Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend makes really important points. This appointment is really important to the future of the regulator. What have the Labour Government done? They have announced the appointment of David Kogan, a key Labour donor and political insider, to lead the football regulator. It is deeply troubling—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry, but I feel really strongly on this.

Let me be clear: Mr Kogan is no impartial figure. He is a long-standing member of Labour’s inner circle, having donated thousands of pounds to the party and having spent five years on the board of LabourList, the party’s propaganda outlet, resigning only this month, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. This appointment is not about qualifications or about merit; it is about rewarding a political ally. At the same time, Labour have totally thrown out any credible claims that the regulator is independent and free from political interference. Football fans deserve better, the British public deserve better, and our national game deserves protection from political meddling.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman must have been upset when the previous Government appointed Richard Sharp as chairman of the BBC as he was not only a former donor to the Conservative party, but a member of a think-tank. Did he express similar views to his Government back then when they made that appointment?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the fact that Labour Members went mad about that, but now they are doing so because this is one of theirs.

Media outlets are now reporting that even some EFL clubs are deeply worried about this political appointment. If they are worried, we should be worried and we should listen. Members will recall that this is not the first time that alarm bells have been sounded about political interference in football governance. Well before this deeply questionable appointment, UEFA raised serious concerns that England risked exclusion from the European championship due to concerns that a Government-backed football regulator could lead to unacceptable political interference. We understand that in a letter from UEFA, which is still being withheld from Members by this Government, the general secretary said:

“One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition.”

And that was written before the Government sought to install a Labour crony at the helm of the football regulator.

We began this debate by recognising football for what it truly is: not just a sport but a pillar of our national identity; something that unites communities, carries our shared history and inspires future generations. It is because we care so deeply about this game and everything it represents that we cannot, in good conscience, support a Bill that risks compromising its very foundations and its independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I declare my interest at the outset, as I volunteer as a trustee of Millwall Community Trust.

This Bill has been a long time in the making, and there has been more than a little bit of scaremongering along the way about the implications of a regulator for the future of the premier league. The Bill does not pose an existential threat to the premier league, and no one who supports it wants to undermine the success of the premier league. The existential threat is to the football pyramid, should we fail to secure a fairer distribution of resources. The EFL estimates that its clubs will lose £450 million this season. That loss will have to be covered by the generosity of those clubs’ owners, and where that does not occur, we end up in situations like we had with Bury, Derby, Wigan and many others.

In 2020, the EFL proposed a 75:25 split of the combined TV revenues of both leagues, which at the time would have meant approximately £300 million of additional funding for the wider football pyramid. Instead, in the four years since the EFL first made that proposal, spending on transfers in the premier league has gone up by £850 million. In the 2022-23 season, the premier league spent £2.8 billion on player transfers; the other major European leagues spent around £750 million per league. Turning to wages, the premier league spent a combined sum of €4.6 billion on players’ salaries. Its nearest rival spent an aggregate sum of €2.5 billion—that is a gap of over €2 billion. Compared with the Bundesliga, the gap is nearly €2.5 billion, and for France and Italy, the gap is about €2.8 billion. The £300 million extra that the EFL was asking for pales into insignificance when compared with those sums of money, so a fairer distribution of revenues would not impact on the ability of the premier league to pay the highest salaries for players or the highest prices for player transfers. It will, however, make an enormous difference to the sustainability of the pyramid.

Currently, the 20 premier league clubs and the five clubs in receipt of parachute payments get 92% of the distributable money, which is around £3 billion. The remaining 67 clubs of the EFL get a total of 8%, or £245 million. That distorts competition in the EFL and encourages clubs to overspend. The premier league clubs have to agree to change the distribution of TV revenues across the pyramid. In the four years that this has been under discussion, no acceptable proposal has been put forward, so it is clear that football needs an adjudicator to end this impasse. Although it is reasonable to help clubs adjust to being in the championship, it is not acceptable to sustain a system that forces clubs to overspend in order to compete with clubs that are receiving parachute payments. Over the past seven seasons, two of the clubs promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. The top three places in the championship this season have gone to clubs in receipt of parachute payments, with two matches still to go. The 75:25 split will eradicate the need for parachute payments altogether, create a level playing field, and remove the incentive for non-parachute payment clubs to overstretch themselves financially.

Another major issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has mentioned, is that of clubs being separated from their grounds. That has happened to my local club, Charlton Athletic, and to many other clubs. It is difficult to see how the Bill could deal with that issue retrospectively, but it is one that we must not lose sight of. It may not be possible to solve it through this Bill, but it is something that we need to deal with urgently. The time has come for a football regulator, which cannot fail to recognise that the current situation is not sustainable and that it must usher in a fairer system. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in getting us to this point, and I look forward to playing my part in assisting the Bill’s passage through this House.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Clive Efford Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 13 and amendment 29 on behalf of one of my constituents, the former Arsenal and Leeds goalkeeper John Lukic. I am grateful to John for bringing to my attention the growing number of ex-players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a form of dementia caused by repeatedly heading the ball.

Research shows that retired footballers are more than three times more likely to suffer from dementia than the general population. CTE is a progressive and irreversible disease that leaves individuals suffering from memory loss and unable to carry out basic day-to-day activities. As a result, those around them often become their carers and have to endure watching their loved ones gradually lose their memories and independence. The modern game is awash with money; the Premier League’s latest TV deal is worth £6.7 billion. Despite the huge sums of money available, only £1 million has to date been committed to supporting players suffering from neurodegenerative diseases.

