Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State on producing a stronger Bill than the one we were faced with earlier this year. I also have to acknowledge the work that Tracey Crouch did; I think we are all grateful to her for her review.

As a former business manager, I should also congratulate Ministers on finding time in the legislative programme for the Bill. I understand that some people might ask why we should prioritise football legislation when there are so many other problems the country is facing and so many other difficulties this Government have inherited. The simple fact is that, as we have heard, football has a profound impact on society as a whole and, if you care about communities, preventive health, mental health, loneliness and enriching children’s lives, you should care about football. Very often it is our football clubs which provide food banks, holiday clubs, schemes for young people and, importantly, a real sense of belonging to local communities. That is a factor up and down the country. Regardless of the clubs we support, football is a central part of our national life. Anybody who saw the remembrance services at football clubs up and down the country, with the remarkable silences, will understand just how much football clubs are important backbones of our communities.

Football clubs need to be recognised as having a wider role than just being a sporting venue. Indeed, they are an asset of community value. I wish that our football grounds were all classified as assets of community value. That is one safeguard that all clubs should have for the benefit of their fans.

Too often, as we have heard, clubs are treated by new owners as trophies or playthings, or as a set of assets which can be targeted for asset stripping. Very often this is done by people who simply do not care about the game or what the clubs mean to the many thousands of people who should be considered the owners of the club—certainly of the traditions of the club—namely, the fans.

We have seen over the last few years that football simply cannot regulate itself. Too many clubs have been on the brink of collapse. We have seen clubs tipped over the edge, breaking the hearts of fans and sometimes ruining the well-being of some of the local businesses that they have served. I must declare an interest, as one of the clubs that came close to oblivion was my own Bolton Wanderers, one of the founders of the Football League. My colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and I have shared our grief about what was happening five years ago when Bolton Wanderers was very close to collapse.

That was the consequence of going from a benevolent owner, who had been very generous and whose motivation was the best interests of the club, to a new owner whose motivation was, to say the least, questionable. It was noticeable that, when the club was going into administration, the administrator criticised the new owner, who had used his position to hamper and frustrate any deal that did not suit his purpose. It was not about what the club’s future should be; it was what he thought he could benefit from. Thankfully, since then the club has been rebuilt. Even when we lose, as we did 5-0 to Stockport recently, at least we still have a club to cherish.

Football fans expect to be tortured by what happens on the pitch. We should not have to expect it from what happens off the pitch as well, and too often that has been the case. Organisations such as Fair Game and the Football Supporters Association have fought to protect clubs for the fans. Individuals, such as Ian Bridge at Bolton, have been crucial in co-ordinating the efforts of fans. But we need more; we need a framework and structure for football which safeguards its future at all levels.

We have a football pyramid with the fantastic Premier League at the top, but it is a pyramid and the Premier League is not the be-all-and-end-all of football in England. We need regulation to make the football structure fit for purpose. Football in the UK is a big industry, and I understand that the Premier League has expressed concerns about killing the golden goose. No one is seeking to do that. We should remember that many Premier League players have come up from lower-league clubs or have been out on loan at lower-league clubs to help them develop. The EFL clubs are important to the Premier League, as well as to their own fans.

The financial imbalance in English football is dangerous to the future of football clubs at many levels. Current arrangements—I mention in particular parachute payments —are distorting the principle of sporting competition. That is just one reason why this Bill is so important. I know that, for many years, many people in football, including the EFL, had hoped that regulation would not be needed, but it is now obvious to almost everyone that this has to be the way forward.

The Bill, as the Minister outlined, establishes for the first time an independent football regulator. It will be a very important responsibility, and I am glad that the Bill is detailed on some aspects of how this will work in practice. There is much here to be welcomed, but that does not mean we will not press the Minister for more detail in Committee, especially on issues such as the parameters for financial distribution. There will be other areas where we will seek further clarification or assurances, such as vested interests, the women’s game, as has been mentioned, lower-league clubs, and ensuring that the individual ownership fitness test is exactly what we need. There is the issue of player welfare, with the PFA recently highlighting some of its concerns, which are probably worthy of consideration. Such points are not to undermine the Bill but to make sure that it is as effective and successful as it should be.

I hope the Minister will consider one amendment that I hope to push—namely, making sure that the regulator is accountable to Parliament, because I think all regulators should be. This will be very helpful to ensure the success of the new process.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, sustainability is an insufficient word to describe what the Bill should be trying to achieve. It is necessary but not sufficient. We need football to flourish, develop and innovate and the Bill should make that extremely clear. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have been around a long time and remember when football was highly conservative. I remember when football bitterly resisted the notion of live broadcasting, which was completely and utterly to transform and create the modern game.

The regulator must not stop football developing, and that needs to be crystal clear in the Bill. Football needs to continue to innovate, as it has done over the last 30 years. The notion for the European super league was quite wrong and rightly kicked into touch, but there are other possibilities in the modern age for having European leagues based on merit and allowing the game to develop. Live-streaming games which are not broadcast live on a subscription service for fans would be a perfectly reasonable way to allow the game to develop. Let us ask the regulator not to stand in the way of the game continuing to improve as it has done so successfully over recent decades.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments, not least because, as I have been here rather a long time, I know what is happening when speakers use the words “word search” and “dictionary definition”. It is not exactly intended to accelerate the passage of a Bill. I will be brief even if others, perhaps, were not. I remind Members opposite that this Bill came out of an inquiry from a Conservative former Sports Minister and was a Conservative piece of legislation introduced in the other House, so it is not exactly rushed. In terms of sustainability, there are a heck of a lot of clubs that would settle for any guarantee that they had a future and that the future was more secure for them.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but she just made reference to comments I made in relation to word search. I believed that doing the word search emphasised the point I was trying to make in relation to the amendment that I had tabled and the comments that other people had made as well.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

That is how the noble Lord saw it, and I will say it how I saw it. What I was going to say in relation to the last contribution was that, yes, we all want the football leagues—the Premier League and everybody—to flourish and be more successful, but football will be a success only if the whole pyramid can flourish and be sustainable.

I want to say a word about Amendment 10, which is just one practical suggestion that could be considered to help clubs manage their own financial stability. One of problems we have seen in football over recent years is a degree of optimism on the part of football management about what it can achieve by minimal investment. Amendment 10, which my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have tabled, suggests that regulated clubs under the Bill should meet a financial commitment to have resources for at least six months. Many businesses are under very similar obligations. Charities have to have some financial security, so it would be worth considering whether we should actually make that kind of obligation something that the regulator should look at because, unless we get the overall funding of football clubs more sustainable, the whole pyramid will not be sustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I must admit that I am similarly scratching my head over how the debate seems to have gone into whether it needs to be one or the other—whether there is somehow a trade-off between sustainability and success. I am just surprised that success is not something that we would all want. I do not just mean success in terms of England playing in all the tournaments, which I hope we would all agree we want, and I do not just mean success in terms of taking on responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, says, for how well the teams do. We are talking about the success of the game in terms of the financial wherewithal.

I am a big believer that in life you want to maximise the size of the cake before you argue how you divide it. How do you maximise the size of the cake? Certain measures are vital to that. TV viewership is key—not just because of how much people enjoy watching the game, but that is what the media rights companies pay for. That is what is paying for the game, so why would we not want that as one of the criteria? I think the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was absolutely correct. Why is there not room for both? Why, all of a sudden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, has growth become something we do not want here? Surely we all want growth; the Government are saying, quite rightly, that they are all about growth. I could not agree more, so why would not we want a measure of success here in the objectives of the football regulator to have growth?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord is saying, and as I have been chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee, I have heard a lot about growth. What worries me is that in one moment he and his colleagues are complaining that the regulator is going to be interfering too much, but in the next, we are hearing that the regulator should do more—it should be responsible for growth, for getting more fans and for getting more viewers. Is it more or is it less?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am very glad the noble Baroness mentioned that. When you set the objectives of any organisation, you want to set out the balancing factors. If it is only sustainability, you can get into the lowest common denominator, because a regulator would have absolutely done its job, by the nature of what is set down, just by the survival of all the clubs. There is a very easy way to do that: just dole out all the Premier League money to all the clubs straight away. That would make them all sustainable, giving the money to all the clubs. I think we would all agree that that would be a pretty nonsensical way to do it, but that would achieve the objective. If you set only a single objective, it is very one-dimensional.

Why would you not want a regulator to take into account that the overall financial health of the game is dependent on the TV viewership? That is what drives the money. What drives the TV viewership? It is how competitive the games are—not just the top games but all the games through the league? As I mentioned at Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned, we are people who have sold and bought media rights around the world. The reason why countries as far flung as Nigeria, Thailand and everywhere else will pay so much for the rights is that every game is competitive. There is a chance that Bournemouth will go out and beat Liverpool, so everyone cares about it. The Premier League does not have a God-given right to be successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many years ago, the Italian league was more successful. The difference today is that you do not have just two or three top teams, as you see in Germany, Spain and Italy. You have a whole host of teams which are all competitive in the league, so every game becomes interesting to watch.

