Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

James Naish Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I must admit that I am surprised to get a concise answer from a Minister; I thank the hon. Lady very much. There are 42 employees and a number of those were already in roles in the Department. That is very important because it highlights the size of this regulator already.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I used to advise businesses on their target operating models, so I understand how to build teams and structures. On what basis does the hon. Member think that the figure of 50 is correct? What work has he done to understand the different structures that will be required? How does he think the aims of the Bill can be achieved with a staff of 50?

[Mr French]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I am about to answer that. The figure is based on conversations with the leagues and other regulators already in play. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions in the points I am coming to.

We have heard that the number of people employed is 42. Unofficially, before today, I was told that it would be 80. That is the rumour going around the football world, but we have clarity from the Minister that it will be 42. [Interruption.] That is based on conversations with clubs. That is what engagement is about. That is why we asked the question. We are not basing the figure on rumour; I have just asked the question. That number will include civil servants, of course, and, as we have heard, regulatory specialists, policy advisors, analysts, stakeholder engagement leads, public affairs professionals and legal advisors, all of them at considerable expense to the taxpayer in the short term, and at significant cost to football fans in the longer term, as costs are passed on. In our conversations, the industry shared concerns about the scale and cost, especially compared with how football currently operates.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe just made a point about the size of the regulator. I do not think it is fair to quote someone directly when they are not here, or to quote an informal conversation, but I understand from a briefing that was given to the Lords, and a similar conversation that took place with me directly, that a gentleman very well-respected in football—who was key to this Bill—suggested that the work of the regulator could be done with several people. That was his expert opinion. When I suggest 50 people in this amendment, I am being very generous, given what the football industry believes the number should be, the costs and the fact that other regulatory bodies will still be involved in football.

[Mr French]

I respect the hon. Member’s comments, but I think that this issue is fundamental to the discussion. The Opposition are seriously concerned about the cost and scope of this regulator, and how that will impact both clubs and fans in football’s delicate international ecosystem, so this issue is pertinent to the point that we are trying to make. The number that we have reached was not plucked out of the air. We had discussions with people directly involved in running football to try to ascertain an appropriate number of employees for the regulator. People in football are concerned about how big this regulator has become, and how quickly, even before the chairman has his feet under the table.

[James Naish]

The shadow Minister says that one individual suggested that several people would be sufficient, yet he claims that the figure of 50 is not plucked out of thin air. I ask him again: what modelling has been done, how many departments would be involved, and how many people would be in each of those departments, so that he can credibly stand there and say that 50 is an adequate number?

[Mr French]

I am slightly confused. The hon. Member for Dartford is telling me that we should not dictate how the regulator works and how it manages staff, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is saying the opposite. We have suggested a cap, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on what that cap should be and how many employees she believes the regulator will need. That is important because we are passing a piece of legislation that is the first of its kind, and it will create extra costs for clubs that, as I am arguing, clearly will be passed on to fans. If the essence of the Bill is to protect clubs and fans, we need an honest, open conversation about how big the regulator should be. The Conservatives have tabled a sensible amendment that seeks to cap the regulator’s size in line with how other regulatory bodies in the sporting world work. That is the premise of our amendment. I would like to move on, because I am testing your patience, Sir Jeremy.

We are told that, once operational, the Government’s regulator will be funded through yet another statutory levy. That may sound benign but, in practice, it will be yet another financial obligation imposed on clubs, many of which, particularly in the National League and the EFL, are already stretched due to increases in other bills that we have already seen this year. Higher energy bills, national insurance, and employment costs around wages are real costs with which clubs are already struggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I am getting used to being interrupted, Sir Jeremy. This is so thrilling that people want to escape as quickly as possible. Before the Division, we were highlighting that clubs will have no choice but to pass these additional costs from the regulator on to fans. As we have explained, we believe that a number of clubs are financially stretched, particularly as we go lower down the pyramid, although that is not always the case, as clubs’ finances differ.

