening if there is accountability at Select Committee level. I want accountability and I can take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about the forensic way that Select Committees can hold people to account. That sounds very positive. But it depends which one it is and who is on it. I can imagine the political fads of the day. You can imagine a Select Committee saying, “Why aren’t you doing more on”—my favourite topics—“EDI or the environment?” or “Where’s your environmental target? You’re not doing enough on that, are you?”

We have to be quite precise about the principle. On the one hand, there is the very important principle of parliamentary accountability. On the other, we also have to ensure that that does not become political interference, because it could. There could be a kind of pressure from Parliament for the regulator to adopt political priorities rather than football priorities.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have had three days of debate and it is fantastic that we have an outburst of consensus. On all sides of the Committee, we seem to agree that we are putting a lot of trust in this regulator. We have had long and thorough debates about what its objectives should be. I come back not to Erskine May or other writings but to the Gorbachev and Reagan saying, “Trust, but verify”, which I always remember. There is consensus around the Committee about how vital parliamentary scrutiny is for what we think is such an important role. I hope that, when the Minister responds shortly, she will take on board the consensus view of the Committee and respond positively.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I rise to move Amendment 54 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to speak to the associated Amendment 159, which relates to Schedule 5 and the role of the regulator in relation to the code of practice.

I hope we will not spend an hour on this group. Having sat through parts of the first two days in Committee, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I heard on the previous groups, including on the definition of football, what we mean by competition and even what fairness is. Well, I know that fairness is not the argument about whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pays his due share towards a piglet pie at Brighton’s football ground.

What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a Bill of this sort, but I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three Committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this Committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.

The Premier League, with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support, needs to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this Committee is benefiting it. I think not—sometimes overdoing it can be really detrimental.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have no idea whether there is filibustering going on, nor whether everybody on this side of the Committee who I have not spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there is a kind of gaslighting going on. I take the Bill seriously. I have read as much as I can. Nobody in the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should the noble Lord want to know, nor written my speeches or talked to me.

It is just not fair. There is a lot in the Bill to get one’s head around and to try to speak to. If there is repetition going on in this debate, it is people on the other side constantly saying that anyone scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is certainly not true of a wide range of us.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that if you do not have the hat on, you are not wearing it. It is not an individual I am talking about.

I would like artificial intelligence or GPT to do a word count of exactly what the Benches opposite have said over and over again over the last three days in Committee. I started to do that again this afternoon. There were the same phrases, the same arguments and the same resentment all over again about the idea that we should regulate.

Bear in mind, this whole issue came out of the report of a former Conservative Sport Minister. It was subject to a White Paper by the previous Conservative Government in February 2023, and legislation was then drawn up by the Conservative Government. After all that further scrutiny and debate outside, we are now debating it under a Labour Government—ho, ho, ho.

Let us be clear: get this wrong and it will not be the Premier League that loses out; it will be a pyramid, which by its very nature is built from the bottom. Without the rest of the EFL and beyond, we would not have a Premier League. You could ring-fence the 20 clubs, which is what some of them would like; I am sure it would be fantastic for the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to know that West Ham would never be relegated. I would love Sheffield Wednesday to never be relegated ever again. In fact, I ought to declare a reverse interest: my family and I sponsor a member of the Sheffield Wednesday squad, Callum Paterson. My only resentment is that the manager does not put him on the field often enough. There we are, Saturday after Saturday—and, these days, Sunday after Sunday—seeing competition working and seeing the struggle that is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not had the chance yet to speak to my amendments but I am grateful to other noble Lords for participating in the debate and making their comments and views well known. I am slightly disturbed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has rather overinterpreted my Amendment 156. I was not aware that I was in favour of imposing quotas, but it is an interesting point.

Amendment 156 is there simply to raise the issue of ensuring that in corporate governance, football clubs are obliged to improve the diversity within the club, not just among season ticket holders but among staff and senior managers. We have made great progress through football and its barrier-breaking approach to the world of sport over the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember some pretty unpleasant scenes at football grounds when I first started watching football seriously. Gladly, those have become much less frequent but there is a real and genuine issue about representation, particularly of black players then not getting opportunities in off-field representation at all levels of management.

I have received a useful briefing today from the Black Footballers Partnership, which points out exactly that. Only two of the current 92 league managers are black, despite black footballers making up 43% of the players. The Black Footballers Partnership data shows that despite achieving 14% of all FIFA pro licences and one in four of UEFA licences, black players secure only 4% of the coaching and other managerial roles. There is clearly something not right there.