My concern in all of this is if the only criterion set down is that of sustainability, it is so one-dimensional that the regulator could just decide to discharge its duties in that way. I hope it will not, but when it comes back to the scrutiny that we are all saying it should have, the regulator could sit here among us all and say, “Look, I have made all these clubs sustainable. Okay, too bad that the TV viewership has gone down and too bad that a load of the games are no longer competitive, so the TV rights money has gone down, but they are all sustainable, because I doled out all the money”. I do not think that is what any of us would want. I really do not understand why this should be. This is not a political point; I really do not understand the objective at all. I am literally scratching my head as to why there should be a problem with that.

That is why in our later amendments we try to put in other criteria of success. Those are designed to be the ones that are all about maximising the size of the financial pie, by making sure that TV viewership and attendance are high. People forget in all of this—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his point. I would totally include in that measure of success, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, enjoyment. That is absolutely part of it, because it is the enjoyment which means that people will pay a lot of money for their TV subscriptions, but it is all about the financial health of the game.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I know that in terms of Clause 10 and the funds for six months, the amendment is well intentioned and sounds quite reasonable. However, I have been speaking to a different Premier League chair—I am sure that we have all been speaking to club chairmen—and from one of those clubs that is very respectable. They are afraid of having to lock a lot of money into escrow for their sustainability. They said that all that this will stop them doing is investing in their team and their players. They look at their club as a balance sheet, with assets and liabilities. If the worst came to worst, they would look to sell one of their players, because they are assets. That is what businesses do; it is what clubs do. You do not need to say, “You’ve got to lock six months’ worth of money in there, £30 million, so you can’t afford a striker”. It is, “If you want to buy that striker, take the risk,” as my noble friend would say.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord agree that many other businesses have constraints on the kind of reserves that they have to have and that charities certainly have constraints on the reserves that they have to have? One of the difficulties, when many clubs go under or are on the verge of going under, is that there is a category of football creditors who have special access to any money that might be there, so lots of local businesses, as well as many fans, get really hit if things go wrong. Even discussing this seems to be alien to him. I am not saying that the wording of that amendment is perfect, but it is an area that is worthy of consideration if we are going to improve the future of clubs throughout the pyramid going forward.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The point that I was trying to make is that I absolutely agree that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well intended in terms of sustainability. I am worried that, as we all get back to the mission creep point and try to resolve all these things, we get into the law of unintended consequences. I know from speaking to a club chairman that if you put that money aside in that way, all you will do is deter their ability to invest in players. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, if we want to make ourselves unpopular in all this, it is by starting to do things that stop clubs buying players and investing. We think that VAR is unpopular today. Suddenly, you make all the clubs put £30 million to £40 million in escrow and they cannot buy those players. That would be a very brave decision for a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank noble Lords for raising the amendments in this group. This discussion has arguably gone into extra time, although I am assured that we have not got to the point of a penalty shoot-out—although that might be one way to arrive at a conclusion, given that I no longer intend to take up the refereeing option from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, having heard very clearly what he said.

It is clear that the enthusiasm for talking about football demonstrated at Second Reading remains strong. I am not surprised, however, given the time we have spent on this group, that my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest appears to have contributed on the next group. I will respond to his points then.

Before I get into the substance of the amendments we have discussed this afternoon, I want to make a general point that was made succinctly by my noble friend Lord Bassam: it is clear that the party opposite has very unfortunately caught an element of collective amnesia. It appears to have forgotten that it was a Conservative Party that was in government and brought forward a very similar Bill just a few months ago—a point made elegantly by my noble friend Lady Taylor. All serious parties—I include the Conservatives in that—had a commitment to introducing an independent football regulator as part of their manifesto.

Notwithstanding the length of the debate, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made an interesting point about growth that has not been substantially covered by the notes I have. I would welcome further discussion on this point with her and am happy to meet to discuss it further.

Taking each amendment in turn, unfortunately, I have to disagree with the principle of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and of Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham. The fan-led review, led by Dame Tracey Crouch, laid bare the facts of English football today. The review is the justification for the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked for, and the basis of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, asked for when he asked what problem we were trying to address. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for highlighting Dame Tracey Crouch’s point that the game is both a success and fragile at the same time—a point reflected, in my view, in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Mann, gave other examples of where the state has intervened in football. Although, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, it is undoubtedly hugely successful in many ways and has grown substantially since the formation of the Premier League in 1992, and our football is a global export that we should be proud of, the game’s financial model is broken. Too many clubs are in financial distress, fans are not being listened to, and just a few years ago top clubs attempted to break away from the Premier League to join a European super league. That move undermined the very principles of football in this country. The Bill is designed to combat these issues, identified by the previous Government.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendment 3 and for his contribution to this debate, not least for highlighting the cross-party support for an independent football regulator. In response to his point on hybridity, I think we will come on to this in a later group, but this is a matter for the examiners, not the Government. I am happy to discuss this and others points in the debate on the relevant group, which I believe is the eighth group. We will potentially come to that at some point in the near future.

Unfortunately, the Government do not agree with the intent of Amendment 3 to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability. The purpose of the Bill is sustainability, as already defined in Clause 1. I highlight to noble Lords that they will find the Government’s definition if they turn from page 1 to page 2 of the Bill. I hope this answers the query from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the Government’s intent in this regard. It is about a continuation of service—to continue to serve the interests of fans and contribute to the well-being of the local communities that regulated clubs serve.

I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and all noble Lords will recognise her passion and expertise. I welcomed the passionate description from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, of what the Bill is about. It is about those fans and the communities. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of this. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and community. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is exactly the same as any other financial club, a point echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

However, there is more to it than this. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy but it ups sticks, moves 60 miles away and changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not a continuation of service either. Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, breaking down the overarching purpose of the Bill into its component parts. That is where noble Lords will see the club financial soundness and systemic financial resilience objectives, alongside the heritage objectives. That is the right place for them, and we believe this structure appropriately conveys the regulator’s aims and priorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, asked whether all clubs in a league would have to adhere to the same rules. The regulator will be proportionate and adaptive in its approach, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach that requires all clubs, regardless of their level, to adhere to the same approach.

Moving to other amendments, I thank my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for Amendments 10, 53 and 63, which raise interesting points about how much funding is required by individual clubs in the pyramid. On Amendment 10, the Government understand that the intent is to explicitly define sustainability in Clause 1 as the ability for a club to meet its financial commitments for at least the next six months.

This amendment would also effectively seek to alter the purpose of the Bill by adding to the definition of sustainability in relation to English football as a whole. As I have already stated, we believe that sustainability is already appropriately defined in Clause 1. I have no doubt that my noble friends’ intention was to define the financial soundness of a club as per the regulator’s objective in Clause 6. However, here we do not believe that it is necessarily appropriate to define general financial soundness in this way. We believe that there are circumstances in which the ability to meet financial commitments for six months may be an appropriate measure, but it is a blunt one and may not also and will not also be the case.

It will be for the regulator to set out exactly what it considers constitutes financial soundness. We think this is the right approach. However, the Explanatory Notes to Clause 6 clarify that:

“‘Financial soundness’ is a measure of a club’s expected ability to continue meeting its liabilities and debts in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances … This will involve an assessment of a wide range of factors and circumstances relating to a club’s long-term financial sustainability and resilience”.


I hope my noble friends are reassured as to the benefits of this approach.

The Government also recognise the good intent behind Amendment 53, which is to clarify that the regulator should be concerned with the financial resilience and sustainability of English football. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that, in our view, the desired intent is already achieved by the wording of the regulator’s objectives in Clause 6, and the purpose of the Bill in Clause 1.

Care was taken in the exact choice of the wording. “Financial resilience” feels appropriate in relation to the wider football system, as an established concept regarding the ability of the system to withstand shocks. “Financial soundness” feels more appropriate when referring to individual clubs, as an established concept regarding the financial health of organisations. “Sustainability” feels appropriate when referring to the overarching purpose of the Bill to ensure a continuation of service. To repeat “sustainability” in this objective could risk confusing these concepts and how they interact. I again point all noble Lords to the Explanatory Notes, which provide more detail on these various objectives and, I hope, provide some reassurance on the points raised.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that the financial position or soundness of regulated clubs is not diminished relative to other, non-regulated clubs. In line with its objectives, this regulator will be tasked with protecting and promoting the financial soundness of regulated clubs. Therefore, I hope my noble friends will agree that it is not necessary to place this additional requirement on it to not adversely affect financial soundness.

Amendments 4A, 7A and 62 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and Amendments 2, 209, 226 and 231 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. In response to the surprise from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this is included, I understand the desire to ensure that the success of English football is protected and would like to be explicit that we believe this is achieved in the Bill already. As previously stated, the Bill is largely the same, not least in the part we have been discussing this evening so far, as that published by the previous Government, in which the noble Lord served.

As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. This extends to domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football. Actively pursuing these outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.

