Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

Clause 38 is one of the most consequential provisions in the entire Bill. It gives the Government’s football regulator the power to disqualify an individual not only from being an owner or an officer of a specific club, but from holding such a position in any regulated club going forward. That is an extraordinarily wide-ranging power, which amounts to a professional ban from participation in the administration or ownership of an English football club. That power must be exercised with the utmost care on the basis of clear evidence, robust procedural safeguards and fair opportunities for representation.

Under subsection (1), the regulator may issue a disqualification order if it is determined that a person is not suitable to be an owner of a particular regulated club. Subsection (2) extends that same power to issue a disqualification order against officers. The clause in effect makes the Government’s regulator the gatekeeper of who may or may not participate in the leadership of English football. While the Opposition accept the rationale, particularly in the light of past controversies and failures of governance, we must be careful about vesting that level of authority in a politically appointed body.

Three concerns arise. First, there is the question of proportionality. Not every failure of suitability in one club ought to trigger an automatic blanket ban from the entire football pyramid. A disqualification order is not a light matter in itself; it carries reputational consequences that may extend far beyond football. Will the Minister confirm what thresholds of seriousness must be met before a disqualification order is considered appropriate? How will the regulator ensure that such orders are not used disproportionately, particularly in cases where suitability determinations may be contested or borderline?

Secondly, there is the question of due process. The clause appears to allow the regulator to act not only in determinations it makes directly, but on decisions it is deemed to have made by operation of law. That introduces a grey area where someone might find themselves disqualified without ever having had a clear and fair hearing. There must be a full right to representation, explanation and appeal before such a decision takes effect. Will there be an express duty on the regulator to provide reasons in writing to allow for full and fair challenge after a decision has been made? Will the affected individual have the right to appeal to a genuinely independent body—one that is outside the Government’s regulator’s own structure?

Thirdly, there is a concern about consistency and transparency. The risk is of regulatory opacity. If a disqualification order is issued without published reasoning, or if standards vary from case to case, we will quickly see a collapse of confidence in the regulator’s impartiality. Will the Minister consider introducing a requirement for an annual report to Parliament listing the disqualification orders that have been issued in the preceding year, and for a publicly accessible register of disqualified individuals, with anonymised or redacted reasoning where appropriate, for transparency? Crucially, will the Minister confirm that this power cannot be used retroactively—that is, to punish individuals for matters known and previously tolerated under prior regimes, should there be a change of chairman, deputy chairman, chief executive or board members?

English football needs good owners—as a Charlton fan, I can say that with a great deal of confidence and with sympathy for other clubs that have been in similar situations. It needs competent, honest and engaged officers, and there must be consequences when individuals fall short of the standards we all expect, but clause 38 must not become a tool of regulatory vengeance, nor of political interference. The power must be used sparingly, lawfully and accountably.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I declare that I am a member, and former chair, of the RamsTrust. Does the shadow Minister agree, on his point about Charlton, that we would want the use of this clause to err on the side of caution? As Rams fans, we went through a situation where an American businessman was passed by the EFL on the fit and proper person test, and the only reason he did not buy the club was because the money never turned up. This was after he had been approved as a fit and proper person. It turned out that he was a fraudster, and he is now serving 20 years in prison in the US, having passed the fit and proper person test. Contrary to the shadow Minister’s argument, it would be better if the provision was used quite strictly, because we only want the best people to be running our football clubs, which are so precious to communities across the country.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for that valuable contribution and for telling us his experiences as a Derby fan. There are many examples that have been drawn on in various aspects of the Committee’s debates, and I suspect that there will be more going forward. Just to be clear, we are not seeking to press the provision to a Division. The point we are making is that we want the strongest owners and fittest people to run clubs, but we also want to ensure that the regulator is seen to be acting lawfully and in a balanced way at all times, to avoid any issues of impartiality. I understand the point the hon. Member makes, which is why I have always supported strengthening ownership tests, even in the previous Parliament.

We do not believe that exclusion based on reputational judgment or politics should come into these kinds of judgment. The Government must not forget that they are regulating not just football clubs, but people’s lives, reputations and livelihoods. That demands humility, caution and a presumption in favour of freedom and innocence, unless the case for restriction is absolutely clear and overwhelming. Where there is doubt, the Government’s regulator must not fill in the blanks with its own qualifications or prejudices.