We believe that this cost will go on to fans, by which we mean higher ticket prices and higher merchandise costs. Matchday programmes, concessions, streaming fees and even transport subsidies and loyalty schemes could be scaled back as clubs tighten their belt, and they will be required to tighten that belt even further. This is not just speculation; it is the economic reality that clubs are experiencing, according to their feedback, although I appreciate that economic reality is not always the Government’s strong suit.

This matters because, as those of us who still manage to watch our local clubs know, the cost of attending football matches has already become prohibitive to many families. The idea that we are creating a regulatory regime in the name of protecting fans while simultaneously driving up the cost of a matchday experience is not only a contradiction; it is laughable.

[James Naish]

What figure is the shadow Minister using for how much a single full-time employee would cost that leads to the total of 50 in this proposal? What figure is he using to say that this will be economically prohibitive for clubs?

[Mr French]

The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly.

The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep.

Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame.

Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest?

Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I take the point, which is well made. We do not want the regulator to grow and start trying to perform the functions of other bodies that exist, just because it has an unrestricted budget. Who knows what the Government of the day will allow to be spent on it? I heard the representations from Government Back Benchers about the methodology to evidence why 50 is the magic number. It is correct to say that it is not the role of MPs to mandate specific headcount, but putting a cap on it would ensure overarching budgetary control. Although it is reasonable to disagree, it is also reasonable to assert that a regulator should be able to function with 50 paid staff members.

[James Naish]

What the hon. Member says is absolutely correct, but the reality is that we do not start with the outcome; we start with the process and the functions. What does the regulator need to do? How is it going to achieve that? How many people are required to deliver those services? Then we get to an outcome. I understand the principle of saying that there should be a cap, but that is just not the way it is done. I have done a lot of advisory work, but I do not know any business that would start with that principle.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member for Cheltenham also referred to the principles of business, but the issue is that this is not a business; it is a regulator. That is why it is entirely proper and fair for Parliament to put a cap on headcount to ensure that the regulator delivers its objectives with some sense of constraint. I suspect that there will always be a justification for taking on more staff to dot every i and cross every t, but that should not be what the regulator is about. I take the point, however.

[Joe Robertson]

I am slightly worried that there are 42 people devoted to setting it up. That sounds like quite a lot to me; it gives me concern and supports my argument for a cap. In response, the Government could come forward and say, “This is the headcount that we expect to deliver the things we want to be delivered,” but I do not think that the Minister is saying that. She will have the opportunity at the end of this exchange—when she resists the amendment, as I am sure she will—to give some assurance that the regulator will not grow beyond a certain size. If she cannot give some indication of headcount, that will ring alarm bells. Those are the alarm bells that the cap seeks to deal with.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not think that that is the responsibility of MPs. All of this is really about scaremongering and about creating the idea that there will be a huge cost. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the size of the regulator will be when it ultimately delivers its functions. It is the responsibility of the regulator to manage itself appropriately. Putting an arbitrary figure from a random conversation into legislation such as this is not good practice.

[Joe Robertson]

The cap is not a mandatory number. We are not saying that the regulator must have 50 people delivering a set of regulatory powers. It is about trying to impose some sort of control on the regulator to stop it growing and growing. The hon. Gentleman says that we will leave it to the regulator, but what happens when the regulator comes back and says, “We need 250 people”? What if, further down the line, it thinks that the job is a bit bigger than it thought, so it argues for 300 or 400? We can name a whole list of bureaucracies that have grown and grown; NHS England is one such, although I am prepared to accept that the IFR would not grow to the size of NHS England, at least within this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe made the very powerful observation that, in identifying a target operating model, form should follow function. The function has been pretty well defined in the Bill, which rather prompts the question why the Government do not have some idea of the form that the regulator should follow. Without any cap whatever, we would simply be inviting untrammelled mission creep and cost growth. Perhaps the hon. Member disagrees with where the cap has been put and with the methodology approaching it, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the principle that he and other hon. Members should have an opportunity for scrutiny if there is a proposal to grow the budget, the wages or the number of people in the regulator.