On Amendments 2, 4A and 7A specifically, if, as part of the purpose of the Bill, the regulator were required to protect the success as well as the sustainability of English football, it would not be afforded the flexibility needed to solve the clear and present issues within football currently. As someone who at Second Reading admitted to supporting Oxford United—who, sadly, lost their most recent games—I feel that success would be a hard ask of any regulator.

Similarly, my noble friend Lord Mann mentioned enjoyment. I know that most noble Lords will appreciate that sometimes that enjoyment can be quite painful as well.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

It is more like suffering.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes, suffering—all noble Lords will suffer for their football clubs as well, at times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 5 and 24 standing in my name. In the spirit of cross-party support for this Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, for moving my amendment so eloquently. Should the Minister be in complete agreement with him, I think we could curtail this debate immediately and place the wording on the face of the Bill, since what I was looking for was exactly what he sought—namely, to insert

“within the rules laid down by UEFA, FIFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.

Since there surely can be nobody who does not want to see us continue to play in UEFA competitions and the World Cup, to make that clear on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, spoke to, is important.

Why is this being raised? It is being raised because UEFA has already—before we even got to Committee—raised specific concerns about the Government’s proposal to establish an independent football regulator, emphasising potential government interference in football governance. UEFA made four key objections, as I understand it. I have not had sight of the letter, but perhaps the Minister could confirm that in her response. First, it talked about the autonomy of football governance. UEFA insists that football should be self-regulated without external government influence. As I understand it, in the letter from the UEFA general secretary, Theodore Theodoridis, he stated that there should be

“no government interference in the running of football”.

The second point that he made was about the impact on UEFA competitions. UEFA warned that government interference could lead to the exclusion of English federations and clubs from European competitions, including the Champions League and the European Championships. This concern was highlighted in communications to UK officials, where UEFA emphasised the risks associated with the proposed regulator’s powers.

The third concern that UEFA expressed was on the regulatory powers and the competitive balance, which was referred to in earlier debates this afternoon. UEFA, as I understand it, is apprehensive about the proposed regulator’s backstop powers, which we will come to at a later stage of the Committee’s proceedings. Those are powers to intervene in funding discussions between the Premier League and the English Football League. UEFA argues that such intervention could disrupt the competitive balance and hinder amicable solutions within the football ecosystem. This is interesting; the point was made earlier about the comparison between the German system and the system that we have here. The reason I made that comparison was that Germany has possibly got the most regulated football in Europe in terms of what they call the Sonderweg, which translates as the “special unique past”. It is based on financial regulation and measures, including the 50-plus-one rule.

The point I was making was that the insolvency levels and the financial position of clubs within Germany and the UK are broadly similar, so it is not the regulation that impacts on that. UEFA has therefore concluded, comfortably within its own rules, that Germany, under its regulation, satisfies UEFA’s criteria. However, it raised a fourth point about licensing and club ownership. The proposed regulator would have had the authority to implement a licensing system for clubs and influence club ownership decisions based on the UK’s trade and foreign policy. That was the specific point withdrawn—removed—from the original Bill, and UEFA made it clear that it feared this could lead to fragmented governance across Europe and undermine the independence of football clubs.

These concerns that UEFA has brought forward are very serious. They would have a significant impact on our ability to play in the Champions League and the European Championship—indeed, if we apply the same logic to FIFA, in the World Cup as well. The preservation of the autonomy of football governance is therefore incredibly important. I hope we all agree that in introducing a football regulator nothing should jeopardise the autonomy of football governance and that we are within the rules and regulations set out by UEFA, which are comprehensive, as well as within FIFA’s. There should be nothing that could allow a regulator to overreach that boundary and thus disrupt the sport’s established structure.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I agree that we want to see our clubs competing at the highest level, and the national team as well. Earlier, the noble Lord said that the level of regulation in France, and indeed in Germany, was much tougher than anything that we are going to have in the Bill. But those countries have not got into difficulties, given the regulation that they have, so I do not really see why we should either.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My point was that that is not the case. I do not want to go back into our debate on the first group, but the financial stability in the English system is no different. It is very similar to the financial stability in both the French and German systems. The levels of insolvency are, broadly speaking, the same. It is therefore not the level of regulation that is creating financial stability. If it was, the argument that we needed more regulation to create financial stability would hold water, but in practice it does not.

My point on this set of amendments is simply that if we all agree on this legislation and the role of the regulator, which is not comprehensively defined in the Bill, despite its length—the Minister has said, rightly, that we do not know the details of how the regulator will use its powers in any given situation—the one thing we can be sure about is that we do not want that regulator ever to use its powers in contravention of the UEFA and FIFA guidelines, by which we would have admission to play in European competitions and the World Cup. Should that be the case, there should be no difficulty in placing in the Bill that the whole operation of the regulator should be

“within the rules laid down by FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.

I added the International Olympic Committee because the same principles of autonomy apply, albeit that the British Olympic Association does not enter a men’s football team at present. It certainly enters a women’s football team and would wish to continue to do so. The Bill would enable, by secondary legislation if necessary, the Government to include the women’s game within the scope of this Act, as it would then be. I am thus also looking to have protection of

“the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”

in the Bill for the International Olympic Committee. For those reasons, I put these two amendments before the House. I beg to move Amendment 5.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I totally agree with what has just been said about segmenting the fan base. I do not support a team that has the wide support that Liverpool has, but I was once at a football match in Buenos Aires where I was asked by local people which team I supported. When I mentioned Bolton Wanderers, just about everybody around me said instantly “Nat Lofthouse”, so these things travel. I accept that, but when we are talking about this Bill and about consulting fans on ticket pricing, the club’s heritage or moving grounds, then it is the locality that is in question, and we should not lose sight of that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I shall first pick up the comment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Cheslea. Whether it was an intervention on an intervention, I intervened from a sedentary position, and he heard my comments in relation to friendlies. I was not denying what he was saying; I was expressing support to the extent that pre-season friendlies take place to a substantial amount already and they achieve, to use the word currently in the Bill, an element of sustainability because they provide income from matches all around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, commented earlier on. If ever there was an indication of the strength of support for a football club in another part of the world, all anybody has to do is type in “Liverpool” and “Melbourne cricket ground” to watch a full 100,000-plus Liverpool supporters singing their anthem at the start of a match. That is the extent of the support that our clubs have around the world, and it provides substantial income to the club. There are not many as large as Liverpool, but there is support right around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

I have one last point on the playing of football. The growth of academies has a little bit to answer for. Somebody can play football in one environment and one structure and then are told at the age of 14 that they are not wanted, often for something as arbitrary as “We don’t think you will be tall enough”—I have spoken to three parents who told the same story—to which I say, “You do not want Messi or Kevin Keegan or Ronaldo in your team?” When she replies, will the Minister give us some indication about the Government’s attitude towards the local duty that is embedded in the Bill for fans and the local community? What does it mean? This is my starter for 10, if you like. Something in the Bill should say, “Yes, we are going to make this practicable”, even if it is only to take best practice and make sure that it is adhered to, or at least followed in part. We are giving a lot of time in Parliament to football. Let us get a little bit back. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, makes a good point about football clubs needing to be outgoing and outward looking, able to offer advice to other charities or organisations locally and to encourage football. The vast majority of clubs do that. Perhaps there is insufficient evidence about best practice or not enough sharing of it, but the vast majority of clubs have a good outreach programme, and that is much valued by local communities.

I rise to say a few words about Amendments 151 and 165, which are about the corporate responsibility of clubs in general. The noble Lord touched on some ways in which they can have an impact. We have just talked about the environmental sustainability that is necessary, and the Minister has given reassurances on that point.

I want to mention, in particular, the need for football clubs to increase diversity, include underrepresented groups and eliminate discrimination, which I am afraid exists in many areas of business, from boardrooms to employment records. Local football clubs have a big impact on their community and can lead the way in showing what can and should be done. We need to know what is happening in our clubs, and therefore a reporting mechanism on these areas would be important and of assistance.

We have seen some changes, for example, in the gender diversity of people employed by football clubs. We see many more women taking up roles, but there is a long way to go. It would be good if we could encourage better governance at football club level on all these issues. I agree with what has been said about not having mission creep, and some of these areas are covered by parts of employment law, for example, but we have to look to the long term to improve the good governance of football clubs. Yes, we can encourage best practice, as the Minister said earlier, but there is more to do.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 165 to which my name is attached. I declare my interests; I am chair of Sport Wales, I sit on UK Sport and I am a trustee of the Foundation of Light.

I start by thanking the Minister for answering my question from Second Reading on what would happen between the Privy Council and Senedd regulations with this Bill. I am not a season ticket holder, although I do spend a lot of time watching the Welsh women’s football team—good luck to them tomorrow night—and Thornaby FC women’s team.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I believe in the power of football to change lives. I realise that most of the amendments that I have my name to in this Bill will be considered out of scope, but I do share the noble Lord’s concern over academies. My 2017 duty of care report, commissioned by the then Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, has some answers on that which have not yet been taken up.

This is important in relation to understanding the communities of which football clubs are part. We have talked a lot about the big clubs tonight. Thornaby Football Club, which is very low down in the leagues, decided earlier this year to cancel the women’s and girls’ team. The community came together, people stepped in—partly due to the Women’s Sport Collective—and the team was saved.