The Opposition support the need for disqualification in serious cases, but we continue to press the Government to ensure that the clause is not open to abuse, and that football remains a competitive, plural and fair environment, rather than one policed by the regulator, acting as judge, jury and executioner in uncertain circumstances.

Clause 39 empowers the regulator to give a removal direction in requiring an unsuitable owner to take all reasonable steps to cease being an owner by the end of a specified period. The exception to this requirement is when an owner did not have prior regulatory approval, and the regulator can exercise its power to make an ownership removal order within three months, starting from the determination day. The clause requires the football regulator to inform the owner of the club and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the football regulator to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction.

It is because of powers such as these that the regulator must be seen as independent. If a Government regulator is to order the removal of incumbent owners, this could be seen by competition organisations as clear interference, which as we have discussed at length, and could cause many issues for English clubs, especially when competing in UEFA and FIFA competitions. I would be interested to hear some assurances from the Minister about how that might work in practice. If the Government’s regulator is to tell clubs that they must change ownership, how confident is the Minister that that will not breach the rules that we have discussed?

This goes back to a point I made in a previous sitting about something that is a theme of the clauses in this group. Giving the owner or officer of a club notice of a regulatory action that is coming will hopefully allow them the rights of representation and challenge, if they feel that they have been handled wrongfully, but it also opens up issues around insider information, particularly with regard to a club’s valuation. I suspect that all hon. Members appreciate that such a change, particularly at the top levels of ownership, will have a dramatic impact on the valuation of a club. We want to understand how the regulator will deal with that issue to ensure that insider dealing, in particular, does not become a widespread issue where the regulator is trying to enforce its actions, as provided for by these clauses. We want to understand how that will work in practice, to ensure that these clauses do not have unintended consequences.

Clause 40 empowers the regulator either to issue a removal direction to an unsuitable officer, requiring them to take all reasonable steps to cease being an officer by the end of a specified period, or to give such a direction to the relevant club, or both. It requires the independent football regulator to inform the owner, club, and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. I have the same question about this clause as for the previous one: how will the risk of inside information be managed?

Clause 41 empowers the regulator to prohibit an unsuitable owner or officer from carrying out specified activities or exercising specific rights and/or to issue a direction to the club requiring it to ensure that the unsuitable owner or officer does not exercise specified activities or rights. The clause provides a non-exhaustive list of such activities and rights, including any right

“to vote on any matter relating to the…club’s activities”;

appointing, terminating or changing the terms of appointment or responsibilities of any officer or employee; changing the corporate structure; and undertaking any specified actions without obtaining prior approval from the independent regulator.

Clause 41 also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. Such action could seriously impair the ability of a club to function while it seeks a new owner or officers, as ordered by the regulator. As we all know, it takes a significant amount of time to find a new owner, and many may be deterred by perceived interference in English football, compared with other nations without a state regulator. Clause 41 may cause more damage to a football club than the owner, who the regulator cannot dismiss. How will the Minister ensure that the regulator uses these powers only if and when deemed strictly necessary?

Clause 42 relates to situations where directions under clause 41 would impede a club’s ability to operate effectively or comply with regulatory requirements. It empowers the IFR to temporarily appoint an officer to carry out a specified function, or redistribute functions among existing officers. It stipulates that those functions must be specified, must be for a specified amount of time, and can be revoked or varied by another order. It specifies that an interim officer is not subject to the duties and requirements placed on officers by the Bill. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction.

Clause 42 adds to the fear that the regulator could erode the independence of English clubs and how they operate. It empowers the regulator to effectively govern a club while seeking to remove unsuitable officers or owners. Given the time that it takes to find new ownership, that situation could last for a considerable period and cause massive issues on the pitch with regards to investment and transfers—as we discussed in a previous sitting—and how the club functions. It would also leave the regulator wide open to criticism if its actions lead to relegation, for example, for a particular club. Does the Minister think that there is a risk that such a club could be barred from international competitions—as I suggested earlier—or that the Government’s regulator could be left wide open to legal challenge if it directly impacts a club’s performance on the pitch, or its financial performance off the pitch while such considerations, or changes of ownership, take place?

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr French]

Yes, I will.

[Jon Pearce]

Does the shadow Minister agree that parachute payments are a very important financial factor in the EFL? From my experience as a Derby County fan—many things go back to this—I know that we ended up in administration because we chased and tried to compete with clubs that had parachute payments, and ultimately could not stay within the financial fair play regime. How does the shadow Minister see that being tackled? It is a fundamental flaw and it is driving clubs much closer to administration, and to the wall, in many cases.

