Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

No, I do not accept that. All the amendment does is to seek the compliance of the football regulator, which this Government are trying to set up, with the major international governing bodies—FIFA and UEFA. Any arguments about political interference and political symbols and how decisions on them are made will be a matter for FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the regulator, but we should want to ensure that the regulator is required not to do anything that conflicts with the rules of FIFA and UEFA.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has talked about the appointment of the chair and how the political connections of the nominated person might be deemed to conflict with the neutrality that FIFA expects in the way football is run. I direct him to paragraph 9(b) of schedule 2, which talks about the tenure of non-exec members, and provides that the Secretary of State may remove a non-exec member of the regulator if they have a conflict of interest. Surely if FIFA said that a person had political connections and therefore was not appropriate to be the chair, that would be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State could act at that point. That is already covered in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions, which somewhat rehearse the previous debate on the staffing of the shadow regulator. He should have received an answer to the written question, and we spoke about this last time; as of 1 June, it has 42 staff. I cannot comment on exactly how many staff there will be at the point of Royal Assent. In my remarks, I said that upon the creation of the regulator, property rights, liabilities and staff will be transferred. I am happy at that point to write to the shadow Minister, but I will not speculate now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 10

State of the game report

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in section 62(2);”

This amendment would require the state of the game report to make an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in distribution orders for the resolution process.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We are finally starting to get on to the football issues in the Bill. The state of the game report is obviously a key element. It will shape how the regulator operates, and eventually, the financial distribution, which we will come to later in the Bill. So the report is really important.

Amendment 2, without undermining what is already in the Bill in any way, simply ensures that the financial distribution as it exists, and as it might exist according to the principles laid out in further clauses of the Bill, is taken into account when developing the state of the game report. It brings a symmetry to the whole process, so that the state of the game report looks at the financial distribution, and when we come to the financial distribution, it goes back to look at the state of the game report. It is a simple amendment that makes the Bill coherent as a whole. I hope that the Minister might at least consider it when looking at how the Bill might be improved.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling this amendment. As I said in a previous sitting, we have a lot of respect for the work that he does chairing the football all-party parliamentary group.

The amendment would require the state of the game report to assess existing and effective financial distribution agreements against the principles. My understanding is that the amendment would therefore require the Independent Football Regulator to assess existing agreements against the principles in clause 62(2)—namely that they

“(a) should advance the IFR’s objectives,

(b) should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and

(c) should not, if a distribution order were made in accordance with the final proposal, result in a lower amount of relegation revenue”—

also known as parachute payments—

“being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to a club during that period had such a distribution order not been made.”

There are a lot of words there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for the amendment. I understand its aims. We do not consider it necessary, as we are confident that the Bill already covers the issue. Per clause 10, the regulator will be obliged to look into the main issues affecting English football and any features of the market that risk jeopardising its objectives. If the existing distribution arrangement meets either of those criteria, the regulator will cover it in the state of the game report. I reassure my hon. Friend that the regulator has the ability to address distributions in the sector if the current scenario reaches a threshold, and we will discuss those powers when we get to part 6.

In general, we have not taken the approach of being overly prescriptive and listing every issue the regulator could and should look at here in the Bill.

[Mr Betts]

I am trying to work out what the Minister is saying. Is she saying that the amendment is unnecessary, because in the state of the game report as laid down already in the Bill, the regulator can do precisely that—look at the distribution within football? There were some other words added then about what might be a restraint on the regulator’s ability to do that. Is the regulator completely free to look at the distribution of resources and revenue within football as it stands?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, the regulator has the ability to address distribution in the sector if the current scenario reaches the threshold. We will come on to discuss that in part 6. I was going to say that, in general, we have not taken the approach of being too prescriptive and listing every issue in the Bill that the regulator could and should look at, as that would be contrary to the light-touch regulator that we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. I can be very clear in answering my hon. Friend’s question: it has the ability as it stands, and we will discuss that point further in part 6. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment for those reasons.

[Mr Betts]

I think I am reassured by what the Minister is saying. It is obviously quite a complicated area, and it links in to what comes later in the Bill. Maybe we can pursue this later. I want to be certain that the regulator has these powers, because I believe that much of the concern among football fans is around the current distribution of revenue, and we must ensure that when we have finished with the Bill, it sorts that problem out. At this stage I will not pursue this to a vote, but we will have discussions about distribution in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 123, clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.”

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members, please, to switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee room. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Clause 10

state of the game report

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, leave out “18” and insert “12”.

This amendment would require the first State of the Game Report to be published within 12 months of the Bill passing.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out “five” and insert “three”.

This amendment would require all subsequent State of the Game Report to be published every 3 years.