It is important that clubs are obliged to think through some of these issues. Quotas may or may not be the way to do it but we have opportunity here for football to think about improving the levels of diversity, not just in football management but in all management positions and other roles within the clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, clubs have led the way and have played a really startling and dynamic role over time.

With this amendment—and I am grateful to those who have signed it and spoken to it—I am trying to get football to begin thinking more widely about diversity in its broadest sense so that in the future it is just part and parcel of how it should be. I guess the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, would think that this is regulation creep, but I do not see it that way; I see it as setting standards for the future. Football has a proud reputation, and it is one it should build on.

In this amendment, we are seeking to encourage football to build on its reputation, because that is what needs to be done to make the world of football more inclusive and better reflect the society in which it is located. If we can do that, I think the values of football—competition and solidarity—will be much better represented. It would add to the fairness and equity that is there within a very competitive game.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, posits diversity as something you cannot possibly be against. Of course, we are all against prejudice—I hope—and that seems very commonsensical. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point that he tabled this amendment so we could have a proper discussion about diversity.

The problem for me is that diversity, in the context of governance of organisations, is already established across a wide range of organisations. I am afraid it has not been for the good of those organisations. I will address the problems of diversity as a bureaucratic intervention, especially in the hands of a regulator, and why I think it will not be good for football. That does not mean I am implicitly on the side of people who are racists or not interested in equal rights or fairness.

It is important that we have some perspective here. We might note that there are 64 different nationalities represented in the Premier League, as well as a myriad of religious denominations. For players in all the different football teams across the league, that is surely proof of meritocracy—rather than box-ticking diversity schemes—that provides the riches of talents, that is colour-blind and that is not interested in people based on their characteristics.

I also think we have huge diversity in fanbase, and it has not needed a regulator to organise schemes to ensure that English football is loved by hundreds of millions of people of all shapes and sizes, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds across the globe. Meanwhile, female fans, players and popular momentum are propelling women’s football into the limelight. Therefore, I do not think that football is an example of a pale, male, stale institution that is waiting for a regulator to sort it out.

Both the amendments I am concerned about, Amendments 156 and 249, mention the clubs’ employees and monitoring and reporting on staff diversity. But I think we need to take heed of some of the negative lessons from other workplaces, particularly the public sector. Whatever the intention, too often an over-preoccupation with diversity is less likely to create more fairness for staff but does create an explosion of jobs for human resources—HR—apparatchiks, who manage the diversity and inclusion schemes that we set up.

It is worth noting that Britain has one of the largest HR sectors in the world. It is one area of growth that somebody somewhere might be proud of, although I am rather in despair at it. According to the British Labour Force Survey, there was an 83% increase in HR jobs between 2011 and 2023. As journalist Lucy Barton pointed out, that means that HR workers currently outnumber NHS doctors three to one. Let that sink in. A lot of this growth is due to job creation in relation to EDI demands. I do not think we should go ahead with these amendments on diversity and inclusion but, if we do, I propose some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The salaries needed for the hours and hours of paperwork that the regulator will be checking that the clubs do could be incredibly financially burdensome—even crippling—on many clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that some of the comments that have been made have obliged me to do so.

However, before I come on to the amendments and the comments made in the speeches, I would just like all your Lordships to look around you. We are talking about equality, inclusion and diversity. What proportion of this Chamber is disabled, non-white, gay or lesbian? The answer is: very, very few. It is a compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she is a great example of what women can achieve at the top of the football tree, and that we have a female Minister responding. But I stand here, as I said in my first speech to this Chamber, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club. It celebrated its 29th anniversary only just under two months ago and will celebrate, I expect, its 30th anniversary next 1 November.

I find it utterly unacceptable to suggest, as has been suggested, that we should not tackle the question of trans individuals in society. I am proud that I did a podcast the other week with a member of my club, who himself has undergone the process of moving from female to male. He is proud of having done it. There are issues that we have to address in society, as well as issues that we have to address in sport. I believe that on occasion it is appropriate to put things into legislation as an “encouragement” to people to behave in a certain way. It is all very well saying, “Well, we have the right policies and we’ll do it all right”, but I come back to this point: look at this Chamber.

I have not taken any guidance, as Lord Blunkett suggested, from the Premier League, and in fact, on a previous occasion in Committee, I made the point that actually the Premiers League, for all its right efforts, was not messaging correctly. I believe that that is the case here. In rugby we have had openly gay World Cup final referees and a captain of the Welsh rugby team, but we have no openly gay, top-level professional players at the moment, as far as I am aware. But football is behind the times despite the best encouragements from individuals, and it is therefore well worth while asking the question of the Minister and of the regulator, “How are you actually going to tackle these issues?”—because issues they remain.

