Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jon Pearce

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. Amendment 97 is objectively reasonable; the Government, in setting up the independent football regulator, should want to do so in compliance with any FIFA or UEFA rules, in order to secure our national teams’ places in international tournaments.

There is a genuine risk that the football regulator may conflict with FIFA and UEFA rules, not least in the political appointment of its chair. I know that the Government do not think that it is political to appoint a chair who, in the current circumstances, donated to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but FIFA may take a different view. If FIFA takes a different view and seeks to ban our national sides, the Government will not be able to do anything about it. This is the moment to enshrine in law that the regulator must comply with FIFA and UEFA rules.

We can delve briefly into what we think FIFA might deem political. In 2016, FIFA fined domestic teams, including England, for wearing an armband with an Armistice Day poppy because, in FIFA’s view, the poppy is a political symbol. I think that is madness, and pretty much everyone in this country thinks it is madness, but that was FIFA’s view, and it levied a fine. I think that, after negotiation, FIFA has since changed its mind—but if that was its view of the poppy and all sorts of symbols that most ordinary people would not think of as political, I am concerned about what it will think about a football regulator that has a chair appointed by Government, who in this instance also donated to the leadership campaign of the Prime Minister of the day, and who may then exercise a decision over ownership of a particular club in this country. I suspect FIFA may think that is political and conflicts with the ability of England and other home nations to compete in international events. The Government can deal with that very simply.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is speaking in support of this amendment or against it? As far as I can see, if UEFA or FIFA decides that the poppy is a political symbol, the shadow Minister’s amendment would mean that we would have to follow that decision.

[Joe Robertson]

No. The football regulator is not set up—unless the Government view otherwise—to decide what symbols the England national team wear on their arms. It is set up for all sorts of things such as financial viability and ownership models of teams within the English leagues. My point is about how FIFA views political interference and political symbols. It is clearly very sensitive to them and has a very high bar. I am concerned that, if the football regulator breaches that bar, England will be restricted from entering international tournaments. The Government will not be able to do anything about it at that point, but they can deal with it now by mandating the football regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. The football regulator will not be responsible for symbols on football shirts.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jon Pearce

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a tension between increasing TV viewership and increasing match attendance? Many fans around the country will say that the frustration of moving kick-off times from 3 o’clock on a Saturday to 4 o’clock on a Sunday, or to a Monday, Thursday or Friday evening, has a massive impact on the regular UK fan. Does the hon. Member see any tension between the aims of amendment 96?

[Joe Robertson]

I would not like to sweep aside any suggestion of tension. There will always be tension among people who watch sport—in this case football—in different ways, but I do not accept that there is an overall tension. It is perfectly possible to grow both match attendance and TV audiences. I do not accept that there is a structural tension between those two things. In my view, the success of football is infinitely growable.

Amendment 96 also refers to the unique heritage of football clubs. The shadow Minister talked about football being older than the Labour party, which shows how woven into the fabric of this country—indeed, of the whole United Kingdom—football is. The amendment also mentions the

“effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment or the reputation of the local area.”

All Members know that football and football clubs have a positive effect on those things. It is right to that the Bill’s purpose reflects all those things and the breadth and importance of football in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I declare my interest as a member and the former chair of the RamsTrust. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is also here, this is probably not the last time that we will get to talk about Derby County.

I welcome these definitions, which are hugely important as a balance against some of the tests of ownership. They will help to solve some of the problems that Derby County have faced. In October 2003, three individuals bought Derby County for £1 each. The three amigos, as they became infamously known by the fans, had no money of their own and initially refused to disclose who the actual owners of the club were. It turned out that the money the trio had used to support their takeover was a loan costing 10% interest a year from a company, the ABC Corporation, registered in Panama.

It was at that point that I joined the RamsTrust—the supporters’ group that campaigns for a stronger voice for supporters in the decision-making processes at Derby County. Obviously, such trusts play vital roles at other clubs across the country. The tireless efforts of the fans in scrutinising the activities of the management of the club led to four individuals being convicted for fraud and receiving substantial prison sentences. The definitions will certainly help; although those individuals would have passed any fit and proper person test because they had no previous convictions or previous evidence of fraud. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

In looking at the definitions, I am concerned about what is intended to be meant by “ultimate owner”, not least from a drafting point of view. Schedule 1 deals with an owner in significant detail, although it is actually quite convoluted and I worry that there may be loopholes in there that may be exploited in the future. By setting out such a high level of detail around trying to close loopholes, loopholes might accidentally be opened or created.

However, it is not the definition of “owner” that I want to look at, but the definition of “ultimate owner”, which must be something different or else it would not be separately defined. It is contained in clause 3(2), which says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a club’s “ultimate owner” is—(a) where the club has only one owner, that owner;”.