[Mr Betts]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I do not intend to have a long debate on amendment 9, because I am sure that the Minister will agree readily to my suggestion. At the least, would she agree to reflect on it? The state of the game report is core to what we are trying to do with the football regulator—to look at the state of the game, what the problems are and what needs to be done to change it. Therefore, getting that report in place as soon as possible is the intention of my amendment. Why wait 18 months if it can be done in 12 months? I do not know what the regulator will consider and how long it will have to do so, but its primary job to begin with will be to look at this issue. Twelve months should be completely adequate.

In some ways, my second point is more important. Football does change, like the rest of society, and circumstances in football change, so I do not think it is entirely reasonable to say to the regulator, “Once you’ve done your job, you can sit back and wait another five years before coming to look at the issues again.” Three years seems a much more proportionate time. The Minister will probably tell me that five years is the end time, and the regulator could look at it in the meantime if it so wanted. Perhaps I am anticipating what she is going to say.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but I am slightly concerned that perhaps he rolled over before he even rose to his feet, and will not press his amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

From years of experience of listening to Ministers respond to helpful amendments, I sort of anticipate the response that is to come.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend is pushing for 12 months, and I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to do because it needs to be quick so that the regulator can start to take the right decisions about the future of game. However, does he agree that what is in the Bill is a significant improvement on what was in the last Bill, which I believe was three years rather than the 18 months that is before us?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. I accept that the Government have been listening to the arguments—not all Governments do, but this one clearly have. That is an important step forward. One of my worries, which we will look at further when we come to later clauses on the distribution of funding, the effect of parachute payments and the role that they may play and for how long, is that unless we give the regulator slightly stricter time periods, we could get to the end of this Parliament and find that nothing has changed.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My concern when I read the legislation was that five years is one Parliament. One report per Parliament feels like the regulator is being quite lackadaisical when it comes to producing reports. I hope that there can be a more regular publication on the state of the game, given its centrality to life in our country.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. I ask the Minister just to think about it. As my hon. Friend just said, the current provision is one report per Parliament. We can look back over the past five years and see that a lot has changed—there is a lot more money in the game—and if the regulator is going to be there, its main role will be to look at this issue. Allow, encourage and make it do that a bit more quickly. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment today, could she at least indicate that she might give it further thought and have discussions about it before Report stage?

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—it is appropriate that you are chairing given that, as I understand it, the road to Wembley runs right through your constituency. I will say only that we support both amendments. The principles that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East stated apply, and more regular reporting will clearly help the regulator to hold itself and clubs to account. On whether it should be 12 or 18 months, I think the sooner it is done, the better, and then we can get on with sorting out the state of football.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment.

The state of the game report will be a key study into the structure and dynamics of the industry. It will help to build an evidence base to inform the regulator’s approach and decision making. I therefore recognise the intent behind my hon. Friend’s well-meaning amendments.

The state of the game report needs to be produced promptly, but it also needs to be a robust study. The timeframes set out in the Bill balance the importance of a timely first report with giving the regulator time to undertake the necessary in-depth analysis. The regulator will need to publish its first report as soon as possible or, as my hon. Friend outlined, within 18 months of the competitions in scope of regulation being specified by the Secretary of State, as an absolute maximum. For subsequent reports, a maximum of five years between publications will encourage the regulator to take a more long-term look. That should minimise unnecessary burdens on the industry and better align with the timelines for existing industry processes, such as commercial agreements. The regulator will still have the discretion—as my hon. Friend anticipated—to publish subsequent reports sooner if it considers it appropriate to do so.

I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendments to reduce the timings further. He asked me to go away and reflect on them, but I do not want to give him any false hope. We have put careful consideration into the time limits, which were changed from the previous Bill. They are an absolute maximum. We have had a number of conversations with the various leagues and stakeholders, and we are confident that they are the right time limits. We have made it clear that the regulator has the power and discretion to publish sooner, and we would very much hope that that would be the case for the first report in particular. For those reasons, I cannot accept his amendments.

[Mr Betts]

I will not press the amendments to a vote, but I want to encourage the Minister on this point. As she said, the regulator can come back to the state of the game report before five years. In doing so, would the regulator be encouraged to take account of any views or concerns from the leagues and clubs that are being regulated, and from fans’ groups? If there was a real concern that things were changing fundamentally, would the regulator be encouraged to come back and reflect on whether a state of the game report should be done more quickly?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Yes, absolutely. We have talked about light-touch regulation throughout the Bill. The regulator has the ability to go sooner, in both its first report and subsequent ones, so we hope that there will be ongoing conversations with all the affected parties. If something happens, the regulator has that power and we would expect it to react. That is why we are not being prescriptive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

That is a really helpful response. It says to the regulator, “These are your timeframes, but if things change, you should listen to the views and voices of the stakeholders in the game,” and something could be done more quickly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 10, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

“(iia) supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans;”.

This amendment adds fans and fan organisations to the list of groups that the IFR must consult about a state of the game report.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the heart of football, the fans are remembered and properly considered, and that their voices are heard throughout the Bill. The state of the game report is a key output of the new regulator. It will provide comprehensive assessment of how football is functioning. It will help to set the direction of future policy and regulation, and will be a key measure of accountability for the sport as a whole. Given that, it is essential that fans should have a say.