This, to me, is the power of football at its best. There is a lovely interview online with a young girl called Lily, aged seven, who was asked what she thought about women’s football being cancelled. She indignantly said, “If girls want to play football, you can’t just not let them”. For me, the impact that these amendments would have all through the game is important; it sets an important tone.

In the original review, Dame Tracey Crouch said that equality standards were a non-negotiable part of the regulator. We have seen this in other sports. The code for sports governance, launched in 2016 by the sports councils, which covers over 4,000 organisations, has made a materially positive impact on the world of sport.

I believe that club governance should include these equality standards, because they link back to accountability and integrity. I can speak only for the Foundation of Light. I am biased, but it runs incredible programmes in communities as lots of foundations do. We are lucky that we have a good link to, and support from, the club. The aim of the foundation is to involve, educate and bring people together through football in Sunderland, south Tyneside and County Durham, and to improve education, health and well-being

This has a significant impact on the community. It is important that we can measure this impact in relation to the community it represents, to help develop and refine these programmes and get to those who they can have the most impact on. This is an important part of what we should be looking for in relation to football, to be able to make a real difference at the grass-roots level.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Can I just suggest to Members opposite who are making their point that they might look at Amendment 72, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? It is called “Support to clubs”, which very specifically gives advice on how smaller clubs might be helped.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords and I think the point about Amendment 72 was well made. Why I believe this is so critical is that when we have been talking about big clubs the feeling almost is that they are going to look after themselves and somehow we do not need to worry about the Premier League. But, as we have all said, the clue is in the word “pyramid”. The fact that the Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world—richer than Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands—is because of the money passed down from the Premier League. Fundamental to the health of the whole game, all the network and all the clubs is the health of the Premier League.

As my noble friend Lord Maude was saying, I am afraid that the more that I look into this Bill and the more I understand it, the more worried I become. As we have said before, if the only objective of the regulator is the survival of clubs, as the shadow regulator mentioned, the only tool it has in its locker is to get them to deposit cash as a cushion. I do not think there is any other mechanism. Again, I would be delighted if anyone else can come up with another mechanism and I will sit down and hear it. I really would be delighted.

But the only measure is to say “Okay, we want to be sure that there is no chance at all of you getting into financial difficulties, so put this money aside”. There have been figures of £20 million a club—£400 million—but, as noble Lords have said, maybe the bigger clubs are better able to cope. I bet the top eight or so—the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Tottenhams et cetera—will be better able to cope. It will be the smaller clubs, especially the ones that are just trying to break in—such as Brentford and Brighton, which have now broken in, but as they were trying to get there—are the ones which will be disproportionately affected.

It is not just the Premier League clubs because, of course, we would be talking about clubs right the way down the pyramid having to make deposits to make sure that there is less risk of them getting into financial difficulties. Of course, the further down the pyramid you go, the more of a hardship that becomes. Let us understand it more. The shadow regulator was talking about his concern about dependence on rich owners and what you can do about that.

We can give two examples recently from my club, Chelsea. I think everyone would say that Matthew Harding was a very reputable business guy, had very good intentions and was an absolutely stand-up person. He was tragically killed in a helicopter crash. No one could have expected that. The club was in financial difficulties and had to be sold. What would the regulator’s answer to that have been? Probably, “Oh, you were dependent on a rich owner. You have to deposit more money in case, God forbid, they die in a helicopter crash”. Our next owner, Roman Abramovich, was very well regarded for about 18 years and was absolutely fine. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and, all of a sudden, he was no longer a reputable owner. What could the financial regulator have done about that? Well, clearly, it has to look at all the owners and think “Ooh, what could happen in your circumstance? Could your country end up doing something bad on the world stage? Deposit more money”.

It goes beyond that. Lots of noble Lords have said, “What do we want? We want better management of our clubs”. Are we asking the financial regulator to assess managers and say “Oh, I don’t think you’re very good”, or “I don’t think your business plan is very good”. What can a financial regulator do if they do not like the management of the club? They cannot sack them. What can they do if they do not like the business plan very much? They can say, “Well, please try better, please make it a bit better”. The only thing they can absolutely do at the end of the day is say “I don’t like your management very much, I’m not very confident in them, and I don’t like your business plan very much, so I’m going to ask you to put more money on deposit”.

Then you get into a situation where I guess you follow that through to its logical conclusion and some clubs are going to have to put a lot more on deposit than others, because the regulator has decided, you know, “I don’t like the cut of your jib”, for want of a better word. What sort of situation are we going to get into there? We can see as we peel back the onion that this is fraught with more and more difficulties. You are asking the regulator to opine on each club, each business plan, each set of owners and each set of management and say, depending on all that, how much money a club should set aside—with only one criterion for success for that regulator: that that club financially stays in its place and never gets threatened with going bust. There is only one criterion, so every time we are going to have an ever-increasing ratchet to de-risk every club, and the only mechanism to do that is to get them to put more and more money on deposit.

Again, please, I would be delighted. I know the Minister cares about football and the welfare of the game, so I would be delighted if someone could come up with another tool on how the regulator can try to manage sustainability. He could not come up with one the other day, so maybe we should ask him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Was it not said at some stage during the consideration of the predecessor Bill before the election that it would be a good idea if the regulator was up and running and got some experience of the regime being introduced before considering extending it?

A few minutes ago, we heard that Members opposite thought that this would be too great a burden on smaller clubs. So perhaps it is a good idea to consider when the time is right and what experience the new regulator will have.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

It was the smaller clubs, as well as us, that said it would be a burden to them. I read out what the National League’s general manager said about his clubs and their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I apologise hugely if my nodding at one point during the noble Lord’s comments meant that other things were inferred. It has reminded me of the dangers of nodding, whether you are nodding to indicate that you understand a point, or that you agree with a point. I was nodding was because in the explanation of this group of amendments that I received from officials earlier today, they made it clear that following the tabling of Amendments 19 and 21, issues have been raised about hybridity. That was the point at which hybridity was raised with me. I hope noble Lords will accept my writing to them to clear up any other issues that might have been raised. I know they want to work constructively on the Bill to make sure that we put in place as soon as possible an effective and proportionate regulator that safeguards the future of our national game, which was a manifesto commitment by the three main parties. I look forward to discussing these amendments further, ahead of Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Will my noble friend just clarify that this section of the Bill is identical to the one that was introduced pre-election?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord McLoughlin has made an incredibly important point. While I do not think that this is the moment for us to test it, we should give due consideration to whether this ought to go before the Examiners after Committee and before Report, particularly because the Minister has today said that the leagues are not confused about which leagues this legislation applies to.

We are grateful to the Minister for writing to us today. She stated in her letter that:

“The initial intended scope of the top five tiers of Men’s English football is built on a strong evidence base and extensive consultation with all key stakeholders”.


Nothing could be clearer about exactly who this Bill is meant to refer to. Yet, in this whole long Bill, there is no reference to the five tiers of men’s English football and we have no idea whether the Secretary of State will ultimately keep to that or not. We are going through legislation about which we have no clarity to whom it refers. That is, if not unprecedented, extremely rare. It is important that we heard from my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, not least because, to repeat what his committee said in its report:

“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.


I urge the Minister to listen carefully to my noble friends and to make sure that the Government at least place what we are talking about in the Bill, so that we know which clubs it refers to and where the onerous powers contained in it for the potential state-appointed regulator will fall. Without that, we are talking in a vacuum.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the amendments in question is in my name and that of my noble friend. I am surprised that Members opposite think that the previous Conservative Government would have introduced a hybrid Bill. I remind the House that this Bill is almost identical to the one they introduced and I am surprised that they thought that that might be hybrid. That Bill was discussed in another place at quite some length, but this question was not raised. As I understand it, the Bill would not have received a Second Reading had it been deemed to be hybrid at that time, so I do not think there is any question that this Bill is hybrid now. It can be made hybrid only if one House or the other passes an amendment that makes it so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, in one of the quaint ways that the Commons has of occasionally putting people, for whatever reason, on obscure committees, I found myself for 15 years on the hybrid Bill committee —one of the more obscure joys of life. I should just say that it was not the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who put me on it.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

You should not offend the Whips.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

There are vast numbers of Bills that could in theory be called hybrid Bills but are not, such as the Great British Railways Bill. It is a nonsense argument, and there are millions of football fans waiting to see some change made.

The thing that triggered the origins of the Bill, with Boris Johnson and others, was a European super league. If Parliament ever attempted to say that the clubs that tried to form a breakaway European super league have a specific hybridity status—in relation to the people, having voted for manifestos that wish to stop this, being able to do so—the whole concept of how we make rules of law would come into question. This Bill is not hybrid and could not be hybrid, in exactly the same way that vast numbers of other Bills which have an impact on various private businesses are not hybrid. I think many noble Members realise that.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

33: Schedule 2, page 85, line 23, leave out “chair” and insert “Board”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is a consequential amendment following on from the above

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I do not wish to move the amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think anyone in Committee anyone can move an amendment, so I am very happy to move Amendment 33. I am curious as to why the noble Baroness has not moved it and perhaps she can set out why, as it is a sensible one and I was intending to speak in support of it.

