Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) about the experience of smaller hobby sites and their concerns about the Online Safety Act. I am sure that Ofcom and the Government will listen to those.

The Online Safety Act is not about controlling speech or about the Government deciding what adults think or read or say online, but about responsibility. More specifically, it is about whether we are prepared to say that the online world should have the same safety features as the offline world—whether we expect the online world to be a wild west or not. A lot of the opposition to the Online Safety Act has centred on the freedoms of adults, which I appreciate are important. Adults must be free to build their online lives as they see fit. However, that does not trump the right of children to be safe, whether online or offline, and rights are always a matter of balance.

Before I go further, it is worth being clear about what the Act actually does. It requires online services to assess the risk of harm on their platforms and put proportionate systems in place to reduce those risks. That includes harm from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, and harm when children are able to access content such as pornography or material that promotes suicide or self-harm. Alongside that, the Act contains proactive requirements to protect freedom of expression, and the largest platforms are now legally required to continually assess how their decisions affect users’ ability to speak freely online. That obligation is explicit and enforceable.

In many ways, the principles behind the Act are not new. Technology companies have moderated speech and removed content from their platforms since the very beginning. The difference is that, until now, those decisions were driven by opaque corporate priorities, not a clear and accountable framework of public harm.

The stakes here are high. These are some of the first young people whose entire life has been permeated by the online world. It shapes their values, relationships and mental health. For many children, when it comes to sex, self-harm or body image, the first place they turn is not a parent, a teacher or a GP; it is the internet.

I want to talk today about pornography. I think we all accept without controversy that children should not be able to access pornography offline—an adult entertainment shop does not let a 12-year-old walk in and buy a dirty video with their pocket money—but when it comes to internet pornography, we as a society have allowed children to freely access material that they are simply not mature enough to deal with. Pornography is more violent and more dangerous than ever before. Despite that, it has never been easier for children to access it. The door to the store has been wide open for too long.

According to a 2023 report by the Children’s Commissioner—before the Online Safety Act came into force—the vast majority of children surveyed said that they had seen pornography online by accident, through websites such as X, formerly known as Twitter. Kids were not even needing to seek it out; it was being fed to them. When they did seek it out, dedicated sites did not put up any barriers. The previous requirements for websites such as Pornhub were simply for someone to enter a date of birth, which meant the sole access requirement was the ability to subtract 18 from the current year. I think we all know that is not good enough.

That matters because online pornography is not passive; it teaches. It shapes how children understand sex, intimacy, power and consent. It sets expectations long before young people have the tools to question or contextualise what they are seeing. According to that same report by the Children’s Commissioner, more than half of respondents said they had seen pornography involving strangulation, and 44% reported seeing depictions of rape, many of which involved people who were apparently asleep.

Such content does not stay onscreen; it spills into real life. The Children’s Commissioner’s research showed that frequent exposure to violent sexual material is associated with a higher tolerance of sexual aggression, distorted ideas about consent and an increased likelihood of sexually aggressive behaviour. Almost half of young girls surveyed expected sex to involve physical aggression. What children learn online does not disappear when the browser closes.

With the Online Safety Act, for the first time, adult content is being age-restricted online in the same way it is offline, and sites must now use effective age verification tools. That includes third party services, which should use privacy preserving techniques to confirm users’ data without sharing personal information with the platform itself. Since the new law came into effect, Ofcom has been monitoring compliance, and many of the most visited pornography sites have introduced highly effective age checks. I will be honest: I really do not have a lot of sympathy for pornography users who object to having their age verified. If they are bothered about their privacy, they can just not use it. Pornography is not a human right; people can choose not to use it.

Pornography is not the only harm that the Act addresses: for years, platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and TikTok have hosted vast amounts of content related to self-harm and suicide—some of it framed as support, but much not. Posts and forums provide copious instructions on how to self-harm: the implements to use, how best to hide it and where to cut to do the most damage without killing oneself. Some children accessed that content entirely by accident, before even knowing what self-harm is, while others found it when they were already struggling, and were pulled deeper into it by algorithms that reward repetition and intensity. That content not only risks normalising those behaviours; it risks glamorising them.