Week in, week out, fans give their time, money and hearts to the clubs that they love, and yet too often they are the last to be consulted and the first to be overlooked when decisions are made about the future of our national game. The amendment is about changing that. It is about ensuring that the voices of supporters are formally recognised in the process of shaping the game’s future.

Supporters trusts play a key role here. They are often the bridge between clubs and fans, with a working relationship on both sides. They are well placed to represent fans’ views in a constructive and organised way. I recently met STAR, the Supporters Trust at Reading, which represents Reading FC, the closest professional league club to my constituency. Over the years, I have been to many games as a fan, and I have seen at first hand how passionate and committed the supporters are to improve the club and represent their fellow fans. Supporters trusts such as STAR are well placed to act as that bridge between the clubs and their fanbase.

We also recognise that not every fan may agree with their trust. That is why the amendment also allows for individual fans to be heard directly where necessary. It is vital that the Bill is amended to ensure that the independent football regulator listens to supporters when assessing the health and direction of the game through the state of the game report. By formally including fans and their organisations in the consultation process, we ensure that their lived experience, insight and passion are properly reflected in how the game is monitored and improved.

[Mr French]

The amendment, as explained by the hon. Gentleman, seeks to add supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans to the list of those whom the independent football regulator must consult about the state of the game report. We have absolutely no problem with the principle of consulting fans in that context, and we would expect the football regulator to wish to do so in the due course of its business, for reasons we explained in other parts of the Bill. I suppose there might be some concern about how long the consultation would take if it had to consult every individual fan, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but we will await the Minister’s comments to understand that in the context slightly more.

[Mr Betts]

Briefly, I think we are going back to a very similar discussion to the one that we have just had, but would the Minister expect—without this going on the face of the Bill—the regulator to consult fans, in particular the Football Supporters’ Association? It has done a brilliant job. It was party to the fan-led Crouch review, and it has provided a great deal of assistance in framing this legislation. I hope that the association would be seen as part of the consultation process when the regulator comes to do that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The state of the game report is expected to be a key piece of work that the regulator produces on the basis of extensive research and consultation. The Bill sets out a few parameters. What is included in the state of the game report, and therefore who is relevant to consult, are up to the regulator’s discretion, as the expert, allowing the report to evolve over time. The Bill therefore does not set out an exhaustive list of who to consult, and nor would we want it to.

Throughout the Bill, however, and especially where it states that the regulator should consult other relevant persons, we expect that those affected by the decisions of the regulator, such as fans, players and representative groups, would be included when appropriate. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East directly, we absolutely would expect those groups to be taken into consideration. That is made clear in the regulatory principle set out in clause 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the cumulative impact of the costs imposed on clubs through compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime, and”

This amendment would require the IFR to include in the annual report an account of the financial costs imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Let us see whether we get a different outcome on this vote, although I will not hold my breath—I had a wry smile from at least one Member. The amendment seeks to insert reference to the cumulative impact of the costs for clubs from compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime. The clause makes provision for the Government’s regulator to publish an annual report

“As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year”.

I will start with a question to the Minister: what does she envision an unreasonable delay to be in the submission of said report? I think we all agree that six months could be unreasonable, for example. I do not ask for a specified time limit of the Minister or in the Bill, although it might be reasonable for the Government to include one; I ask for a rough indication of how long fans will have to wait every season to see what the Government’s regulator is doing. I hope she will give such an indication today in Committee.

Subsection (2), as drafted, lists what the Government’s regulator must include in its annual report. However, we believe that that list is incomplete and requires the amendment tabled in my name. I moved the amendment to require the Government’s regulator to include in its annual report an account of the financial cost imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Increases in regulation have costs for businesses, regardless of the industry or of the intent. The Government and their regulator will ensure that all clubs, as businesses too, will see their costs increase. We have had a lot of debate about where that cost may end up, but I do not think anyone disputes that the costs will rise. First, costs might come from the Chancellor’s tax rises, which we have discussed—whether that is national insurance, wage increases or the energy costs that clubs have to pay. At the elite level, people may be less concerned if they think about the finances of a Premier League club, but such costs have a bigger impact on those lower down the pyramid, all the way to the National League, which will be in scope of the regulator. As we have said consistently, we are very much concerned about the impact on football’s finances and the negative decisions that may result for fans and clubs around the country.

Secondly, but linked to that, there is the ever-increasing cost of red tape, not just that introduced by the Bill, but more broadly. Clubs have to comply with the regulations of the leagues that they play in and of the FA, and now they will have a regulator as well. There are a number of compliance costs, and other legal matters that have been discussed in this House in more recent months will also add cost to clubs up and down the country.

Football might have changed over the years, but I am afraid that the Labour party has not. We believe that the Government have focused too much on their left wing, and left themselves exposed in the midfield and at the back.