Amendments 32 and 33 sought to ensure that the chief executive of the new independent football regulator could be appointed by the whole board and not just by the chairman of the board. That would seem a sensible improvement in terms of collective decision-making and an additional safety valve to ensure that the appointment of the chief executive was not a politicised move. I know that a number of noble Lords have significant board experience and may have views on the merits of this.

I was also keen to come in because the amendment allows us to ask the Minister for an update on the appointments, because we are scrutinising this Bill not knowing who the chairman of the new regulator will be or the board. I understand that the deciding panel met to sift applications for the non-executive roles on Monday—I do not know whether she can confirm that—and that people who have applied have been asked to hold the 17, 19 and 20 December for interviews. Can she say now or in writing whether that is still the timetable on which the Government are operating? That would be helpful, because when we took the Online Safety Bill through, we knew who held the regulatory roles at Ofcom and could have some dialogue with them. Anything more that the Minister can say, now or in writing, about the timetable by which these important figures are appointed might aid the discussions that we are able to have in parallel to the scrutiny of the Bill about the people who will be taking forward these important roles.

I beg to move Amendment 33, so that the noble Baroness can have time to respond. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, wanted to say why she was no longer in favour.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

34: Schedule 2, page 85, line 27, leave out from “unless” to end of line 28 and insert “they do not have a conflict of interest.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an objective test for whether a proposed IFR director has a conflict of interest, rather than leaving it for the person appointing that director to determine whether the director being appointed has a conflict of interest.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment tries to probe what might happen and what protections there may be in cases of conflicts of interest in respect of members of either the board or the expert panel. My noble friend Lord Bassam and I have tried to be somewhat specific in our amendments about where conflicts of interest might apply. We have talked about consultants and organisations that might derive half of their income from one of the organisations that might be involved in a competition.

I hope that that can lead the Minister to talk about some of the difficulties that might arise if we do not get the right people in these positions working with the regulator. It is extremely important that anybody in this capacity is independent. We do not expect them not to have any interest in football but we do expect them not to have any financial interest that might at some stage create a conflict. If anybody is employed by a club or an organisation that is dependent on money from one of the leagues then difficulties could arise. Given the framework that has been established, which could be very robust and could help the regulator very clearly, we need to make sure that there are not conflicts of interest that could cut across this new regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton for tabling these amendments. The Government acknowledge the intent behind them, which is to fortify the Bill’s provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest. It is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime, free from undue influence and vested interests.

I reassure my noble friends that the Bill already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest. This is supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures that are already in place. As with all public bodies, members of the regulator’s board will be subject to the Cabinet Office’s code of conduct for board members of public bodies, which sets out clear requirements regarding the appropriate disclosure and management of conflicts of interest. It includes a responsibility on board members to openly and honestly declare any interests that could give rise to actual or perceived conflicts. Any breach of these requirements would be a breach of the member’s terms of appointment.

The Bill also places an additional onus on the appointer to check for conflicts that have not otherwise been declared, both at the point of making the appointment and on an ongoing basis from time to time. In addition, paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters which fall for consideration by the board, and for this declaration to be recorded.

On Amendment 331 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, the Government are confident that the existing definition of conflict of interest is appropriate and will capture the correct issues. The expansion of the definition proposed by my noble friend would also see perceived conflicts explicitly forbidden. We believe this is disproportionate and goes beyond the normal interpretation of conflict of interest. For example, almost all noble Lords here support a football club. In an extreme interpretation, that alone could be a perceived conflict. All in all, we are confident that the Bill, supplemented by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, provides comprehensive safeguards to identify and manage conflicts of interest appropriately. For these reasons, I am unable to accept my noble friends’ amendments and ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising that the potential for a conflict of interest is there and potentially quite significant. I accept that we all have an interest. If an interest in football was a perceived conflict then we would all be in great difficulty, but I think it is important to emphasise that we are talking about potential financial conflicts of interest. I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 40 seeks to limit the remuneration that can be given to members of the board. As currently drafted, the Bill does not place any limit on this. It simply states that the Secretary of State will decide the remuneration of the non-executive members and that the pay of employees, including the executive members of the regulator’s new board, will be decided by the non-executive members. It is important that we try to curb spending to begin with and put some limit on the threshold. I have chosen in Amendment 40 to set it at £172,153 per annum, which might seem a curious number but I believe it is the current salary of the Prime Minister, who I am sure the noble Baroness thinks is doing an excellent job and is great value for money. I would be interested whether she thinks that employees and board members of this new regulator ought to be paid more than him in carrying out this duty, or whether she shares my concerns about the currently unlimited amount that they could be paid under the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I am not sure the noble Lord has made his case for why somebody who has an interest or a role in television should not be a member of the board. I am sure that there are commentators who may say things from time to time with which the noble Lord may disagree, but that is irrelevant. We are talking about people who have a degree of expertise about the game, and I cannot see why somebody whose job it is to comment on the game of football cannot have a role in this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am happy to say a bit more. This is a probing amendment, and I am keen to hear the views of others. My concern is about how public facing a figure this new regulator is to be. I am mindful of comparisons with debates on legislation that I have taken through. We benefited in the scrutiny of the work of Ofcom and the new online safety regulatory regime from having the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, here in your Lordships’ House. He attended and sat through all our debates in Committee and on Report but did not speak because he felt that it was important that he heard the views of Parliament but did not actively participate in the debate about the regulatory regime that Ofcom would be following once Parliament had given it its instructions. The self-denying ordinance that he applied and the rules of debate in your Lordships’ House made it easier for him than it might have been had he been a commentator on television or frequently appearing on television and in media interviews and being asked about the work.

I am sure we want to see the regulator held accountable publicly as well as to Parliament, and I look forward to our debates on later groups about how we ensure greater accountability to Parliament for the work that it does. I am sure that fans will have strong views about the work of the regulator, just as they do about how referees conduct their duties during matches. However, I wonder whether somebody who is taking on this role, potentially one with a large and unlimited salary, should be combining that with ongoing media interests in which they have a commercial interest in adding to the drama and to public debate about the game. I will be grateful for the Committee’s views on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, which I think are very helpful because they will help to tease out one of the real challenges at the heart of this Bill—how to achieve the right balance of proper oversight with the absolute necessity of delivering regulatory independence. We should, of course, acknowledge the natural instinct to ensure democratic accountability of any new regulator. Given the cultural and economic importance of football to our nation, Parliament should rightly maintain some oversight of how this new body exercises its considerable powers.

The question “Who regulates the regulator?” is beginning to be asked more and more often, not least in relation to the many clear failings of UK regulators, and rightly so. However, I believe we must also tread with real care here. Football’s international governing bodies, UEFA and FIFA, have clear provisions against state interference in the game. While their primary concern has historically been direct government control of national associations, they could well choose to interpret these provisions more broadly. We have already seen their willingness to act even in response to the mere creation of this regulator, and we have seen the Government’s instant removal of a clause in this Bill relating to foreign and trade policy. This tension means we must achieve a delicate balancing act: too little accountability and we clearly risk regulatory overreach; too much involvement of the state and our democratic institutions and we risk creating leverage that could be used against English football’s interest.

I have already spoken about some of the risks here. If Select Committee oversight and IFR responsibility to both bodies was seen as political interference, it could feasibly create that leverage we have warned about whereby clubs participating in European competition, or even England’s tournament participation, is put in jeopardy. We have already seen concerning signs of how these tensions might play out. In just a short time since this Bill’s introduction, we have witnessed numerous attempts to expand the regulator’s scope from environmental sustainability to ticketing prices and kick-off times to corporate responsibility requirements. I am concerned about how this pressure might intensify with direct parliamentary oversight.

Members of the other place, responding quite correctly to constituents’ concerns, might press the regulator to intervene in broadcast arrangements or ticket allocations, or elements that go to the heart of competition tools that should be reserved for the leagues. Select Committees could demand action on issues far beyond the regulator’s core financial sustainability purpose. Each intervention, however well intentioned, risks creating exactly the kind of state interference that could threaten English football’s international position.

We have seen this pattern in other sectors: regulatory mission creep that is driven by political pressure and external events. Football’s unique international framework makes this dynamic particularly dangerous. Every expansion of scope and political intervention creates new vulnerability to UEFA and FIFA leverage. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she responds, could explain how the Government intend to manage these competing demands. How will they maintain appropriate accountability while preventing political pressure from expanding the regulator’s remit? How will they ensure that parliamentary oversight does not become a backdoor for state intervention in football’s affairs? What safeguards will protect against the regulator being drawn into issues that should remain matters for the football authorities only?