So many adults have no idea what is out there, and because they are not fed it on their own feeds, they do not understand the danger and the extremism. Investigations have shown that teenage accounts engaging with suicide, self-harm or depression content were then flooded with more of the same. A single click could trigger what one report from the Molly Rose Foundation described as

“a tsunami of harmful content”.

I am not saying that we should shut down places that offer support to young people who have urges to self-harm, but we need to make sure that young people can access evidence-based support and are not exposed to content that could encourage harm. That is why organisations such as Samaritans have praised the Online Safety Act.

Under the Act, platforms that recommend or promote content to users—for example, “For You” feeds on TikTok—must ensure that those systems do not push harmful content to children. Not only does that put the onus on platforms to prevent children from seeing such content, but means that, if children do come across or search for harmful content, platforms should avoid showing them more of the same so they do not go down a very harmful rabbit hole.

Clearly, it is still early days. The legislation includes a formal review, with a report to Parliament due within a few years of full implementation. We will, and should, look closely at what is working and what needs to be improved—as lawmakers, we have that responsibility—but the signs are encouraging. Sky News spoke to six teenagers before and after the new rules came into force, and five of them said that they were seeing much less harmful content in their feeds. I know that is anecdata, but it is important to listen to the experiences of young people.

Ofcom has opened investigations, and benefits have already come from them. For example, following an Ofcom investigation, file-sharing services that were being used to distribute child sexual abuse material have now installed automated technology to detect and remove such material. Proportionality is at the heart of it, and Ofcom has developed guidance to support compliance. I understand the concerns about smaller or volunteer-run forums, but some of the most harmful content appears on very small or obscure sites, so simply taking out smaller sites would be a disservice.

I am sure there will be problems that must be worked out. We should continue to explore how best to provide children with age-appropriate experiences online, and think about how to get age verification right. But while we refine and improve the system, we cannot ignore the reality that there have been serious harms and that we have a responsibility to tackle them. For the first time, the UK has a regulatory framework that forces tech companies to assess risk, protect freedom of expression and give the public far greater transparency on how decisions about online content are made.

Other countries have banned young people from social media. I have been thinking about that a lot, and I currently do not think it is the right thing to do. Online communities can provide friendship and solace to young people—particularly those who are marginalised, perhaps due to their sexual orientation, or who are restricted in life, perhaps because they are kept at home by ill health or disabilities. Online communities can offer a lot to our young children, but children have a right to be just that: children. They should not have to deal with the complexities and hardships of adult life, so we as adults must do what we can to build safe online spaces for them, just as we build safe physical spaces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington]

I completely agree and I am going to come to that.

I recently met the NSPCC, the Internet Watch Foundation and the police forces that deal with this issue, and they told me that there are easy technological fixes when someone uploads something to a site with end-to-end encryption. For those who do not know, we use such sites all the time—our WhatsApp groups, and Facebook Messenger, are end-to-end encryption sites. We are not talking about scary sites that we have not heard of, or Telegram, which we hear might be a bit iffy; these are sites that we all use every single day. Those organisations told me that, before someone uploads something and it becomes encrypted, their image or message is screened. It is screened for bugs to ensure that they are not sharing viruses, but equally it could be screened for child sexual abuse images. That would stop children even sharing these images in the first place, and it would stop the images’ collection and sharing with other paedophiles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is absolutely right: 63% of British parents want the Government to go further and faster, and 50% feel that our implementation has been too slow. That is not surprising; it took seven years to get this piece of legislation through, and the reality is that, by that time, half of it was out of date, because technology moves faster than Parliament.

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend has been talking about the dangers that children are exposed to. Does she believe that parents are equipped to talk to their children about these dangers? Is there more we can do to support parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risks of sharing images and talking to people online?

[Emily Darlington]

I completely agree. As parents, we all want to be able to have those conversations, but because of the way the algorithms work, we do not see what they see. We say, “Yes, you can download this game, because it has a 4+ rating.” Who knows what a 4+ rating actually means? It has nothing to with the BBFC ratings that we all grew up with and understand really well. Somebody else has decided what is all right and made up the 4+ rating.