[Mr Betts]

There we go!

[Mr French]

The hon. Gentleman liked that.

At the heart of the Bill is the ambition to secure the long-term sustainability of English football clubs across the pyramid. That is a commendable—perhaps even noble—objective. However, plain as day, as we have discussed, it will increase costs for every single fan across the country. We need to know how much that cost will be. As the Government attempt to deliver that goal, we must not lose sight of a fundamental truth: regulation is not free. Every new obligation, every form to be filled and every audit to be passed has a cost, financial and operational, that ultimately lands at the door of our football clubs and is then passed on, I am afraid, to fans.

As I have said in previous clauses, many clubs, in particular those in the lower leagues, already operate on a knife edge and in certain circumstances on a shoestring budget. For them, even modest extra compliance burdens can pose fundamental, existential challenges. Those in the lowest leagues—the National League and below—would welcome the improved odds of, for example, perhaps being able to compete in the EFL. As things stand, however, the National League 3UP campaign has been ignored.

The National League clubs that I have spoken to are keen for the 3UP campaign to be included, because they believe that closing the gap on competition should be a conversation not just between the regulator and this Committee about closing the gap between the EFL and the Premier League—a constant theme of our discussion—but about closing the gap at the bottom of the pyramid. Clubs in the National League would have an increased chance of getting into the English Football League. Given the number of clubs in the National League that were previously in the English Football League, we can all understand why the campaign has grown in momentum among the National League clubs. For any Members who were not aware of it, that is the 3UP campaign.

That is not helping the financial sustainability of the clubs that are fighting hard to return via promotion to the Football League or to be promoted for the first time—those that have lofty ambitions to go further up the pyramid. Those in the National League that are, as a direct result of their situation, most impacted by some of the new bills that have been imposed by various actions of the Government, deserve to be able to see why they have those costs and who is causing them. The amendment gets to the heart of that.

At the moment, most fans have an owner they can point to—and blame, if they wish, for their financial failures, as well as their successes on the field. They can campaign to get them out, as Manchester United fans continue to do regarding the Glazer family, for example, or they can sing their praises from the rooftops, as Newcastle fans have done in recent months after their historic success on the pitch. However, this Government’s regulator will blur the lines about who has caused financial instability, because the actions of the regulator will not be as transparent as we believe they could be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

The clause introduces the licensing system. One of the regulator’s main responsibilities will be to operate a licensing system for football clubs through which the majority of its regulation will be delivered. If clubs do not have an operating licence, they will not be allowed to play. The licensing regime will cover all football clubs that have a team playing in any of the competitions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations—that is intended to be the top five leagues. The clause will require football clubs to have a licence to lawfully operate a team in any of the specified competitions.

The clause sets out the requirement for clubs to have a provisional or full operating licence, along with the regulator’s power to grant licences subject to clubs passing the relevant tests set out in the subsequent clauses. The licence will enable the regulator to regulate clubs through licence conditions set out later in the Bill. That will enable proportionate regulation tailored to clubs, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. An operating licence will specify which clubs the licence relates to, the team the club is operating and any conditions attached to the licence.

Let me set out how, broadly speaking, the licensing regime will work. The duties in part 5 will apply to regulated and formerly regulated clubs within the licensing regime, and will cover clubs that have been in scope within the previous 10 years, to prevent circumvention. We will debate that later in Committee. For a club to gain a provisional operating licence, the independent football regulator must be satisfied that the club operates a relevant team and will comply with the mandatory conditions and the free-standing duties. The independent football regulator need only be satisfied that the club will comply with the mandatory conditions; it will not need to comply at the time of the provisional licence test. A provisional licence can be issued for a maximum of three years, but the time can be shorter if the regulator determines that. The regulator can use discretionary licence conditions to bring a club’s standard up to the necessary threshold requirement level.

Let me set out the test for a full operating licence. The independent football regulator must be satisfied that a club meets the threshold requirements and will continue to comply with the mandatory conditions and with the free-standing duties, and the regulator must not have determined that a current owner or officer is unsuitable. We will, of course, go into further details on these matters as we move through the licensing regime, so I will not do so now. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr Betts]

With new clause 2, tabled in my name, we come back to the other key issue in the Bill, aside from distribution: how clubs operate, how owners have in some cases badly operated them in the past, and how we can do more to help to control such situations. The issue of operating licences is, then, absolutely key.

Before anyone gets too worried, I should say that I have not been collaborating with the Lib Dems, although their new clause is very similar. Perhaps we have both been talking to Fair Game, an excellent organisation that has been trying to work with clubs and fans to improve the regulation and operation of football clubs.