[Mr French]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s experience with Derby, and I understand his point. That is why I said there are a number of opinions, and this a very controversial subject. I have engaged with EFL clubs as part of this process, and we get a variety of opinions, even before we get to asking the Premier League clubs for their opinion, so I absolutely understand his point. This amendment is about trying to exclude parachute payments from this part of the Bill, rather than trying to take a decision on what parachute payment levels should be in any shape or form. That is the distinction we seek to make with the amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak on day three—is it day three? Time flies when you’re having fun!—of this Bill Committee.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has explained in quite lengthy detail the aims of the amendment; I will not repeat what he has said, because it is his amendment, but I have great sympathy with his arguments. Examples, as he says, include Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, Coventry, Wimbledon—for us slightly older football fans—and of course my home club, Charlton, where as I understand it the person who owned the club two owners ago retains ownership of both the stadium—The Valley—and the training ground.

That creates a number of challenges for clubs, not only on the playing side, but behind the scenes and on the academy side. It is a real issue in football. The hon. Member highlighted some of the tensions it causes, particularly with fans, and the great uncertainty about the future of the game and the participation of those clubs. It is always extremely disappointing and frustrating when a small number of owners clearly do not have the best long-term intentions for the club or the community that they serve.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment and how it might work if it is agreed to. I would also like to understand how it would work for good owners who look to invest in their communities and grounds, and who ensure that clubs have new stadia, for example. The most obvious example, going into the new season, is Everton’s new stadium. We in the Opposition do not want to restrict clubs from increasing capacity and investing in communities around the country; I am sure that we will see a lot more of that, going forward, as clubs seek to increase their revenues and the capacity of stadia. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy for the arguments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I would like to make a declaration of interest as a member and former chair of the RamsTrust. The history of Derby County and its football stadia has been raised by both the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. In 2003, three owners bought the club for £1 each and decided to sell it to a company based in Panama. We then had to lease it back for £1 million a year. It took years to bring the club and its stadia back together. More recently, under Mel Morris, the club and its stadia were again separated. It was only this summer that they were brought back under one legal ownership, thanks to the new owner, David Clowes.

As a fan of a club that has moved from the old Baseball Ground to Pride Park, I believe the shadow Minister is entirely right that clubs must be able to move stadium. That is absolutely clear. However, it is also clear that, for many fans, the stadium is part and parcel of the community and the way of life. What I would give to be able to go back to the Baseball Ground and relive my childhood! I cannot overstate how important an emotional attachment to the stadium is. It is impossible, in most fans’ minds, to separate the two.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Overnight, I had a message about the City Ground, where Nottingham Forest play—England will be playing there tonight against Senegal in their friendly, which I very much welcome. The message said, “Please make sure that Nottingham Forest continue to play at the City Ground.” There have been discussions about moving elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right that the grounds are central to the community, so does he agree that it is essential that fans have a say in where teams play?

[Jon Pearce]

Absolutely. As a Derby fan, for once I can probably agree with a Notts Forest fan. It is vital that fans have a say. Fans will always want their clubs to do better and to drive forward, and there will be cases where it is right for a club to move; but where there is malign interest, the fans need to have the ability to keep their stadia and clubs together.

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

It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I look forward to day three of Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for the amendments; I am never fed up of hearing from him and I know he is very passionate about this issue.

The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments to ensure that football continues to be played at a club’s home ground. The Bill already has a number of strong protections to safeguard home grounds against reckless sales or ill-thought-out relocations. I will respond to a couple of points made in the debate and will then outline why we will not be accepting the amendments.

Fan consultation was mentioned. Clubs must consult their fans on any plans to change or move their home ground as per the fan engagement threshold condition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, made an important point about how it will sometimes be necessary for clubs to relocate their home ground, for a number of reasons, such as the ground being too small, facilities no longer working or the ground being sold. We recognise that we need flexibility in that approach, but fans will have a say.

For clubs that do not own their stadium or have already sold the stadium, due to the scope of the Bill and existing property law, it is not always possible for home grounds that are not owned by the club to have the same protections as home grounds that are. This point was recognised in the fan-led review. However, alongside the fan engagement requirements, there are also protections under the national planning policy framework for sports grounds and existing assets of community value, and there is work under this Government, as well as an ongoing Law Commission review of security of tenure that has the scope to address sports grounds. Those powers will all work alongside the soft powers and levers of the regulator to look to protect home grounds, as far as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East also referred to the fact that leagues have requirements for tenure, and clubs are prevented from entering the league if they do not meet them. Leagues also have enforceable standards regarding the quality of the grounds. These vary from league to league and can get into the specifics of grass length on matchdays, for example. Given those requirements, we do not feel it is necessary for the regulator to duplicate rules. Instead, it will work alongside the leagues.