That makes sense; if a club is owned by one person then they are the ultimate owner—that is easy. It goes on to say:

“(b) where the club has more than one owner and one owner exercises a higher degree of influence or control over the activities of the club than any other owner,”.

That seems very vague wording for lawmaking. There could be two highly influential owners, but one has some power at their disposal that makes them technically able to exercise a higher degree of influence; that does not mean that the other owner is not also very influential. I do not understand why “ultimate owner” dismisses the possibility of there being two club owners exercising a significant degree of control, albeit where one has a marginally higher degree of control than the other.

Normally the wording in company law—but not just company law—talks about an owner, director or officer exercising significant influence and control, and there is a lot of case law that sets out what that means. That wording is used in the Bill, in schedule 1(15), which is entitled

“Significant influence or control over the activities of a club, trust or other body”.

But because clause 3(2) does not use that wording, “ultimate owner” must mean something different than exercising a significant degree of control, and I do not understand what it is getting at.

There is a third definition of “ultimate owner”. We have dealt with where there is only one owner—that is easy. We have dealt with where there is more than one owner, and one owner exercises a “higher degree” of influence, whatever that means. The third definition is

“in any other case, each owner of the club who exercises a degree of influence or control over the activities of the club”.

That seems to be sweeping up anyone with any influence, so potentially every owner. But it goes on to say

“where there are other owners, is a higher degree of influence or control than any other owner.”

That suggests that the only owner in a multi-owned club who is not caught by the definition of “ultimate owner” is the one owner who ranks the lowest in terms of the amount of control that they exercise over the club. The provision is badly drafted. It is very unclear what it is trying to achieve, and alternative wording is available to the Government and the draughters of the Bill. If the aim of describing the ultimate owner is to avoid applying this to very small shareholders, such as community shareholders and fans who have some ownership of the club but no meaningful say over what happens to it, the Bill could simply state that an ultimate owner is any owner other than those who exercise a negligible or trivial degree of control. That would exclude those who have no influence but who own shares and would avoid the convoluted, inclusive set of provisions that amount to nonsense in the minds of most people.

If an ultimate owner is not defined in the Bill, the Government open themselves up to all sorts of problems. An ultimate owner, who may be very wealthy, could deploy his well-paid legal team to take the Bill apart in court, and we know what courts will do: if the wording is unclear, they can find in favour of the person who is trying to be bang to rights with a badly drafted Bill. I would urge the Government to rectify that. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to be able to respond to all that detail on the hoof now. If she cannot, I ask her to go away and seek clarification on that, because I worry that that is a major drafting defect. If we cannot define an ultimate owner in the Bill, we have a problem.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Jon Pearce

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

I have to confess that was not in my mind when I rose to my feet, but my hon. Friend has a good memory. I welcome his sporting analogy, rather than the analogy of Jacob Rees-Mogg doing a job for GB News, which is completely irrelevant to the Bill.

That brings me to another point. I wonder why the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, given that he is chair of the football all-party parliamentary group, tried to widen this debate on the politicisation of organisations. We are talking about football, about sport. It is almost uniquely an apolitical thing, both nationally and internationally. In fact, international sporting bodies are very sensitive to politics. I recall that, in the last 15 years, UEFA—was it UEFA?—tried to ban England players from wearing the poppy on their arms. That was ridiculous, but the organisation saw the poppy as a political symbol.

Football probably stands highest in trying to keep politics out of sport. Associating it with who might have a contract with GB News shows a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of sport.

[Jon Pearce]

If we are dealing with the independence of sport per se, does the hon. Gentleman consider the British Olympic Association to be within the ambit of sport? Its current chair, Sir Hugh Robertson, is a former Conservative MP and Minister for Sport. Does this apply to all sports, or just to football?

[Joe Robertson]

The issue here is that this is a regulator, with regulatory authority and powers. When we legislate, we should do whatever we can to keep politics out of sport. If there are examples going back over time, we can debate them, but doing that in the context of creating a brand-new regulator for football—one that has never existed anywhere else—would probably be a distraction tactic on the Government’s part. It would not deal with fans’ genuine concern that we should not bring politics into sport. We have an opportunity to do something to deliver that by agreeing to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.

Amendment 116 states:

“The Chair of the Board must not…be a member of a political party”.

Why would anyone disagree with that? It is perfectly open to someone who wants to run to be the independent regulator to resign their membership of a political party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North talked about the word “currently”. Well, “currently” means at the point that someone is appointed, so it is perfectly possible for someone to go through the appointment process before resigning their interests at the moment the Government propose to appoint them. I think the word “currently” deals with that issue, which we possibly agree on.

The amendment also says that the chair must do no canvassing

“on behalf of a political party”,

including in council elections. The hon. Member for Newbury might find it weird—as would I—that someone would want to live without canvassing for council candidates, but that is not much of a sacrifice for someone to make if they want to be the national regulator for English football.