The simple aim of new clause 2 is to ensure that the regulator provides help when it is needed. Premier League clubs are not going to need help and Championship clubs should not need help. The EFL says that clubs in Leagues One and Two are already required, under the EFL’s regulations, to provide the vast majority of the information that the regulator will need anyway, so they are doing so as a matter of course. The new clause would probably apply only to some National League clubs. The support may not be financial support; in some ways, for the relevant clubs, training and supporting staff is the key issue. There may not be anyone in the club with a working knowledge of some of the complications and the legalities of the legislation so, to avoid the club getting into difficulties, the new clause would require the regulator, in those circumstances, to help those clubs, in a reasonable and proportionate way, with the requirements of the licence conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is a really good question. The regulator can engage with clubs outside of scope, such as those in the National League North and South, to assist with the application process. I hope that answer gives clarity. It is a very good question from the hon. Gentleman. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept the new clauses, and I hope that they will be withdrawn or not pressed.

[Mr Betts]

I am very reassured by the Minister’s comments, so I shall not press my new clause to a vote.

[Max Wilkinson]

I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Application for provisional operating licence

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am a season ticket holder of Sheffield Wednesday and work very closely with the supporters trust there.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I am a member of Tottenham Hotspur football club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not get into what the public are more interested in or not, as that is dangerous ground for a shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport to get into—obviously, I have to meet a lot of different bodies, and people have different interests. My hon. Friend’s point about the independence of sport and why it is so important has not been missed. I am sure that as the Bill progresses we will debate the question of why independence is so important.

We have spoken about public perceptions, and about the political process in this House, but what we have not spoken about yet so far is the role of international regulators, including UEFA and FIFA. We will make the point, as I said on Second Reading, that independence is crucial to that. For English clubs to continue playing in European competitions, the regulator must be independent. That is very clear.

We have urged the Government on multiple occasions to publish discussions with UEFA—again, I am happy for it to be on a private basis—so that all Members of this House can make informed decisions about the risk to English football if an independent regulator either expands its scope, through scope creep of the Bill, or is perceived by international bodies to not be independent. That is so important, because the international football community has made it increasingly clear that it will not accept Government interference with the running of the sport.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Member is talking about correspondence with UEFA. As I understand it, the previous Government also had correspondence with UEFA, and the current shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), was the sports Minister at the time. So, to give an example of what should be done, will the shadow Minister now agree to publish the correspondence that the previous Government had with UEFA?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a very well-respected Member of this House and of the football APPG. Obviously I was not a Minister in the previous Government, so it would not be possible for me to publish correspondence. I can speak only on my own behalf, and I do not have any UEFA correspondence. Again, I understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but, on the question of what I have urged the Minister to do, I am happy for that to be done on a private basis, so that we can have those reassurances as Members of this House.

This situation is clearly pertinent to the Bill, because, as Members of this House, and as football fans—a number of people have outlined their local clubs and who they support—we surely have to have confidence that what we are putting into law through this House does not conflict with the ability of English clubs to participate. This is not me trying to scaremonger; I just need to know the information.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I understand your point, Sir Jeremy, and will try to stick closer to the amendments as requested, but amendment 117 is about ensuring that political donations are made transparently and up front so that all Members, including Select Committee members, have the information to hand when they are making informed decisions as elected Members of Parliament.

Amendments 118 and 119, which are also in my name, are designed to further reinforce the appointment process for the chair of the board and the expert panel. As I have just highlighted, the Government have made a bit of a mockery of the process already. It desperately needs solidifying, so amendment 118 seeks to prohibit any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the board. I hope that hon. Members understand why I make that point.

In certain civil service roles or other roles linked to the public sector, there are restrictions not only on political interference, but on what can be said publicly and in other aspects of a person’s life. I am concerned about what would happen if, say, Gary Neville—I am not just starting on him, I promise—or Jamie Carragher were suddenly appointed to the football regulator. Would this House be comfortable with those people—again, this is just an example—making comments about the regulation of football while having a commercial interest as a media pundit or commentator? Personally, I would not be comfortable with it, because a range of issues could arise. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that we do not believe that people in those positions should hold media roles.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am interested to know where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to; I am not quite sure that he knows, at this stage. He is saying that anyone who has a role with influence in any of these matters should not be a media commentator. Does that go for MPs? I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s ex-colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg appeared as a presenter on GB News while he was still an MP. Is there not a conflict of interest there, or are such conflicts very specific to this one job?

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening. As was the case before lunch, I am happy to have this debate in Committee. I should not talk about people who are no longer Members of this House; they are private individuals and are no longer linked to the Government, and they are certainly not part of the Independent Football Regulator. I refer the Committee to my comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about why the independence of football is so important.

I will not get into the jurisdiction of Ofcom and what it is looking at with regard to political people on TV networks, because that is not what the Bill is about. My point is that the chair is an independent person who will be appointed to independently regulate football. Should they have a dual role that includes media punditry, commentary or other media work? We believe that the answer is no. Ensuring that they cannot have such a role would ensure that there are no vested interests in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I understand the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. We have had lots of attempts at muddying the waters today, but it is Government Members who will have to explain to their constituents and fans around the country why they believe that a regulator should be appointed that earns more money than the Prime Minister. We on this side of the Committee are happy to stand up and say very clearly that we do not agree that that should be the case.