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this issue has been directly discussed with UEFA and, if so, what its view is on how the IFR’s independence should be preserved in this respect. It seems clear that without comprehensive assurances on every single aspect of the IFR and how it will operate, we risk inadvertently subjecting English football to permanent external control. The irony of creating this leverage will be quite incredible. In seeking to protect our game through regulation, we must not end up permanently compromising its independence and losing control of English football for ever.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, started speaking, I thought that we were going to have a first. She started off by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on some points that I would agree with him on. Then she went totally against that and said that a Select Committee might be too interfering. I point out to her that the Select Committee that covers DCMS has, for many years, talked about the problems in football such as ticket pricing and the timing of matches. That has not impinged in any way on any international arrangements.

We have to make a clear distinction between Parliament and the Executive, because we are not talking about state control or government control. What we are talking about in this amendment is a proper accountability for any regulator. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have the privilege of chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee of this House. We had a report about who regulates the regulator, so it is strange that the noble Baroness should use those words. This is not about regulating the regulator; it is actually about holding regulators to account. Both Houses have a very important role to play in making sure that regulators are held to account by Parliament.

I go further: if some of the regulators had been held to account more closely by Parliament in recent years, we would not, for example, have the crisis that we have today in the water industry. There has been a failure of Parliament to hold regulators to account.

My Amendment 89 is not grouped with these amendments but covers very similar points and the same principle. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that Parliament will have a role to play in holding all regulators to account, including the independent football regulator.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Her words are born of great experience—not just the dark arts of the Whips’ Office, I know, but many years of speaking up for her constituents in the other place. I think she ended up agreeing with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

I support this amendment because of my experience of four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. I had the great privilege of serving under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking, who was a superb chairman. That is not to take away from the work of Meg Hillier, who recently did an excellent job in that role.

My point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned the division between the Executive and Parliament. Our worry on this side, and the reason we put forward this amendment, is that we see too many powers being vested in the Executive and Parliament having too few.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

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

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

39: Schedule 2, page 86, line 13, leave out “may” and insert “must”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is grouped with Amendments 41, 46 and 48. This is a pretty straightforward amendment, simply seeking to change in the Bill the word “may” to “must”.

For context, the Bill as it stands says that a non-executive member of the board “may” be removed from office in certain circumstances. That is clearly appropriate and something that we should expect. Similarly, the Bill says that an executive member “may” be removed in certain circumstances. Again, that is something that we should expect and is totally appropriate.

However, the circumstances in which such a removal can take place are actually rather serious. They are laid out quite clearly as being when the person is

“guilty of serious misconduct … has a conflict of interest … has failed to comply with paragraph 6(4)”,

which is about information on conflicts of interest, and

“is unable, unfit or unwilling to carry out their functions”.

I think we would all agree that, whether we are talking about a non-executive or executive member of the board, we need to take such issues seriously.

That is why I ask the Minister why it is only “may” be removed and not “must” be removed, because these circumstances would seem to justify removal. If anybody falls foul of the items identified here, there really has to be a presumption that they will be removed, and so the word “must” might be more appropriate.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the difference between “may” and “must”—or may and shall—is a pretty old parliamentary debate, but the noble Baroness has something here. I read through the amendments and thought, “It’s pretty clear. How could they stay if they’d done these things?” It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. I know that “may” probably means “must” in certain circumstances, but if we could just have it clarified, we might get through this very quickly. It is very worth while having it clarified in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for introducing the amendments in this group. The Government acknowledge and understand the intent behind these amendments, which is to fortify the Bill’s provisions for dealing with conflicts of interest and unsuitable board and panel members.

It is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime, free from undue influence, vested interests and misconduct. I reassure my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton, who is not in his place, that the Bill, supported by public law principles and non-legislative measures already in place, already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest and misconduct.

Amendments 39 and 41 relate to the board. As with all public bodies, members of the regulator’s board will be subject to the Cabinet Office’s Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, raised. I can also confirm that they will be subject to the Nolan principles. The code of conduct sets out clear requirements regarding the appropriate disclosure and management of conflicts of interest. This includes a responsibility on board members to openly and honestly declare any interests that could give rise to actual or perceived conflicts. Any breach of these requirements would be a breach of the member’s terms of appointment. Requirements on good conduct more broadly are also outlined in this document.

The Bill also places an additional onus on the appointer to check for conflicts that have not been otherwise declared at the point of making the appointment and on an ongoing basis from time to time. In addition, paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 requires members of the board to declare their interests in any matters which fall for consideration by the board, and for this declaration to be recorded.

I think I reflect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, when I say that, in the Government’s view, these amendments would represent an unacceptable constraint on the discretion of the chief executive and the Secretary of State to take the appropriate approach to managing issues with members of the board, such as conflicts of interest, on a case-by-case basis as circumstances dictate.

Amendments 46 and 48 concern the expert panel. I reassure noble Lords that, in the Government’s view, the Bill already sufficiently makes certain that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest. The Bill places an onus on the chief executive, as the appointer of panel members, to check for conflicts that have not otherwise been declared at the point of making the appointment and, as with other processes, on an ongoing basis from time to time. In addition, paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 requires members of the panel to declare their interests in any matters which fall for consideration at a meeting of a committee they are on, and for this declaration to be recorded. In our view, these amendments would put in place too much of a constraint on the discretion of the chief executive to take the appropriate approach to managing issues with panel members, such as conflicts of interest, on a case-by-case basis as the circumstances dictate.

All in all, we are confident that the Bill already contains comprehensive safeguards to ensure the suitability of board and panel members. Therefore, I would be grateful if my noble friend would withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the provisions that she thinks adequately cover this point. However, if discretion still exists on issues such as being guilty of serious misconduct, then I have a concern. I am not sure that there should be discretion in a case of a serious misconduct. Maybe the point she raised about conflicts of interest and that conflicting with other parts of the Bill covers it, but I have this fear that, if there is discretion, the chief executive of the independent football regulator might be put under pressure by others. That can be a serious concern in any organisation. In a sense, I think these amendments would protect people from having to use discretion. If somebody was found guilty of serious misconduct, that would elevate the issue again.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I am particularly interested in what the noble Baroness just said about the pressure being imposed on a chief executive. If, having looked at a case in detail and correctly in terms of procedure and the like, he then gives way to pressure from elsewhere —it may well be political pressure of one form or another—would you not call into question whether you have the right chief executive in the first place?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Yes. That is why we need to protect the chief executive or anybody else by not giving them this kind of discretion, which might leave them open to any kind of pressure. I am not sure it would be political pressure; it is quite likely to be internal political pressure with a small “p”, rather than political in the way that we discuss things. I ask my noble friend to consider this a bit further because, given the categorisation, there is a potential problem. I know she has taken an interest in this so, on that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is one of those that reflects real life. Anybody who has set up any club of any structure at any point knows that, if you are working between two bodies—I have seen it very much at junior level between rugby and cricket clubs—their interests seem suddenly to contradict each other under a new set of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will have a reassuring answer about the flexibility and ability of the regulator to intervene and try to find a way forward, because this is a real problem that will occur every now and again. It is probably not a structural thing, but “Is the flexibility there?” is a genuine question. I do not think any of us wants one of our regulators to suddenly start having a negative effect.

My Amendment 70 in this group basically says that support should be available for the women’s game. We have already covered this issue at some length, so I will not go much further than to say that we should not exclude giving the women’s game some help, because it is developing and going forward, and it is very important to the foreseeable future of developing elite-level sport in this country. We should address that by having another look and asking what the capacity is.

I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is ready to speak to her amendment. Can we find out what flexibility there is and what the regulator is seen to be doing to handle these not quite down-the-line situations, where there are positive outcomes that we hope would be facilitated by it?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say just a word, because Amendment 72 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is included in this group. We have, to a certain extent, discussed this already, because this reflects on the kind of support that clubs would get were they to seek a licence, get a provisional licence or try to comply with the regulations that will be there. The Minister was very reassuring when we discussed this previously, but I hope that, at some stage during the passage of the Bill through either House, we can get a little more detail on how this may work in practice.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 72, but shall comment briefly on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Addington.

We need to be clear that this is a regulator for the men’s game, not the game of football. I am really excited to see the growth of women’s football; it has a massive impact on society. Some 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy, and football is one of those sports that connects and is changing the relationship between girls and physical activity and sport. I was at the Wales v Northern Ireland women’s game the other week and the groups of teenage girls coming to support in a way that they might not support the men’s game, and the little girls dressed in their Welsh kit and goalkeeper’s kit, was a really beautiful sight to see.

But the women’s game needs to be protected and nurtured, and I do not want to see any unintended consequences of regulation or anything that makes it harder for women to be involved in what is an incredible game. I am meeting the Minister this week, and this is one of things I will be discussing with her.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

I would very much appreciate the Government’s detailed response on these matters in writing at their earliest convenience, because they go right to the heart of the success or failure of the Bill, our future in Europe and indeed the World Cup competitions. I very much hope and request that the Minister takes these requests to UEFA and FIFA so that the Committee can be completely comfortable that they are in line with the regulations and, as a result, there can be no conflict in future that will be to the detriment of football and fans.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but the noble Lord has said time and again that the Bill may jeopardise British clubs competing in Europe. Can the Minister clarify that in Italy the legislative decree 9/2008—the Melandri law—and in Spain the royal decree law 5/2015 both deal with the distribution of audio-visual rights, and both insist on a significant amount of distribution to lower clubs? I have not heard that clubs from Italy or Spain have been refused participation in European competitions.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is proposing to speak to her amendments in this group.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

The amendment in this group that I tabled has been covered by some of the earlier discussions we had and some of the assurances that the Minister gave.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I look forward to her noble friend the Minister’s response to it, if she feels she has anything to add to it in this group.