I will conclude on the observation in relation to Rainbow Laces. Rainbow Laces has been adopted by sport throughout as a means of messaging to people as to how they should behave to other minority groups. They must continue to do so. It is not a political gesture; it is a gesture on behalf of society as a whole to other parts of society. I believe we have achieved so much, but we could achieve so much more.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the noble Lord and I can have a fruitful conversation outside this debate. For today’s purposes, does he understand that in a discussion about inclusion and diversity, women are concerned about women’s rights and women’s equality? Among women footballers and the parents of young girls they are encouraging to get involved in women’s football and training and so on, there is great discomfort, as the tennis guru Judy Murray said at the weekend. Will he acknowledge that this has nothing to do with individuals? It is to do with the political approach. At the moment, women do not feel included or represented in football because this issue is put to one side, and therefore everyone talking about EDI and all the rest of it is just a slap in the face.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support in the strongest possible terms my noble friend’s Amendment 67A. After the backstop issue, this is the most important issue in the Bill. For the fans of some teams, the ability to play in Europe and their clubs’ fortunes there are more important than what happens with the national side. We are being asked to consider something so fundamental that we cannot do it with this proposed legislation unless the Government publish the letter and any subsequent conversations that they have had with UEFA. Otherwise, we cannot really take into account the full ramifications of what the Bill may do.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up best when he said that it was the risk of the breakaway league that caused the Bill to come into consideration in the first place. I humbly request that the Minister shares with the Committee everything that UEFA has said in relation to the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting—and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important.

It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real.

UEFA says that it is concerned and that:

“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.


My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now.

Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I commend him on his leadership of Peers for Gambling Reform, of which I am a member. I apologise that I have not taken part at Second Reading and earlier parts of Committee. The Bill was being covered for the Green group by my noble friend Lady Jones. I am pleased to share with your Lordships’ House that her hip operation on Friday went very well and she should be back soon after Christmas. In the meantime, noble Lords get me instead.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, has outlined the arguments, which I think are unassailable, for both amendments. I am particularly taken with Amendment 255, to prevent gambling advertising and sponsorship in football, because that will take us to where we need to go.

I declare a recent meeting with the group Gambling with Lives, particularly Liz and Charles Ritchie, who were bereaved following the gambling suicide of their son Jack in 2017. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, we are seeing increasingly awful levels of harm, particularly among young people. There has been a doubling of the number of young people aged 11 to 17 with problem gambling, and 44 % of people who exhibit problem gambling are at high risk of thinking about suicide.

It struck me, listening to the Committee earlier today, that a phrase was used a great deal: fans are the lifeblood of the sport. Surely that is an illustration of the fact that the health of fans should be a matter of great concern to football clubs. The Lancet commission on gambling declared very explicitly only a month or so back that gambling has to be treated as a public health problem, and public health solutions are needed. That means protecting people from the gambling messages bombarding them.

I will quote a couple of statistics from 2021-22. There may have been a slight improvement since then, but not very much. During a single televised match, 3,500 gambling logos can appear. On “Match of the Day”, a gambling brand was visible up to 89% of the time. This can be described only as a bombardment and, as the noble Lord said, the consultation very clearly showed the views of fans.

We have also seen real progress from the Big Step campaign, which has been commended and is another illustration that campaigning works. But people are having to devote their lives to this cause, because the Government and the clubs are not doing the right thing. This, surely, is a place where the Government should step in to act.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will be unsurprised to know that I oppose these two amendments, which I will do briefly.

If the gambling industry is pouring money into football, I would say that that is a good thing. Anti-gambling commentators talk as if this were drug money coming from the Mafia. The whole tone is moralistic. We have already heard mention of match-fixing and cheating, as though it is all incredibly sordid and terrible. But let me just remind the Committee that betting firms are legitimate businesses. What, so they use their sponsorship to increase their market share—what is wrong with that? Is all football sponsorship beyond gambling to be forced to pass an ethics test—some kind of purity test? This is football, not some puritan revival movement.

Let us be honest: lots of football clubs need and appreciate this sponsorship money. It is all well and good that the Premier League has collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of clubs’ match-day shirts. That is a voluntary measure—it is up to it—but the truth is that, as we have ascertained in these debates, the Premier League can afford such lucrative virtue signalling, as I consider it. For the lower-tier and lower-league clubs and for the EFL, however, such sponsorship money is often invaluable. The Bill aims to help clubs become more financially sustainable, so the last thing it needs is external parties or legislators turning off one financial tap. This would mean that some cash-strapped clubs would face ruin if deprived of such revenue.