We do not agree that those costs—which we have concerns about, as I have said in debates on previous amendments—should be passed on to fans, as the cost of the regulator ultimately will. That may not be the case for the clubs that have large billionaire owners, but we are talking about the whole pyramid all the way down to the National League. I fundamentally believe that it is our duty in this place to seek to limit the cost of the regulator to those fans.

[Mr Betts]

There is a matter of procedure and process here. I cannot think of another example where a public servant’s salary has been written into primary legislation, either as an actual or a maximum. Does the shadow Minister accept that we would have to have a new Act of Parliament to amend that figure in 10 or 20 years’ time? Surely that is appallingly bad practice.

[Mr French]

I disagree. As I have said, we are here today to set the guidance for what we think is an appropriate level of pay. We believe that fans on the street will think that this amendment is fair and proportionate, and that the chief executive of the football regulator should not be paid more than the Prime Minister of this country.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. He made the comparison with a public servant, which is the point that I am trying to make. If we classify this independent regulator as a public servant—that is another rabbit hole that we probably do not want to go down now—should they be paid more than the Prime Minister, who should be the ultimate public servant in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to refer particularly to clause 6(c). When we finally get to the football issues in the Bill, I am sure a lot of them will be about the ownership of clubs and how owners behave. Just in passing, and without going into detail, the EFL has once again taken action against the owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri, for failing to pay the players’ wages. I have said before that he does not have the resources to run the club, but we will come to that later. The other major issue we will come to will no doubt be the financial distribution within football.

However, let us remember why the Crouch review was established. It was actually kicked off and stimulated by the suggestion that there might be a European super league, with certain clubs going off and playing by themselves and detaching themselves from the rest of football. The then Prime Minister got rather upset about that and decided that action needed to be taken. So the review was essentially about protecting the integrity of the established football competitions—the leagues, the FA cup and the League cup.

Clause 6(c) refers to the need to

“safeguard the heritage of English football”,

or the heritage objective. Our objective is to protect the Premier League and the EFL—what has been the English league game and the pyramid for a long period—together with the FA cup and, more recently, for the last 50 years, the League cup. That is the heritage that needs protecting.

[Mr French]

I absolutely understand the hon. Member’s argument, and as I said earlier I have full respect for the work he has done as chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. However, a story in the press yesterday highlighted that there could be a breakaway league in rugby union. A lot of the arguments he is making about the creation of the Bill are about why the heritage part is so important. Given that commonality and that we are talking about a similar risk, does he believe that the Government should set up a regulator for rugby?

[Mr Betts]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down that road; if he did, I am sure you would stop me fairly quickly, Sir Jeremy. Let us stick to the matter in hand and look at the heritage of the game.

It is absolutely right that the Government acted. The Bill, through a clause retained from the previous Bill, acts to stop clubs engaging in competitions that are not accepted by the regulator. That is an important part of the Bill, and it comes from the European super league suggestion. However, there are other developments in the game that I think are undermining its heritage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Indeed. We could keep going. That proves the value of the cup competitions. Many more clubs should take our traditional cup competitions more seriously.

[Mr Betts]

That is a fair point, and it does not happen often enough these days. We can think back to how often the cup is won by someone different, and in past years it has been almost the same teams playing each other all the time. I think Crystal Palace were underdogs; I am not sure that Newcastle and Tottenham can really classify themselves as underdogs. But it was a point well made.

There is a point I want to emphasise and ask the Minister to have a look at. Does she accept that the regulator, with the powers that it has to safeguard the heritage of English football, can look at the impact on domestic competitions and on all the clubs within the pyramid—the clubs that play in the FA cup and the League cup—from other competitions, where the calendar fixtures of a small number of clubs detrimentally affects those other clubs?

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Clive Betts Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Friend for his advocacy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has done incredible work in this regard. I am due to meet some of the families shortly.

I will try to make some progress, because many Members want to speak and raise issues about their own clubs and communities. Let me turn to the subject of financial distributions. Our strong preference is for football to be able to reach its own agreement on broadcast revenue distribution, but regrettably, as the House will know, no agreement has been reached since the last deal was struck in 2019. That is why we agree with Dame Tracey Crouch that clubs must have a safeguard in these circumstances, and the Bill proposes a backstop power. It was explicitly designed to incentivise industry to come to its own agreement, and restores the right of the regulator to consider all elements of club finances, including parachute payments. By definition, a backstop is a measure of last resort, and we have strengthened the measures in the Bill to ensure that the regulator will have the power to intervene only as a last resort. We have also made it clear that the regulator will need to publish its “state of the game” report before the backstop can be triggered, so that all parties have a clear and common understanding of the problems that should be addressed before engaging in mediation.