It should be noted that clubs may not own their home grounds—I have responded on that point—and therefore they would require the agreement of their landlord to meet the additional licensing requirement we believe that the amendments would lead to. These amendments would place a requirement on clubs to guarantee something that may not be within their control, as well as duplicating pre-existing league requirements for home grounds.

We recognise that the fan-led review recommended that the Government explore the viability of introducing security of tenure property rights for football clubs. I hope I have explained why we do not feel we can do that.

The Law Commission is now in the process of reviewing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, including an assessment of security of tenure for all commercial properties, including football clubs. Following the review, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider the recommendations and publish a full response.

For those reasons, I am not able to accept my hon. Friend’s amendments and would ask that he withdraws them.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

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)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I am a member of RamsTrust.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am a season ticket holder in the Premier League.

--- Later in debate ---

to benefit. I urge the Government to consider wording that refers specifically to not compromising the opportunities of future generations. The amendment also refers to increasing TV viewership and overall match attendance. That goes back to what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said about not merely accepting the status quo continuing but seeking to improve and enhance the beautiful game, to which the amendment alludes by referring to increasing TV viewership and overall match attendance.

[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 ---

[Mr French]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy; I appreciate your steer. My point is about definitions, but I appreciate that we will talk later about the scope of the Bill and the suitability of owners. The point that the official Opposition are trying to make is that the definitions should be more prescriptive about the multi-club ownership model. I hope you will allow me to carry on in that vein. I am sure I will make similar comments when we come to suitability.

If one of the clubs in a multi-club ownership runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from the other clubs and put their financial stability at risk. As the Bill stands, the descriptions give no regard to that; rather, they seem to encourage that sort of behaviour as an obvious way to operate outside the scope of most of the regulator’s powers.

The City Football Group, which owns Manchester City, has stakes in clubs in Spain, France and Italy, and as far afield as Australia and Uruguay. Although that group is often held up as a successful example of the model, it raises legitimate questions, which we are seeking to ask today, about competitive fairness. In its own rules, UEFA has already sought to restrict clubs from competing in the same European competitions.

Not including multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill negates the Government’s claim that the Bill will promote competition. If anything, it seems that it will provide an open goal for the richest clubs.

As a football fan first, I know that supporters are frustrated by the tactics that the wealthiest clubs already use to avoid the financial fair play rules, and I am afraid the Bill will likely make that worse. We have seen UEFA act to ensure clubs such as RB Leipzig and FC Red Bull Salzburg restructure their ownerships to avoid breaching rules on clubs with shared control competing in the Champions League. UEFA recognises the risk to competitiveness, and the Government should too. The Minister must accept that UEFA is protecting competition across Europe, but she and the Government are actively putting competition at risk by not including accommodations for multi-club ownership in this part of the Bill.

I appreciate that giving the regulator complete carte blanche over the multi-club ownership model would likely violate UEFA’s rules. We know that UEFA has written to the Secretary of State about the Bill—she will not publish that correspondence—so why are the Government picking which bits they agree with UEFA on and which bits they do not? To be clear, we are not seeking to increase the regulator’s scope; instead, we want to apply consistent conditions to all owners, whether they own a newly promoted League Two club or some of the biggest clubs across multiple countries.

I am sure we will see more and more discrepancies between what the Government say and what the Bill will actually do as we continue through this Committee, but the fact that we have got only as far as schedule 1 in our first sitting and have found a glaring omission is proof that the Government need to look very carefully at how the Bill will operate.

[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)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I think I understand where the shadow Minister is going on conflicts of interest, a subject that the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised, but can he advise me how the amendment would help in addition to paragraph 6(1) and (2) of schedule 2, which in effect says that nobody can be appointed to the board unless there is confirmation that they do not have a conflict of interest? If the conflict of interest test can be satisfied, I am unclear as to why the amendment is necessary.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer the question, and I appreciate how it was put: it was not adversarial, but on a factual point. We are trying to clarify the point. In the Bill, as drafted, it is not clear what a conflict of interest is. The amendment seeks to make a specific example of an area that we think would be a particular problem for the regulator, and clarify what a conflict of interest is in this regard. I hope that that explains the amendment.