The Bill has been put forward in the name of fans and, whatever my reservations, I do not doubt that people have the fans at the heart of their discussions, whichever side they are on. But I remind noble Lords that millions of fans are less bothered about what logo appears on a player’s shirt or on advertising boards than they are about the quality on the pitch. There is more than a whiff of nanny state when they are patronisingly told by anti-gambling advocates that the ban would be for their own protection. It seems that anti-gambling campaigners do not trust fans to make their own decisions and make the right judgments about how they spend their own money.

Writing on this issue, Jon Bryan—who is an excellent commentator on the whole issue of gambling, which he posits and reminds us is a pleasurable leisure activity—says that it also undermines any notion of fans’ agency. The notion is put forward that, as soon as fans see a logo on a football shirt, they will rush off and place a bet, as though they are being groomed and just one punt away from addiction. This treats adult fans as children, and it is infantilising. It is often posed—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

On that last point, is the noble Baroness aware of the amount of in-game gambling that takes place through television and, of course, mobile phones, where the betting companies encourage fans watching matches to bet during the game on who will get the next corner, whether somebody be sent off, whether there will there be extra time in a cup tie and so on? Is that not interfering with the normal cut and thrust of the game in a way that is potentially dangerous, not least—I would like her to answer this point—to young people, particularly children?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

First, I would make a distinction between children and adults. Secondly, as somebody who is from a large, football-obsessed family, I am more than a little aware of all the encouragement that football fans have to put on a bet. But not all of them do when they are encouraged and, what is more, even if they do, they do not necessarily become problem gamblers, which is what is being posited. It can be something that they enjoy.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

This is not a case of me positing anything—I hope the noble Baroness accepts that. The figures I quoted are from the Gambling Commission and the Government.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have some figures, but I wanted to put forward a counter to these amendments without going into the details. I have spoken on this on many occasions in this House and I have written about it. I have figures, and we can swap our statistics. But I wanted to argue that it is proposed that allowing advertising of any sort around football, and allowing gambling to be associated with it, normalises gambling—but that is a slightly odd argument because gambling is a normal activity. The vast majority of people who put a bet on do so without a problem: it is part of their private leisure pursuits, which they enjoy. It is completely within the realms of spending money that they probably should not spend—it is Christmas and I have done a lot of that over the last few days when shopping. One makes choices and spends money that one probably should not spend, but it does not have to be turned into some kind of problem. It is our choice, and there should be some perspective about the threat.

The Gambling Commission does not give credence to the idea that gambling problems are completely out of control. Despite a lot of noise and rhetoric, there is no evidence that there has been an overwhelming increase in problem gambling since advertising was made legal by none other than Tony Blair’s Government in 2007.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I do not disagree with the noble Baroness’s principles or beliefs when she talks about the nanny state and it being up to individuals, but where does she sit on smoking? Smoking was acceptable and everybody smoked, and sponsorship in sport was rife, with motor racing teams and darts competitions named after cigarettes. People do not smoke any more; society has changed. Unless you take positive action, you do not get that change. There is nobody in this Chamber now smoking; there is nobody in the hospitals smoking; there is nobody inside or outside football grounds smoking. That is a great thing. It is called taking responsibility for society. I wonder what the cost of gambling is to the NHS and the various other bodies that have to pick up the pieces of our individual choices and liberties. Those liberties are your own until they affect me and you, and him and her, and the NHS; it then becomes my responsibility to say something about it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was on my last sentence, but I will now make it two sentences.

The noble Lord says that nobody is smoking now. It happens to be the evening of the Terrace Club’s Christmas bash. That is the House of Lords smokers’ group, and I can assure the noble Lord there are quite a lot of them smoking, cross-party, including from his own party. They are drinking and smoking, and every party is represented. It is in the hut round the back, by the way, in case anyone wants to pop out. There are quite a lot of people who smoke still.

Smoking advertising was taken out of sports, and a number of sports nearly collapsed—darts and snooker had a real problem. The funny thing is, guess who came in to save them? The gambling companies came in and saved those working-class, grass-roots, rank-and-file sports. Good on them, I say. The working classes were grateful at the time, and they did not all become problem gamblers as a consequence. They enjoyed the sport.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to address gambling sponsorship in football, and include proposals to ban sponsorship entirely. This is a significant issue. I acknowledge the genuine concerns that many have, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about the role of gambling in sport. However, I would like to provide some context and explain why I believe that further interventions in this area are not required at this time.