I recognise that the exact process of how the backstop should work has been a matter of serious and considered debate in the other place, with thoughtful suggestions made by Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and others. We are confident that we have proposed an effective mechanism, but we appreciate the constructive and thoughtful debate on this matter. Before the Committee stage, we will consider whether there are sensible ways in which to improve the process and ensure that we present the best possible option to the House.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

May I return the Secretary of State to the Conservatives’ position on parachute payments? I welcome the fact that the Government have not ruled out taking them into account when the regulator does his work. Surely the purpose of the “state of the game” report is to look at the health of the football pyramid as a whole, but before that report is published, the Opposition want to rule out allowing the regulator to take account of parachute payments. As 80% of the help that the Premier League gives the rest of the league is spent on parachute payments, surely that is a nonsense and at least should be considered for the future.

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said.

Let me deal with the subject of owners’ and directors’ tests. Football clubs are the pride of our towns and cities. New owners bring important investment, but they are also the guardians, the custodians, of clubs that have stood at the centre of our communities and our lives for more than 100 years. Fans grow up attending matches with parents and grandparents; later, they take their own children and grandchildren. These clubs are handed on from one generation to the next. They are institutions that—as the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) once wrote—help to shape and define us as we help to shape and define them, and they are too important to be used as playthings by people who have no stake or care for the community that owns them.

That is why the Bill introduces a fitness test for owners and directors, a source of wealth test for owners, and a requirement for adequate financial plans and resources, also for owners only. Prospective owners and directors will have to pass those tests before buying or joining a club. Incumbents will not automatically be tested, but the power exists, if there is concern about their suitability, to remove them if they are found unsuitable. This approach reduces the regulatory burden, and is targeted proportionately where there is a risk of harm. It will bring peace of mind to clubs, their staff and their fans, who deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Football Governance Bill [Lords], because, notwithstanding the need for financial sustainability in the English football league pyramid, the Regulator proposed to be established by the Bill will damage the independence of English football, particularly given the Government’s proposed choice for the Chair and because the Bill will increase the regulatory burden and costs on all English football clubs—particularly lower league clubs—leading to increased ticket prices for fans and will in turn reduce the international competitiveness of, and increase the risks to, English football.”

Let me begin by offering my congratulations to Liverpool FC on winning the premiership yesterday and to those who have been promoted, and I feel I especially need to mention two of my former homes—namely, Leeds and Wrexham.

I think I speak for all Members when I say that football is a defining part of our national identity. With clubs bringing fans and communities together week in and week out, football has been a great unifier since its inception. It was a football match that famously brokered a momentary truce on the western front on Christmas day in 1914. Since the inaugural FIFA world cup in 1930, football has brought nations together around one central purpose—the love of a game—in friendly competition. Football is a multibillion-pound industry with a truly global footprint, and I know that Members across this House want to secure its future growth.

The collapse of clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, the devastating impact of the pandemic and the failed attempt by some English clubs to join a breakaway European super league have all highlighted that the future of the clubs we love and of the beautiful game is far from guaranteed. For this reason, we introduced the original Football Governance Bill, aimed at securing the future of football clubs for the benefit of both communities and fans. This proposed legislation, as we have heard, followed the fan-led review that was brilliantly chaired by our former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch, and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and experts. I, too, want to pay tribute to Dame Tracey, and to all those who participated in the process and contributed to shaping our Bill.

However, it is because of the importance of football, both to our national identity and economy, that we have had to take a decision regarding our stance on this particular legislation. When circumstances change, so too will our approach—and things have certainly changed. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, but after careful consideration of our responsibility to the game, the clubs at its core and the millions of fans who cherish it, we have reached the conclusion that we must vote against Labour’s version of the Football Governance Bill.

The Bill we are considering today is not the same as the one that we originally envisaged. It has been fundamentally altered to a point where it threatens to do far more harm than good. The Secretary of State says in one breath that it is same Bill, and in the next breath that she has changed it all, which is almost like saying that Manchester United and Manchester City are the same. The Government’s decision to appoint a Labour donor as chair of the independent regulator raises serious concerns about political interference in football governance.

[Mr Betts]

Getting down to details, the right hon. Gentleman praises Dame Tracey Crouch’s review, which everyone welcomed and supported. Will he now set out the specific measures in the Bill which contradict and differ from what Dame Tracey recommended?

[Stuart Andrew]

First and foremost, and I will come on to this, is the fact that the regulator is no longer independent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Bill is very much rooted in what Dame Tracey Crouch recommended in the fan-led review. I asked the shadow Secretary of State if he could detail any ways in which this Bill deviated from what Tracey Crouch recommended. He mentioned independence and went on about that for some considerable length of time. No other proposal in the Bill differs from the fan-led review—not a single one. The reality is that the shadow Secretary of State did not even convince himself with his arguments today. There is a phrase that football fans chant—“You don’t know what you’re doing”—and it seemed to apply to his speech today. I am sorry about that because I respect his past contribution to the previous Bill, which is the framework for what is before us now, with one or two improvements.

