Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

For the regulator to be empowered, even indirectly, to evaluate, reshape or strike out parachute payments as part of a redistribution order is to invite Government interference in a private financial mechanism. That is not regulation; that is re-allocation. Would the Minister confirm whether the Government intend for their regulator to have the power to limit, modify or prohibit parachute payments as part of a distribution order? If so, does she recognise that that may constitute political interference in domestic football structures, which is specifically prohibited under UEFA statutes, as we have discussed?

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

The shadow Minister is speaking very clearly, and I agree with him on the potential for political interference. Does he also see within the clause any scope for market distortion because of the powers that the regulator has?

[Mr French]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I note that the Football Association sent a letter to Bill Committee members over the weekend, highlighting its concern about scope creep and how that may also interfere with what the regulator is meant to be tightly governed to do.

I would like to think that we would rather solutions were made within football. It is important that backstop powers are a clearly defined last resort and that the process encourages the principle of bodies working together to find a joint solution. Let me be very clear: by defining “relegation revenue” in statute and bringing parachute payments into scope, the Government risk triggering exactly the kind of interference that UEFA explicitly prevents in its statutes. Amendment 126 would remove subsection (3) in full. That would not abolish the regulator’s ability to consider fair distribution; it would simply make clear that internally agreed mechanisms, such as parachute payments, fall outside the regulator’s remit.