The Gambling Act review has recently and comprehensively considered the role of gambling sponsorship across all sports, including football. The Government’s response reflects the extensive engagement and evidence gathered during that process. As part of this, the Premier League has already taken significant, proactive, voluntary steps to address concerns, demonstrating its commitment to act responsibly.

Most recently, the Premier League and its clubs have led the way, not just within football but across all sports, by taking the voluntary step to move away from gambling sponsorship on the front of shirts. This was a key ask made of us by the DCMS, and we agreed. This is a significant decision, and one that I do not believe any other major sports organisations have taken.

The impact of this step on clubs is, frankly, quite painful. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, most clubs cannot afford to do it, but they have done it anyway because they have been asked to. The typical difference between gambling and non-gambling shirt sponsorships is around 40%. For some Premier League clubs, this decision will mean a reduction of around 20% of their total commercial revenues. For clubs in the bottom half of the Premier League table or those newly promoted, the financial hit will be especially pronounced in the short term, and comes on top of the £250 million hit to Premier League clubs over the Parliament, as I have already mentioned in this Committee, following the Budget’s rise in employer national insurance contributions. The pressures are acute, but the Premier League clubs took this decision, fully aware of the difficult commercial consequences, because it was the right thing to do and was aligned with what the Government asked of us.

Furthermore, the Premier League has led the way in driving forward the development of an all-sports code of conduct, published earlier this year. This sets out standards on gambling partnerships, including the critical issue of awareness and responsible gambling messages, that all clubs and sports organisations will adhere to. The code reflects the seriousness with which football in particular is addressing this issue, and provides a strengthened framework for responsible engagement with the gambling sector.

It is important to acknowledge the vital role that gambling sponsorship plays in supporting clubs across the football pyramid. For many clubs, particularly those outside the Premier League, gambling sponsorship represents a significant source of revenue. That is the reality we all need to be conscious of, especially in the context of the Bill, which focuses on financial sustainability. Noble Lords may be aware that the EFL has a much greater reliance on gambling sponsorship, including its title sponsorship deal with Sky Bet. The Premier League itself has never had a gambling sponsor. This demonstrates that the issue is not uniform across football and that heavy-handed interventions may well risk disproportionately affecting clubs lower down the pyramid.

The Premier League’s voluntary decision to phase out gambling on front-of-shirt sponsorship is just one major step, but it is proof that football is taking this issue seriously. It shows that football can lead the way on responsible change, even when it causes difficulties for clubs, without the need for heavy-handed interventions. We must properly address concerns about problem gambling and the need for responsible behaviour and stringent regulations. Football must clearly be part of the solution, as it wants to be, just as all sport needs to act responsibly. However, I argue that the Premier League in particular has already shown important leadership here, taking proactive and voluntary steps that, as far as I am aware, no comparable organisation has yet replicated.

In the light of the progress already made, I respectfully suggest that football does not require further statutory intervention in this area. We have shown—but of course we must collectively continue to show—that we can be relied upon to make progress on this vital issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I make a brief reminder here that objections have been raised to all sorts of things. I remember when it was the poppy on jerseys in a football match. Apparently, a political statement is one that you either do not understand or do not agree with. I ask the Government, and indeed all noble Lords, to be very careful about this. These amendments are trying to exclude things that might be positive and good, because there will always be somebody who disagrees with them. All I will say is: tread very carefully here. Remembering the dead of World War I and World War II would not be seen as an overt statement in this country, but apparently it is elsewhere.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I am so glad that these amendments were tabled, because it gives us a chance to reflect. The statement that to determine what is right and wrong between different countries and cultures is very complicated so it is easier to say that it has no place in the game seems fair enough to me. Politics is complicated. We find it complicated in this place, even though we are the legislators and the politicians. Once you start introducing it into football, you can get into a real mess.

I am also not sure about a few things, so I want to share some confusion. One difficulty is that, for example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, last week that he does not consider the rainbow armband to be political, but I think that it is highly ideological and political. Last month, the FA dedicated a 35-minute video to the Rainbow Laces campaign, showcasing an activist-heavy panel that included its women’s talent and senior game EDI consultant coach developer. That title gives the game away before we go anywhere.