Dame Tracey’s recommendation H is clear and is key to the fan-led review:

“Fair distributions are vital to the long term health of football. The Premier League should guarantee its support to the pyramid”.

That is key. The pyramid is uniquely British. The strength of the pyramid is uniquely British. We therefore need to preserve it, but we need a fairer distribution of resources in order to do that. One change proposed in this Bill is the potential to include parachute payments when the regulator comes to a view on what the distribution should be. Instead of simply ignoring parachute payments—pretending they do not exist, as the previous Bill did—this legislation recognises the problem that currently 92% of the distributed funding for football goes to 25 clubs: the premier league clubs and the clubs receiving parachute payments. Those clubs receiving parachute payments have basically 10 times more resources than the clubs getting payments through the solidarity fund from the Premier League.

This is a nonsense. We can see the difference now between the championship and the premier league; this year is, I think, the first when all three promoted clubs have been relegated straight back down, and there is a great difference between their points totals and the points total of West Ham, just above them. This is not sustainable—not at that level nor going down the leagues, as clubs simply struggle to survive.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The English premier league is the best in the world. Any bar we go into across the world wants to show premier league football. There is a real danger of killing the golden goose if we try to pull that down. Also, the championship is the seventh most valuable league in Europe, and it is our second tier. I have a big worry here. We should look at the way England is playing, and at the way the clubs have come up. Leicester won the premier league in 2016, and the likes of Brighton and Brentford and Nottingham Forest are all flying up the leagues. The premier league is a competitive league, and that is what we want; we do not want to over-regulate it and kill both our national game and our international presence.

[Mr Betts]

I am sorry, but we must kill this myth that somehow the Bill is going to kill the premier league. It is not. This Bill is designed to sustain the rest of the football pyramid. We should look at the resources the premier league has: it has twice as much money as any other major European league. That is the difference. Taking a proportion of that away to support the rest of the pyramid will not undermine and destroy the premier league. It will help sustain the rest of the pyramid, and that is the message that we need to get across.

On the rest of the Bill, the issue of the sustainability of the pyramid is absolutely key, but I am still a bit wary about the rigidity of the backstop powers. There is some room for debate about giving a bit more flexibility to the regulators on that; I hope we can discuss that in Committee. The other key element is about ownership. We have heard stories about the problems that clubs have had with owners who simply are not fit for purpose, and I have no doubt that we will hear more. I was talking to colleagues in Reading on a Teams call the other day, along with other Sheffield MPs, and we discussed the problems facing Sheffield Wednesday supporters. We should stop clubs having to face such problems in the future.

On Sheffield Wednesday, the owner is not a bad man; he has put a lot of money into the club and he has not ripped it off, but he is clearly running out of money to make the club sustainable. He could not pay the players’ wages last month, and he could not pay the tax dues a few weeks ago. Another failure to pay will mean the club is subject to a transfer embargo for three transfer windows. That would completely undermine both the competitive and the financial basis of the club. That is not acceptable. The chairman is the only owner and the only director; he does not have a board of directors and has no chief executive. He runs the club from Thailand by remote control, and when he could not pay the bills he said, “Well, my companies are owed money, so I don’t have the money to pay the club’s bills.” We do not know what companies those are in Thailand. As far as we can see, he has no companies that earn money. We suspect that the money comes from the family trust that owns Thai Union Frozen Products, which owns John West and other brands. In other words, he is reliant on his family members to give him the money to pay the players’ wages. That is not sustainable. This Bill compels the regulator to make sure that owners have the funds to sustain their club, and that the sources of those funds are transparent and open for all to see. That is absolutely key, not only for Sheffield Wednesday but for lots of other clubs.

Finally, I am concerned that the owner, like owners of other clubs, has separated the ownership of the ground from the ownership of the club, and I hope we can strengthen the Bill on that issue. I do not think that was done for malevolent reasons; it was done to try to get around the financial fair play rules, and to help the club—that was his view. The fact is that the ground and the club are separate. Other clubs have that problem as well. In future, if an owner wants to separate the club and the ground, the regulator can step in to ensure that that is for proper reasons, and done in the proper way. Unfortunately, when ownership of the ground is separate from ownership of the club, there is a challenge. I would like a measure in the Bill that says that in order to get a licence, the owner has to prove that they have not only financial funding but a ground to play on. That should be locked in.

Changes and improvements can be made, but the Bill really helps football. It helps fans to ensure that their club is sustainable, and it holds owners to account. It is great that fans will now have a real role and involvement in their club. They can be properly consulted about what happens at Hillsborough; currently, there is an engagement panel for fans, but the chairman chooses who goes on it. When people join the engagement panel, they have to sign a document that states that they will not talk about what has been discussed outside the group. What sort of accountability is that? It is nonsense. The Bill will strengthen the hand of fans, so that they can properly engage with a club. I fully support it, and hope that the House overwhelmingly supports it, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.