[Jon Pearce]

With respect, in most areas of professional life, conflicts of interest will have to be declared. There is not an exhaustive list of what might constitute a conflict of interest, because that is almost impossible, so whether there is a conflict of interest is a matter of fact to be tested. I go back to the point that if we start defining what might constitute a conflict of interest, a limited amendment such as this one would have to become exhaustive. I do not see how that could ever be possible.

[Mr French]

I appreciate those comments. We will come on to conflicts of interest, and it is a question that I will put to the Minister, because the Committee and the House have to be clear and confident about what a conflict of interest might look like for the regulator. We will come on shortly to appointments to the expert panel. In such appointments, if there are no clear lines of accountability on what we believe to be conflicts of interest, I fear that we could have a situation like the one we have just had with the chair, in which the Government did not feel that there was a conflict of interest, but most people observing the appointment would say that there was a quite clear conflict, given the donations to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Labour party. Those are the points we are making, and I am happy to debate the matter further as we make progress. I have given the Minister some extra reading time on what I plan to ask about conflicts of interest.

A crucial point was made about how boards work differently in different sectors, and about whether conflicts are transcribed early on, so that everyone understands what we believe a conflict of interest is. We want to ensure that there are no vested interests in the process and that no one side will benefit from the simple fact that a chair is interested in that same side; that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. By accepting the amendment, alongside our other amendments, the Committee could ensure total independence of the chair of the regulator both from this Government and from industry insiders. That is our objective.

Amendment 114 would make it explicit that there must be a system for the chair of the board to declare their relevant interests. As we have discussed, this needs to be explicit within the Bill because of how the Government have conducted themselves in the appointment process. We have seen that this Labour Government cannot be trusted to run the process properly or ensure that full and proper declarations are made. The amendment would make sure that nobody in this Government’s regulator can avoid being transparent with the public on their conflicts of interest. This amendment has become necessary because of the Government’s actions and their disdain for Parliament and public accountability.

It could be argued that the Secretary of State has hidden her interest in the appointment process to date, especially because she did not declare her interest on Second Reading. This amendment would provide much-needed transparency on the future of the regulator and its chair, whoever he or she may be. I would like to think that Ministers are in favour of full and proper transparency, unless there is something that the Government wish to hide from us. As I said, we found out about the donations only at the last minute, through a declaration made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This House would not otherwise have known. It troubles me deeply, regardless of which parties were involved, that Members made decisions without knowing about the donations.

Alongside amendments 117, 118 and 114, I have tabled amendment 115. As I have said repeatedly, this Government’s behaviour throughout the process has been nothing short of a disgrace. We found out about the appointee’s donations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State only via a Select Committee, and we did not know about them on Second Reading.

Without the appointee’s last-minute admission, we would have been in the dark. We do not know whether the Secretary of State would have been transparent about the donations she received. She has now recused herself, but we must remember that she nominated that person for the Select Committee’s consideration, which is a really important point that I am sure the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will look at closely. We cannot allow this sort of cover-up to continue, as we need a sustainable independent regulator. Amendment 115 would make it clear that political donations should be declared as a relevant interest, as they have been proven to be by this Government.

I have also tabled amendment 116, which would ensure that politics is kept out of football. This debate is making me very uncomfortable as a football fan. I do not believe that politics should be anywhere near football, and it is because of this kind of issue. This has brought football into disrepute, and it is not just me saying that—it is across all the sports pages.

I am concerned about politics being dragged into football, and this amendment would require that the chair is not a member of a political party and does not publicly campaign or demonstrate support for one. It has been drafted in line with other such roles where chairmen are required to be politically neutral. Again, I believe this is common sense, and I hope all Members would support it.

Once again, this is an issue of trust and of establishing the true independence of any football regulator brought in by this Government. Requiring the chair of the board not to be a member of a political party or to campaign in a political way would protect the integrity of football and the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

As we mark 80 years since the long-anticipated news that the evil Nazi regime, which had orchestrated the greatest act of mass murder in human history and terrorised Europe, had been defeated by the allies, I want to concentrate on the role of my constituency of High Peak in the second world war. So many of our men and women served their country during the war, but, sadly, far too many made the ultimate sacrifice in defeating fascism. Although our communities were spared much of the horrendous bombing that affected larger areas such as London, there were some notable exceptions.