Guess what? That particular individual used to work for Stonewall before being brought into football. I hope that we in this House understand that Stonewall is at least a highly contentious political organisation which is now at the heart of defining what is considered to be inclusive football. The problem with this profusion of rainbows on laces, pitch flags, ball plinths and all the rest of this branding is that any objection on the basis of politics leads to an accusation of being insensitive to lesbian and gay people or being homophobic. Indeed, it is the very opposite. I think that trans ideology is discriminatory against lesbians and gays because it does not understand same-sex attraction. If noble Lords are lost and are thinking, “Oh God, what is she going on about?”, that is fine. It is a political matter and nothing to do with football. I worry when football managers and teams get embroiled in this.

I was unsure about this amendment. I am usually the kind of populist democrat who says, “Vote on everything; go and have a vote”, but I did wonder when the noble Lord said, “See what the fans say—don’t put out a statement unless they agree with you”. Maybe it is because I am from a Celtic family—although some of them support Spurs. I hope that noble Lords can get their heads around this. Celtic’s fan base has gone completely bonkers on the Israel-Gaza question. It is like a Hamas support group on tour. The irony is that their sloganeering in support, as they would see it, of the Green Brigade and all the rest of it—their support for Gaza resistance—has put them completely at odds with Celtic’s owners and the board, although the Celtic Trust, the shareholders’ group, agrees with them. It has split the club. But everyone should keep out of this. Let them sloganise away, but do not get involved one way or another. Make the political point.

However, I cheered when Crystal Palace put out an official statement after the 7 October pogrom. I thought it was great that at last somebody had come out and condemned the murders and hostage-taking. We have seen what has happened to Israeli teams, which have been subjected to anti-Semitic attacks, one of which almost brought down a Government on the continent. We know what is going on. I am interested that football is getting involved in this. I have already commended those Spurs fans who have started a grass-roots campaign in support of Emily Damari, the last remaining British hostage. I want Spurs fans to chant this young woman’s name at the ground. Her uncle Rob is a Crystal Palace fan. As he pointed out, they may not have the grass-roots campaign, but at least Palace put out a statement.

I am into all this. I genuinely do not want to say that we should sanitise football clubs of all political discussion. It is impossible. It is not going to happen. I do not want the Government interfering in it or a regulator being involved. I do not want people being in a situation where they fail, or refuse, to acknowledge that they are putting forward, for example, EDI policies. These are politics in disguise, although they will not admit it. Politics is complicated. Let us keep it out of football. The fans will be political just because they are stroppy like that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. These amendments seek to add a requirement for a club to consult fans on any political statements or stances.

Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would additionally mandate fan approval of any political statement or political activity made by the club, its players or any other staff. This includes fan approval in relation to the issuing or wearing of items of clothing with political connotations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, outlined, what we view as political is disputed. It is not the place of a statutory regulator tasked with sustaining the stability of the game to limit or add approval processes for political speech or action or, indeed, to determine what is defined as political in the first place.

On Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clubs may wish to consult their fans in this regard as part of their regular fan engagement. However, this is not something that the regulator will require of clubs. The Bill is intended to ensure that fans have a voice in key decisions regarding their club, but we need to make sure that this is proportionate. That is why we have not listed every possible issue that clubs should engage with their fans on in minute detail.

As has been mentioned, it is notable that many sporting personalities have used the attention that sports receive to campaign on issues that concern them. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, highlighted Marcus Rashford as an example. To be clear, we do not want to inhibit free speech. Instead, as is the case now, fans are equally able to use their own freedom of expression to protest political statements or actions made by their club. As well as potentially constraining freedom of speech, these amendments would not improve the regulator’s ability to deliver its objectives. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

155: Schedule 5, page 99, line 11, leave out paragraph (ii)

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I asked for this amendment to be degrouped because I wanted to ensure that the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion reporting was treated separately and as an important issue in its own right in the Bill. I thought that would mirror the way the Government have treated the same topic. I had problems with the original Bill that the Conservative Party introduced when in government. I was ready to oppose it, but in a fairly limited way. When the Bill came back with the new Government, things had been added. One of the announcements the Government made was of the importance of adding EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—and that they were bolstering that in the Bill. I immediately became concerned. As we have all noticed, we have discussed it quite a lot already, but there is always more to say.

I want to establish something: it is admirable that corporations, institutions and football clubs are today keen to try to make themselves more welcoming places for minorities and for everyone. They should not employ any discriminatory practices that prevent people being able to participate equally—in this instance as fans, in employment or at any level of staff, management or players. The only thing that should matter is merit rather than prejudice; that should be the key principle. To be clear, my objection to the regulatory requirement for EDI reporting being added to the original Bill was not because EDI is some righteous vehicle for fairness in football governance but rather because EDI is a bureaucratic process—I would even say a bit of a virtue-signalling racket. It is expensive, ineffective and often counterproductive, and it opens the door to political interference by the state in football, something that a number of us are worried about.