The debates that we have had on this group, which concerns reporting requirements, cast my mind back to the debates we had during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on testing the duties for Ofcom to report back on how it would operate the new regulatory regime that the Act set up. My noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood talked about future-proofing and emerging technologies, and this is an opportunity, through the reporting, to make sure that the changing technology and new areas of work are not just in the mind of the regulator but brought back before Parliament for some consideration.

My noble friend Lady Brady—I pay tribute to her being here for the consideration of the Bill, particularly this evening—described the first-mover disadvantage. Notwithstanding the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned about the Italian and Spanish legislation—and I will certainly look at the extent to which that has lessons for us—what we are doing here is on a scale not done by any other jurisdiction. We want to make sure, as we are doing it, that it is working and that it is brought back before Parliament for proper consideration.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought amendments in this group and spoken to them. My Amendment 121 in this group is simple and technical. The Bill states that the regulator

“must arrange for a copy of every report under this section to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”.

The wording of the amendment and the original wording of the Bill may seem very similar, but the substantive difference here is that we think that the duty should fall on the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament, not on the regulator. The Secretary of State is directly answerable to Parliament, whereas the independent football regulator, at least in the way that the Bill currently envisages it, is not. Surely it is therefore the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the actions of the regulator and to present the relevant documents to Parliament for scrutiny.

That would not be interfering with the regulator’s independence. Ministers already do this on behalf of other independent regulators: they are not carrying out the regulation but they bring documents before Parliament on the regulators’ behalf. Indeed, they are often asked about the way that regulation works, in addition to the power of Select Committees to call people who work at the regulators directly before them.

My amendment would also standardise the wording of the Bill. For example, Clause 11(6) states:

“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”,


and Clause 13(6) states:

“The Secretary of State must lay any guidance, or revised guidance, published under this section before Parliament”.


If the Bill envisages elsewhere that the onus is on the Secretary of State to lay documents before Parliament, I do not understand why it does not do so also in Clause 14. I am curious to probe the logic in the drafting to see why there is that discrepancy and whether we ought to change it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

94: Clause 10, page 6, line 35, after “football” insert “, including factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the State of the Game report to include, in its overview of issues affecting English football, factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, there are quite a lot of amendments in this group, so I should say at the outset that I am trying to get assurances from the Minister on two specific points. They relate to the “state of the game” report, on which I know a lot of work has already been done.

The first assurance is that the report will be as comprehensive as possible. My colleagues and I have listed a number of items that should be included. Some are issues that we have already discussed. Some are very significant, such as community, social impact, how well managed clubs are, an assessment of the distribution arrangements, issues around women’s football, multi-club ownership, player welfare, equalities and social inclusion. All those things should be encompassed by the “state of the game” report, and, without going into any one of them at this stage, I hope we can agree that this report should be as comprehensive as possible. It is important that the regulator has independent and substantial information on which to make judgments. That is the first point that I raise with the Minister and on which I seek her assurances.

My second point concerns the timing of the report. As I said, I know that a lot of work has gone on to prepare for the report. The Bill suggests that it should be out as soon as possible, but gives an 18-month deadline. One amendment in this group seeks to reduce that to 12 months. Given the amount of attention on the Bill, that it has been in the pipeline for so long and that people are aware of these issues, a 12-month timescale should be appropriate. I hope the Minister agrees that the report should be published as soon as possible.

There is also the question of how often we should have this report. The Bill suggests five years and my amendment suggests three. It suggests that the report should be presented to Parliament. This is not a controversial area, but some reassurances would be beneficial, so that everybody is clear where we are going forward.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the “state of the game” report is one of those things that has been almost universally welcomed. It will look at this very big and complex industry, with a very successful top and struggling foundations—that is how the industry appears to many people.

My name appears on this amendment alongside that of the noble Baroness because of things such as social impact. We are doing this because it is reckoned to be an important subject that matters a lot to people, and we keep being told that it is a big business—the biggest invisible earner going. If we get a report that is too narrow, we will not be looking at this huge social impact and what goes on.

Many of the things that we are talking about here are out of scope of the main operation of the Bill, but they should be looked at somewhere. The women’s game is one that comes to mind, along with players, which these amendments propose would feature here. If we are not going to look at such things in the Bill, we should look at them in the “state of the game” report.

It is a huge subject that we are talking about here; we have taken on something that is quite brave. If we do not find out how it is functioning and what is going on, we will be missing a trick. I would hope that we would do this as soon as we can—having slightly more frequent reports, at least at the beginning, would not be a bad idea. The “state of the game” report is a huge opportunity for gathering a great deal of very useful information.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have set out, I hope noble Lords and my noble friends will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased there is such agreement about the importance of the “state of the game” report. The Minister has given some elements of reassurance, but on others I wish she could have gone a little further.

Because of the late time, we have not discussed in depth all the elements we were talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned multi-club ownership, which I think we will come unto at a later stage.

The one point I cannot agree with that has been said is that football has benefited from benign neglect. Benign neglect of good governance in football is the reason we are here today.

But there has been progress here. I am glad everybody accepts that this report will be important. On that basis, at this stage, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that many of us who are concerned about football could talk all night about football agents and the concerns that many people have about them.

I want to talk about another amendment in this group. The Marshalled List says that this grouping is miscellaneous. The combination of topics that we are discussing in this section is rather strange. I want to say a word about Amendment 150 in my name, which concerns the concept and practicality of assets of community value. We would like to make this a condition of the licensing system. It is really important that fans have the reassurance that their ground is not going to be sold underneath them and all the assets of the club traded by someone who does not have the footballing interests of the club at heart. I am always surprised that more clubs’ grounds and assets of this kind are not deemed to be assets of community value. That would be part of the protection of clubs’ heritage but also—perhaps as importantly—significant in protecting clubs from rogue owners.

I have a particular interest in this because of what happened to Bolton Wanderers a few years ago. Thankfully, because of the actions of the fans and the supporters’ trust, the stadium, the pitch, the circulation area, the seats, the stands, the Premier Suite, our car park and the fan zone were protected when the local authority accepted that they should be assets of community value. It meant that those assets were protected. It was particularly important at the time because we had gone through the experience of having an owner whose main concern was not the footballing future of Bolton Wanderers but the assets. A rogue owner of that kind can do immense damage, so this protection is extremely important. I urge that consideration be given to making it a condition of the licensing that football assets are designated as assets of community value.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 167 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor is about the removal of rogue owners. In a sense, this amendment poses the question: what is the point of a regulator that identifies bad practice and rogue owners but does not have clear powers and mechanisms to replace them? Our amendment seeks to incorporate within articles of association provisions that would oblige owners to give up their shares and make sure that those shares were given over to a new beneficial owner, subject, of course, to the usual checks.

Our argument is that the Bill must adequately address enforcement of the fit and proper owner test to enable the regulator to force an owner to sell their shares or force a director to resign from the board. In doing that, the regulator would be able to ensure that clubs have sufficient reserves to meet ongoing operational costs if an owner is disqualified.

At some point, it might be advantageous to consider having a central sinking fund in place to help cover interim costs. In the licence criteria, the regulator might also want to insist that clubs include in their articles of association a mechanism for the resignation of a director in those circumstances. That is important because we do not want situations such as Aston Villa found in 2016. In the mid-1990s Brighton & Hove Albion had owners not only who were deeply unpopular but who were not there because they had the best interests of that club at heart. More accurately, they were asset-strippers who eventually, without providing an alternative, sold the ground to a series of companies that set up a retail park. One of the saddest moments of my life was going to the last game there. We all knew what was going to happen to that site. It was going to end up as a Toys “R” Us. I have nothing against Toys “R” Us, but there were plenty of other sites in Brighton where it could have happily located.

I turn to Amendments 205, 208, 210 and 259, which are about protecting domestic competitions. Currently, the Bill does not require clubs to prioritise domestic over European or worldwide competitions. We feel that clubs should be property consulted before changes are made to competitions. The Bill should ensure that the regulator can designate European or worldwide competitions as restricted and not to be prioritised above domestic competitions. This would prevent clubs establishing a new entity to inherit the existing club’s identity and players—for example, the Man Cities of this world leaving the Premier League and calling themselves City Blues for the purposes of entering a restricted competition.