It was one July evening in 1942 when the Luftwaffe found themselves flying over High Peak. After failing to find the large propeller factory in Lostock, because of low cloud cover, the high-speed bombers wreaked havoc on two High Peak villages, one dropping its bombs on Torr Vale and the other dropping two bombs near Swizzels Sweet Factory. Had those bombs landed on the factory, the world may never have known Love Hearts, and many childhoods would have been poorer for it. The good news is that Swizzels is surviving and thriving today.

Skipping ahead to 1943, more planes were flying over High Peak, but this time it was the 617 Squadron of the RAF practising the low-level flying needed for Operation Chastise—the squadron more commonly known as the Dambusters. The Dambusters were vital in convincing people that the allies were winning the war against Nazism, and it was the rolling hills of the High Peak that helped the brave RAF personnel to pull it off.

In this time of celebration and reflection, we naturally remember the strength and bravery of the people who fought during the second world war to keep our country free, and we must never lose sight of the scale of the sacrifice that people make when they join our armed forces today.

My uncle Ronald Pearce served in the second world war and fought bravely in the Italian campaign. He survived, but the war took its toll on him. It was a time when there was little understood and little done for those suffering from trauma and mental health issues. That is why I warmly welcome this Government’s announcement of VALOUR—a UK-wide veterans’ support service that will work with health, employment and housing charities and which is backed by one of the largest ever Government funding commitments for veterans.

As we celebrate the incredible achievements of the greatest generation, we cannot hide from the fact that we live today in an increasingly unstable world, with antisemitism once again on the rise and a war on European soil because of a tyrant’s invasion of a neighbouring country. May our generation have all the fortitude and resilience of the generation we celebrate today.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Jon Pearce Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

On Saturday, at 12.30 pm, I and thousands of other Derby County fans will be racked with nerves as the club faces Stoke City, hoping to avoid relegation from the championship yet again. The fact that we have been through such occasions so often over the years will not make it any easier to endure. We have heard from supporters of many other clubs, from Charlton, Blackpool, Sheffield Wednesday, Reading and too many to mention, but here is my case for why I believe that Derby County provides the best example of why we need this Football Governance Bill—finally, a competition we can win.

Any good football anecdote should obviously start with Brian Clough. Having won us the league for the first time in our history in 1971-72, he was sacked less than a year later by the club’s chairman, to the horror of our club’s supporters. That led to protests in the streets and a threatened players’ strike. It is fair to say that there were no minimum standards of fan engagement back then, as the board of directors hid in the boardroom and relieved themselves in champagne buckets to avoid the fans’ protest.

A league championship in 1974-75 aside, years of financial mismanagement led us to drop down into the third tier and face a winding-up order in the High Court. We were saved by a certain Robert Maxwell, a once honourable Member of this place, although in hindsight he was not a fit and proper person to run any business, and certainly not a community asset like a football club. He ultimately lost interest, stopped coming to games and stopped investing in the club. All the while, he was defrauding the Mirror Group pensioners. In retrospect, Derby County got off rather lightly.

Skip forward to October 2003, when “the three amigos” bought the club. John Sleightholme, Jeremy Keith and Steve Harding bought the club for £1 each, but they had no money of their own and very quickly—not for the last time—they sold the club’s stadium, Pride Park, and then charged us £1 million to rent it to stay there. The requirement in the Bill for clubs to seek pre-approval from the independent regulator for the sale or relocation of their stadium is absolutely essential.

It was at that point that I first joined the Rams Trust, the supporters’ group that campaigns for a stronger voice for supporters in the decision-making process at Derby County. Such trusts play a vital role in clubs up and down the country. The tireless efforts of fans to scrutinise the activities of the management of the club led to the conviction of four people.

Maxwell and the three amigos would have passed any fit and proper person test, which is why it is so important that this Bill introduces both a minimum standard of fan engagement and a club licensing regime, to help ensure a more consistent approach in how clubs are run and club finances are monitored. I am also delighted that parachute payments are included, because they have been the driver of our most recent dalliance with financial ruin. We desperately tried to get into the premier league, competing against clubs with parachute payments, ultimately leading us to a 21-point deduction, relegation and near extinction again.

The club was saved by a local businessman, but not without a dalliance with the fraudulent activities of somebody who was trying to buy us. The truth is that football—and Derby County in particular—is constantly threatened by fraudsters and by terrible ownership that is ruining our communities. This Bill will begin to stop some of the damage that is being done to clubs up and down the country, and I will be supporting it today.