On effectiveness, I remind the Committee that the Post Office won awards for its diversity and inclusion policies. The Post Office also had a modern slavery statement, a carbon reduction plan and a very worthy statement of corporate social responsibility. All the while, senior management at that same Post Office allowed its own sub-postmasters to be treated in the most inhumane, unfair and possibly unlawful manner. You can tick all the good governance boxes in the world and have award-winning EDI schemes on the books, but it does not equate to good governance.

To be less cynical, most employers mean well when they decide to implement EDI measures, but they can be so desperate to be seen to be doing the right thing that they rush into initiatives that do not work even on their own terms. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the CIPD, has found a worrying number of business leaders who say that they did not do any research before launching their EDI schemes.

Talking of research, I urge the Minister to look at the government-commissioned report of the inclusion at work panel. It was convened by Kemi Badenoch when she was Equalities Minister and Business Secretary. In case that allows anyone to dismiss the report as some kind of biased Tory report, the panel comprised a range of private and public sector experts. It was advised on by a renowned Harvard University professor. It really is just research. The report concludes that EDI practices are often polarising and counterproductive, and can even be unlawful. For example, in pursuit of a more diverse workforce, overzealous employers have used so-called positive discrimination even though it is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. I am worried that this is the kind of thing that will happen in football.

I remind noble Lords of the case that I mentioned very briefly in the debate on an earlier group in relation to the Royal Air Force. In 2022, hoping to meet its diversity targets, it overlooked eminently qualified white applicants for female and ethnic-minority recruits. This was then found to be unlawful, and those candidates who were passed over received financial compensation.

I remind the Committee of the case of Linzi Smith, who was reported to the police, a victim of surveillance and barred by her beloved Newcastle United Football Club for holding legal views and expressing them, not at a football ground but on social media. Her football club and the Premier League have disciplined her, and she is now banned from attending football. It is an atrocious case.

I also draw attention to a compelling new study released by Rutgers University, which has found that EDI training often sows divisions and resentment in organisations, and that EDI practices can lead to perceptions of prejudice where none objectively exists. For example, it can happen when prioritising EDI schemes, then sending employers on endless training sessions and workshops, and telling them—depending on their race, sex, disability or whatever—that they are either victims or oppressors. Guess what: this fosters and exacerbates conflicts and resentments.

What is heralded as an effective solution to bigotry and prejudice seems instead to be fuelling the very problems that its advocates claim to want to solve. Therefore, I ask the Minister to pause and think before adding this to the Bill, to avoid opening up a hornet’s nest of division in football clubs.

After all I have said, we should not be surprised to discover that things are moving pretty quickly and we could be behind the times. In America, US corporates and organisations are now realising that what they call DEI rather than EDI is causing real problems; they are starting to realise that they should get out of it. Richard Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, recently wrote that one of the most important events in America this year, outside the presidential election, was the intellectual collapse of what was described as the “DEI fad”.

The Wall Street Journal and various other American newspapers have noted some of this. Walmart, America’s largest private employer, is just the latest company to abandon DEI. It announced that, from 25 November, it was rolling back a slew of initiatives related to DEI. This has included winding down programmes providing assistance to suppliers that are 51% owned by women, minorities, veterans or members of the LGBTQ+ community. It is also phasing out the phrase “DEI” in its corporate messaging, and says that it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race or gender diversity.

According to the City Journal, Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, has dismantled its global equality, diversity and inclusion department as it oversees a broad revamping of the company’s workforce. It is now emphasising hiring on merit, while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity or affinity group labels. It says that that is the way to go.

This is not just me going on about EDI; this is major corporates across the world, which have tried this stuff and said that it has been a disaster. You can also look at Harley Davidson, the car maker Ford, and the farming goods company tractor today. They have all rejected EDI goals, targets, report writing, quotas and so on. We have also seen consumer boycotts that have forced brands such as Bud Light and Target to retreat from EDI-inspired marketing campaigns. That seems to me to indicate that maybe a pause is required.

I now want to come back to football.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am glad that you agree.

Football can learn from other people; and, as we are importing EDI from the corporate sector and the university sector, we should see where it has been a disaster there before we impose it on football.