This is important because the ecosystem of competitions has been under pressure in the last few years. For instance, earlier this year moves were made to prevent replays in FA Cup matches. I think it would be fair to summarise that that was against the will of most clubs and largely for the convenience of the bigger clubs playing in European competitions. There is nothing wrong with them playing in Europe; it is very welcome and important for the success of our Premier League. We want to make sure that this carries on being the case, but the abolition of FA Cup replays went against the vast majority of clubs’ interests and has undermined the beauty of the competition in the sense that, periodically, replays provided much-needed funds for clubs in the lower leagues. It has also restricted the opportunity for lower-league supporters to see the bigger clubs when they enter the competition. It is important that the regulator has an interest in this and that we provide clubs with the certainty and security that they will be consulted about competition changes.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about one of the amendments, but first want to follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was saying about multi-club ownership. He was suggesting that multi-club ownership could alleviate risk. I see the point that he was making, but we have to be clear that it can also generate risk. This is an ongoing conversation that many people in football are having. We have to consider its prevalence and the fact that it is increasing, but there are questions about how it could distort competition and lead to complications with loan deals or the sale of players. This is a big question that will loom over us in the future. It is not just a one-way issue, as perhaps the noble Lord was suggesting.

I want to say a couple of words about Amendment 201. Clause 37 says very clearly that in determining whether it considers that an individual has the requisite honesty et cetera, the regulator should have regard to whether the individual has been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Amendment 201, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bassam, goes somewhat further and says:

“No individual with an unspent serious criminal conviction, whether or not in England and Wales, shall be permitted to own a controlling stake in, or serve as a director for, any regulated club”.


That is a clear statement of intent about the serious nature of some of the issues that have arisen about specific clubs in recent times. I ask the Minister to tighten up on this, take the prospect of owners with serious convictions very seriously and say that it should be a bar to ownership and not simply something that has to be taken into account.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 204 on multi-club ownership, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made some important points and it would be helpful for the Committee to understand the position of the Government. It can alleviate risk. It is also highly complex and can make it very difficult, in terms of due diligence, for the regulator to look at an English club under this legislation without taking into account the financial exposure that a multi-club owner could have in another country with other clubs.

This is a growing trend; it is not new. A significant number of Premier League clubs and six EFL Championship clubs form part of a wider multi-club model, a structure first explored exclusively in Europe by ENIC, now the majority shareholder of Tottenham Hotspur. The rationale underpinning multi-club ownership aspirations, which underlines just how complex the situation can be, ranges from player recruitment and development efficiencies to knowledge sharing, resource synergies and brand penetration.

Furthermore, accruing interest in clubs that compete in the continent’s top leagues—those that hold higher bands and therefore score more points in the governing body endorsement system—is seen as a means for Premier League and EFL clubs to access a more eligible foreign pool of players. Having interests in multiple clubs is not a phenomenon unique to the UK; it pervades the European game. UEFA reports that clubs with cross-ownership relations account for more than a third of the top division in each of Belgium, France and Italy, in addition to England. Integrity of competition, reconciling the model with football’s rulebook, has become a complex issue for UEFA. At the centre of sport is competition, so if the same person, either a natural or a legally based entity, was to have control or influence over two rivals, there would be a risk to the integrity of competition whenever those rivals competed.

To mitigate that risk, football’s governing bodies have introduced rules to preserve the independence and integrity of competition between its clubs. At a domestic level, approximately two-thirds of European national football associations have rules directly limiting or restricting multi-club ownership. The famous article 5 of the regulations of the UEFA Champions League, on the integrity of the UEFA club competitions, stems from the governing body’s concern, which started back in the late 1990s. Article 5 regulates common ownership by prohibiting the same individual or legal entity having control or influence over more than one club playing in the same UEFA club competition. That notably includes the ability to exercise, by any means, a decisive influence on the decision-making of the club concerned.

With that brief explanation on top of the important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that she is completely comfortable with article 5 and will instruct the regulators not to impose any conflicting regulations in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

We have gone through this several times. If there could at least be some private way in which those people involved in this could see this letter, it would be of assistance, because this is becoming a hardy perennial that is getting in the way of progress.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I think everybody is thinking about the previous examples we have been given, but would not the example that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just gave us of the non-sanctioned Russian individual be covered by the other considerations and the holistic attitude that my noble friend the Minister was telling us was the basis of the approach of the regulator?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her helpful comments. I am not able to comment further at this moment. I think the detail is probably beyond this discussion and I recognise the comments about going round and over things again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we need an answer about why these things are carried on for so long, because there are administrative burdens. If we want these clubs to survive and come back, we could probably make a case for two things. One would be an intermediate regulator, which I do not think would be terribly popular with certain sections of this Committee, and the other is deciding when you can come out of this, because there are duties that are probably an appropriate burden for a professional structure. A good few clubs have gone in and out of this structure, but there is a certain level at which you are not receiving income, you are not receiving support and you have become a part-time asset to the community. Surely there is some point at which there is a cut-off. A better definition of the Government’s thinking on this might be helpful.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say a word about Amendment 207. It talks about a club that is not a regulated club but bears a very similar resemblance to one that is in things such as the name, the shirt colours and things of that type—almost an imitation of another club in order to get some support, finance or whatever. It may seem that this is highly unlikely, but I have a nightmare scenario where the super leagues that are being proposed do not take off, and therefore people try to create an artificial super league by, for example, having a team called “Manchester Blues” or “Liverpool Reds” getting into competitions with clubs abroad as an imitation of the super league that has been proposed and rejected. I want some assurance that should that nightmare scenario come about, there is some provision for being strict about what can and cannot happen.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to this group, I want to be clear about who the regulator will test and clarify an earlier point I made. I will ensure that all noble Lords who participated in the second group have their attention drawn to this clarification and apologise if I caused any confusion.

Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out details on who meets the definition of an owner. The Secretary of State will also set out guidance on one of the criteria for ownership, “significant influence or control”. An incumbent individual simply meeting the definition, including if they exert significant influence or control, does not mean that the regulator is required or obliged to test them. It may test an incumbent owner if there are grounds for concern about their suitability. The criteria for suitability are clearly set out in the Bill. This applies to any type of owner, be it a state owner or otherwise.

The key point I must stress—it goes for Newcastle United or any other club, although as someone who lived for a number of years in Newcastle I am particularly keen to reassure Geordies—is that the regulator will be operationally independent of government. It is not for the Government to prejudge the regulator’s assessment of who meets the definition of owner, whether there is concern about a particular owner or the outcome if the regulator tests a particular owner.

Finally, I want to reassure your Lordships’ Committee that this Government are unashamedly pro-investment, which will drive our growth mission. We want good, long-term investors into the UK, and foreign investment is key to this. I hope that noble Lords find this clarification helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

219: Clause 46, page 38, line 26, leave out first “home ground” and insert “specified properties”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the duty to notify the IFR of a potential disposal of a home ground to include a potential disposal of any specified properties.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 219 relates to Clause 46 and the question of the disposal of home grounds, and the kinds of approvals that are going to be required. I have just three points to make. First, are the words “home ground” sufficient? We suggest that we should say “specified properties”. This relates very much to what I was saying the other night about assets of community value. I said that when my own club, Bolton Wanderers, made its ground an asset of community value, it covered not just the ground itself, the pitch and the stands but the concourse. We have to talk about whether it should cover a training ground and even advertising hoardings, car parks and the fan zone. If we simply say “home ground”, will that cover an item such as a fan zone? That is why the amendment I have tabled suggests that we should have specified properties. They may be different in the case of different clubs, but a home ground is more than just what is on the pitch or even within the boundaries of the stadium. That is something that I hope the Minister will consider.

My second point is that this should relate to the assets of a club being used as security for a loan by the owner. There is clearly potential danger there if the loan is called in but the owner does not have the wherewithal to cough up the money that he has borrowed. Could that situation jeopardise the heritage of a club if it is vulnerable because it has been given as security? That is a valid consideration.

The third point is the need to make sure that fans are fully consulted and engaged in any discussion about the disposal of the specified properties. Often, when we are talking about which properties might be involved, it is the fans themselves, especially if there is a fan zone, who have a clear vested interest. We have talked on the Bill about moving five miles. In any circumstances, the fans have to be involved and, therefore, I hope the Government will consider the amendments that we have tabled.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, because I have walked this tightrope. When I was leader of Stockport Council, we had to financially advise and support Stockport County on several occasions. In the end, in 2013, we acquired the freehold and leased it back to the new owner of Stockport County, Mark Stott, for 250 years. That enabled him to get investment in and get the football club moving back into the league and climbing the divisions. That is where we start from: the position of the club and its value as a loan against something.

If we can get local authorities and other people to get hold of the freeholds, that will save Toys-R-Us from being built on certain football grounds on the south coast and give the clubs real opportunities to move forward. So we should support the amendments. We should also probably be thinking about how we can strengthen that in future. There is more involvement in the community value and the asset to a town and area of a football club, so we could be a bit more imaginative about how we protect that, rather than just arguing over how we should cover a loan against the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

On that basis, and for the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I am very grateful to her for saying that she will consider some aspects further, because I think there is an issue here, especially in how we define a home ground. We may want to return to this at a later stage. In the meantime, it proves why every club should have its grounds designated as an asset of community value; we then would have the protection that we are seeking in this amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said and for saying she will consider parts of this again. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 219 withdrawn.