It is interesting to note the varied approach across the regulatory network. Do we think that the football regulator will be like the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is pretty important—we all drink water—and does its work with 55 people? Coming in next is the Office of Rail and Road, which has up to 370 people. The Information Commissioner’s Office has 500-plus; information is all around us, so that is pretty important. Not quite topping the tree, but coming pretty close, is the Pensions Regulator, with 900 people.

The point is that untrammelled bureaucracies have a tendency simply to grow. There is no limit on the amount of fan consultation that could be done. A member of the football regulator could be sent down to every fan meeting if it really wanted to convince itself that the club was engaging with the fan base. All the amendment seeks is some measure of control, to give Parliament the opportunity once again to stop this thing growing arms and legs and moving way beyond its intended purpose.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly: he has named a number of organisations that are significantly bigger than the random figure in the amendment. I am not disputing what he says, but the bottom line is that it makes no sense to include an arbitrary figure in formal legislation.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Well, we will see. All jokes aside, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It would be highly unlikely and deeply unpopular if any member—or especially all of them—of that regulator was paid more than the chief executive, and it would add more to our cost argument.

[James Naish]

When looking at the operating model and how pay should be done, one would benchmark against equivalent organisations. What benchmarking has the hon. Gentleman done against the pay of other chief executives? The Prime Minister’s pay is not a good example for that particular type of role.

[Mr French]

There is no equivalent to the football regulator. It is the first of its kind. We cannot argue to fans that it is unique and everything else, but then say that it is the same as something else. If it is the same as something else, why are we doing it?

We have benchmarked the figure quite clearly—the hon. Gentleman may disagree; that is what voting is about in Committee—to the Prime Minister’s salary, which we believe is fair. It is fair to the taxpayers, who understand that someone appointed by the Government or by the board to run the independent football regulator established by the Government should not be paid more than the Prime Minister. That is fair and moral.

[James Naish]

This amendment is yet another example of plucking a random figure—although it is an actual figure, as has been referenced—and putting it in legislation, which is not best practice. That is why it should not be supported.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, although I think they were more confusing than they were an answer to the questions. We have tried to be clear, and I do not mean this disrespectfully. I am not wilfully misunderstanding; I am asking a really clear question about the comparison the Government are making. What does the benchmark look like? That is not a theoretical question; we already know that someone has been appointed, and they used a benchmarking exercise to make that appointment. That is the point I am trying to make: a benchmarking exercise must have already been carried out, if the Government have done their due diligence in making that appointment.

[James Naish]

I make the point again: it is the hon. Member’s amendment that would insert a figure. He is lecturing the Government and saying that benchmarking should have been done, but his amendment includes a figure, yet he is saying that he has not done the benchmarking and that it is just a random figure.

[Mr French]

To use the Minister’s comment, I think that the hon. Member is wilfully misunderstanding. I have made it absolutely crystal clear that the political argument—what we believe and what the taxpayers and fans will believe—is that it is not appropriate for a regulator to be paid more than the Prime Minister, the No. 1 so-called public servant in the country. That is the benchmark in the amendment.

What I am asking the Government—the hon. Member is conflating this, I think deliberately—is this. What is the benchmark that they have already used to appoint somebody? That appointment—not of the chief executive, but of the chairman—has already happened. That is the point we are asking about: whether the Government have done a benchmarking exercise. They must have an idea of what the regulator looks like, yet we have had no answer to that question.

We on this side of the House will be putting fans first. We will be seeking to cap the size of the Government’s regulator, to ensure that it is nimble and light-touch, that it is not overburdensome and that it does not do what we know regulation can do in this country, which is to snowball and to create more jobs and more duties for itself. We will look to cap it, in the interest of fans and taxpayers.

Question put, That the amendment be made.