Most people in football, for obvious reasons, are not experts in EDI. You can imagine a situation where a football team is basically told that the regulator could punish them if they do not live up to the EDI requirements stipulated in the Bill. They will do what every organisation does in this situation. They will think, “We don’t know anything about critical race theory; we don’t know anything about decolonising; we don’t understand this stuff, so what should we do?” Of course, they outsource the work to the experts, who know. Third-party outsiders are brought in house. They are the kind of professionals who know all about EDI. Those professionals are not necessarily motivated by fair-minded, pragmatic goals. They are often activists: individuals or organisations committed to what I consider to be a political ideology—something like critical race theory. Look at how the diversity industry has wrought havoc on all levels of the public sector in this country: universities, museums, the Civil Service. This is a real source of contention. It does not matter what side you are on; it is causing divisions.

What began as an attempt to remove barriers for historically disadvantaged groups has grown into a thriving grievance industry. We have seen that one of the slogans of EDI is to bring your true, authentic self to work. My attitude is that you should leave it at home. The only thing you should bring to work is your professional self.

I commend the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, for making the point that your political views, if you are, for example, a hospital doctor, should stay at the door of the hospital. We are not interested in your true, authentic self. But of course, all the people are coming in and saying, “I have to express my true, authentic self as a doctor and tell you everything I have ever thought about Israel and Gaza”. That is out of EDI. That is where it came from. Your own Health Secretary has rather courageously pointed out that that that should be discouraged, if not disciplined.

This part of the Bill will oblige clubs to employ expensive pen-pushers with a particular expertise in writing reports, all because of the mandatory inclusion reports. These reports will not write themselves. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who is not in his place. He was talking about the challenges of writing complicated business plans. You have to get all the lawyers in. Let me tell you: to write an EDI report, you also have to learn a new language. It is a completely different world. They will be paying people to write this stuff.

It does not come cheap. The cash-strapped clubs facing financial strain—an issue we are keen to do something about—will now have to find the money to pay all these EDI directors. By the way, the assistant director of EDI community services in one local council was earning £103,000. These guys are not cheap. Which council was that person working for? Birmingham. It has gone bankrupt. This is what happens. You can waste money and your priorities can get completely distorted.

I do understand, by the way, that many football clubs have big EDI departments. The Premier League is like so many big well-endowed organisations and corporations, which very often have huge EDI sections—it is a growing industry. I disapprove of that, but that is up to them; I just do not want it to be regulated. But legally requiring smaller clubs to publish their inclusion strategies—explaining how their strategic plans will fulfil the EDI requirement, with annual equality reports and so on—seems to me to be taking their eye off what should be important. It inevitably steers organisations away from their actual purpose: winning games. Diversity training cannot become as important as football training. Encouraging clubs to demonstrate their EDI credentials could be an indulgent and dangerous distraction from what they should do and what they can do best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

For the reasons that I have outlined in my speech.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all those who joined in with this short debate. To the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Moynihan, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, I emphasise that, despite what anybody says, they are not my friends, even though they call me their friend. I do not mean that in any rude sense. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has decided that he has taken against my tone. I do not know what I have done wrong there. I did not think I had a tone: I just made a speech. I just want to clarify that they are not my friends, but they spoke brilliantly well and interestingly on this issue.

It is very important to draw the Government’s and the Minister’s attention to new evidence that has emerged. I know the Minister did not mean to say this, but it is not advisable to say, “I have worked in this, and I am committed to this view”, given that circumstances are changing and new evidence is emerging all the time. It would be better to be open-minded. I made the point about the Post Office, and it is a good example. The Post Office won those awards for EDI and good governance at the same time as the Post Office scandal.

I definitely do not want to micromanage freedom of speech—and I do not think that the Government have any intentions of doing that through this part of the Bill—but to say that this is not the appropriate time to raise trans inclusion is not true. The truth of the matter is that it is through EDI policies that the issue of trans has become so controversial for women in women’s football. I have not raised this just because I am trying to shoehorn it in; that is the basis on which it happens.

Before I formally withdraw because of the time, I finish by saying that I absolutely do not think that football clubs should sit back, do nothing and not care about the fact that they are inaccessible to anybody or should put up any barriers to anyone getting involved in football. Most football clubs are at the heart of their community, and they do not need to fulfil all these schemes to involve a wide range of people. Every small football club I know is going way beyond anything that any EDI pen-pusher could imagine to involve the socially excluded from the local area. They are the heart and soul of local areas. My concern is that they will end up spending too much time writing reports and not doing that. That is my concern about EDI: it is an industry, so it is not helping to include anyone or create any diversity and so on. It has become a politicised, dangerous threat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 155 withdrawn.