As we have already heard a few times, the situation has left former players, such as world cup winner Nobby Stiles, having to sell their medals to fund their care. While footballers have always been paid comparatively well, the players from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s earned nothing like the sums that modern stars are paid, and their careers were short. It is worth highlighting that this issue may not go away: although footballs are not as heavy as they used to be, they now travel faster, meaning that the overall impact of heading a ball can be similar.

I therefore support these measures in solidarity with Football Families for Justice, which I join in calling for legislation to be enacted that will ensure competition organisers are required to provide funding towards a neurodegenerative care scheme. Unfortunately, unless competition organisers are made to do it, the belief is that they will not. Just as the Football Governance Bill seeks to protect fans from profit-driven ventures such as the creation of new super leagues, it is right that the Bill should also protect the players who gave so much to make the game what it is.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said on this matter. We rightly hear that football is nothing without the fans, but the fans turn out only for the players. Football needs to support them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), on bringing the Bill to this point. I also congratulate them on listening to arguments about how we treat the vast resources that come in through TV deals and distribute them throughout the football pyramid, particularly in giving the regulator powers over parachute payments, if he deems it necessary—I sincerely hope he will—if we do not get an agreement between the English Football League and the Premier League. Those payments really distort competition, particularly in the championship. That needed to be addressed in this Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on doing that.

I support the new clause and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). They deal with how we identify the people who really began this journey: the sports fans. This started with the super league and the fans’ reaction to it. They are determined to stop clubs from breaking away from the premier league and forming a super league with other clubs from across the globe. The reaction of fans shocked the Conservative Government at the time into action; they could not really resist. The power of fans has brought us to this point. We need to understand how we can identify fans—bona fide supporters of a club—and consult them on how we regulate the game going forwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is attempting to do that through some of his amendments.

My hon. Friend has identified another very important factor, which is how we prevent assets being attractive to those people who look to take over a club, not because they are interested in football in any way but because they see assets of value from which they can make money. By running clubs into the ground, they seek to make a profit from those assets. Through the “asset of community value” powers or something similar, my hon. Friend is trying to prevent that from happening. If his amendments are not accepted or voted on tonight, I would certainly commend them to the regulator, who I hope will take heed of what my hon. Friend is attempting to achieve.

One other amendment I added my name to is new clause 1, because I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), is on to something. Why do we treat other sports differently from football—why is football singled out? Well, I think we know the story of that, but it has been a long time since the issue of alcohol at football grounds has been looked at. There is nothing unreasonable about asking clubs and the football community to look at whether we can relax those rules in certain circumstances, so that where clubs want to do it, they can do it, and should do so in partnership with their fans. A review of that issue would not be a bad thing at all.

This Bill is a giant leap forward for football in this country. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for what they have achieved, and I wish the Bill a fair wind.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an immense privilege to rise once again to support this important Bill during its passage through Parliament. I want to draw particular attention to amendments 10 and 11, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Those amendments would require a club’s home ground to be designated as an asset of community value as part of its operating licence. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister during her opening speech about the safeguards that are already in the Bill to protect home grounds.

A club’s stadium is more than its stands, plastic seats, some turf and the woodwork. It has a spirit; it is part of the club’s identity. It has memories—highs and lows—soaked up in its walls. We must protect these important assets for the communities they mean so much to. In many cases, a club’s stadium is inherently bound up with the place that surrounds it, and can form a link between the sport and the identity of the town or city it sits in. Crewe Alexandra’s home ground, the Mornflake stadium, is named after an iconic historic local milling business and producer of breakfast foods founded in 1675, and is overlooked by the railway lines that gave birth to the town. Similarly, Nantwich Town FC’s stadium sits on the banks of the River Weaver, which literally connects the club to the town centre and beyond.

I strongly believe that we can and should go further to strengthen the links between clubs and communities, which is why I was delighted recently to join Stuart Price, Trevor Griffiths and Aaron Lewis on the fantastic “Railwaymen” podcast, a dedicated fans’ podcast for Crewe Alexandra FC. We discussed exactly how we might strengthen those links, working together in partnership. I am delighted to be working closely with the podcast and other key stakeholders in the town to commission a mural to the club, which could act as a bridge between the stadium and the town centre. Although it is early days for that project, I extend an early invitation to visit to the Secretary of State and the Minister—who has only just been in my constituency to open a boxing gym, but is always welcome to come back—if we are successful in commissioning that mural.

Finally, it is a great shame that the Conservative party and Reform have thus far joined forces to try to frustrate the progress of this Bill. As the shadow Minister is indicating, Reform Members are once again not even in the Chamber, although I have to say that there are not many Members on the Conservative Benches either. Our game needs an independent football regulator, the Football League needs it, and I believe the Premier League needs it too.

If Opposition Members are in any doubt, I encourage them to read the case for an independent football regulator written by Crewe Alexandra supporter Tom Kural. It sets out in illuminating clarity why this change in the law is needed, and why Members from all parts of the House should be in no doubt that fans in my constituency, and I am sure in theirs, want this change. Before Opposition Members walk through the Lobby tonight, I encourage them to think carefully about what fans like Tom in their constituencies think.