For example, Roblox looks as if it is child-ready, but many people might not understand that it is a platform on which anyone can develop a game. Those games can involve grooming children and sexual violence; they are not all about the silly dances that children do in the schoolyard. That platform is inhabited equally by children as it is by adults.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yuan Yang]

The approach of the Conservative party here and in the Lords has been to delay this Bill and any progress made on regulation for far too many months, during which my club has struggled to go on without any independent regulation. I would like to see some reflection from Conservative Front Benchers about what that means not just for Reading, but for many clubs that are waiting for the regulator to come in.

Let Reading be one of the last clubs that have to fight this hard to survive, and let this Bill be the turning point. Let us do what the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has said: let us crack on with this Bill.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I had hoped to come to the House today with a spring in my step, having seen the sale of Morecambe FC go through. Instead, Morecambe FC and our town have been put through hell over the past week or so, and we still cannot see the end of it. More than 10 days ago, the EFL approved a buyer, Panjab Warriors, which is ready and willing to buy. Clearance has been granted, and over 14 months-worth of funds—a significant amount—have already been pumped into the football club by the new buyer.

The current owner, Jason Whittingham—operating as the Bond Group—said he was ready to sell, but instead of getting the deal done, he has, for whatever reason, stalled. He has delayed and given excuses, and he has tried to dismiss the board. In fact, it is only through the good intentions of the local board members, and the responsibility that they feel towards Morecambe, that they returned to try to facilitate the sale. But yet again, Jason stalled, so now the board has gone again.

Panjab Warriors, which has already poured a lot of money into the club, has made it clear that everything is ready from its end, but the sale has still not been completed. Most distressingly, staff and players have not been paid their full wages. I have received emails from constituents who work for the club and who are desperately worried about how they will pay their bills. Our local citizens advice bureau and food bank have had to step in, because that is what we do in Morecambe: we look after our own. Tomorrow, the club is due to pay £40,000 in VAT. Unless the sale goes through, there is no way the club can meet this obligation.

Until now, I have restrained myself from using the full extent of parliamentary privilege in this matter, because my focus has been on getting the sale done. I have held my tongue while the EFL went through its due diligence process, and I have implored Jason Whittingham directly to just get on with the sale. But my restraint has not produced the progress that I had hoped for, so I now feel duty bound to use parliamentary privilege to lay out what I see.

I suspect that Jason Whittingham has built a house of cards, and it is now falling down around his ears. There is mention of further unspecified investors, even at this final stage, and there is a suspicion that the club is being used to leverage his personal financial situation. Morecambe FC is being held hostage, and it breaks my heart. Morecambe FC is the cornerstone of our community, and what is happening in Morecambe shows exactly why this Bill is needed. The likes of Jason Whittingham should never have been allowed to buy a football club.

Last week, the Secretary of State answered a question in this House about the sale, and I thank her and the Minister for Sport for all their support behind the scenes in dealing with this unfolding disaster. This Labour Government have stood by my community and, frankly, I am baffled as to why the Conservatives are opposing this Bill. I know what a football club means to a town such as Morecambe. This Bill is a crucial step to stopping other towns like Morecambe going through this heartache. I urge Members across the House to please support this Bill, and I say to Jason, “Come on, sign the damn paperwork!”

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also associate myself with the tribute from my hon. Friend the Minister after the tragic death of Diogo Jota. My son is a Liverpool fan, and his generation of Liverpool fans regarded him as one of the finest players in the club, so it is very sad news for them.

I rise to speak to my two amendments to the Bill: amendment 12 and the linked new clause 6. I also support new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans).

This is a great Bill that will improve football and the financial stability of clubs, but I want to raise the failings of the great game of football with regard to the financial wellbeing of players. These amendments seek to address ongoing financial grooming and disregard for player welfare in the football industry. I believe this is an historic opportunity to reform football governance in England for the long-term good of clubs, supporters and players. However, to leave out the wellbeing, protection and long-term security of players—the very people who drive the game, whom we see week in and week out, in the stands and on television, and who are the beating heart of football—would be a fundamental mistake.

I have written a letter to the Secretary of State, supported by over a dozen Members of Parliament and 319 current and former professional players, coaches and managers across the game, including many legends of the game. Many of those have been victims of financial grooming and fraud. They have written, alongside me and other Members, to express our strong support for the introduction of an independent football regulator, and to urge that player welfare be included in the regulator’s remit.

The current system is failing too many players. Issues affecting player welfare span financial exploitation and mental health problems to retirement transition and dementia. The support system is fragmented, opaque and often reactive at best. Despite the Professional Footballers’ Association mandate, too many players feel unsupported, unprotected or unheard.

These are not just historic problems; they are happening now. This is not simply a matter of correcting the past. New forms of financial exploitation are appearing today, particularly through digital platforms and sophisticated forms of financial exploitation and grooming. Some of the individuals involved remain active in football, and operate unchecked and outside meaningful oversight. Players, especially younger ones, continue to face avoidable risks, such as predatory financial advice and abuses, post-career mental health problems and financial crises, and in many cases the lifelong consequences of concussion.

This is a rare and timely legislative moment. The Football Governance Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed protections for everyone in the game—not just clubs and investors, but players too. Including player welfare in the regulator’s scope would ensure that minimum standards, transparency and accountability are applied across football. A regulated environment would provide strong co-ordination between the clubs, the premier league, the EFL, the PFA, the FA, the League Managers Association, and other associated organisations, ultimately benefiting all parties. Football must be more than financially sustainable; it must also be ethically sound. That means protecting the health, dignity, welfare and future of the players who give everything to the sport. I urge the Government to ensure that player welfare is not overlooked as this important legislation moves forward.

My amendment 12 seeks to safeguard the current and former players involved in English football who have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud, or who are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud. My new clause 6 seeks to embed measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective. Unfortunately, we see financial abuse and grooming across the sports, music, media and cultural industries; football is not unique. However, this is a unique opportunity for the regulation of football that could lead as an example for other areas.

I want to finish by saying that this is classist abuse of young and budding talent.

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend talks about the class system. It is telling that in other countries that perhaps have less class-based societies, football is recognised as culture. Does he agree that football should be recognised in this country on a par with other cultural opportunities such as the theatre and opera?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

Recently, I was pleased to host a roundtable with many sports clubs from different sports, including football and rugby league. I was delighted to have Kris Radlinski there from Wigan Warriors—the greatest rugby league club in the history of the game—to talk in particular about the mental health crisis facing young men. It is not lost on us as a Government that sport, arts, and all the sectors we are responsible for often play a major role in helping to support people with what is becoming a crisis for young people. I am working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to develop those plans further.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Morecambe football club is in crisis. The current owner is delaying a sale, despite us already having a buyer ready and approved by the English Football League. The staff have only been paid one third of their wages, and the board has been dismissed without proper process. Can the Minister outline how the Government are working to prevent other towns like Morecambe from suffering in this way?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend. She has not just raised this issue in the House; she has raised it with me and with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) as well, and we are determined to support her. I have been through this appalling experience with my own club, Wigan Athletic, and we are determined to make sure that nobody has to go through it ever again. The Under- Secretary of State has been working very hard with Members of this House to pass the Football Governance Bill, to ensure that we rectify this situation and prevent it from happening elsewhere, but in the particular case of my hon. Friend’s club, I am extremely keen to see a sale as soon as possible.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

As I reflect on VE day and the celebration of victory over fascism in Europe, it strikes me that the war effort was one of common endeavour by ordinary people such as my grandad, who was a translator at Bletchley Park, and Richard Brock, who, when I met him last year, was 100 years young. Richard was one of the men who liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.

To sit with someone who had known that horror at first hand truly was a privilege, and it was a privilege to pass on my personal thanks on behalf of a survivor’s family. That is because my friend Krysh had a Polish grandma, and she survived Belsen. After her liberation, she came to Britain and settled here. The rest, as they say, is history. Except it is not just history, is it? It is not something that we can bring out to look at on special occasions and congratulate ourselves on beating fascism before putting it away until the next anniversary. It did not start with the camps, did it? It never does. No, it was more insidious than that.

It was a slow and constant poisoning of minds by people intent only on power. It was a setting up of different groups as scapegoats. It was the use of pseudoscience to back up an ideology of racism and eugenics. It was the use of propaganda to turn people into caricatures and the use of the press to create a narrative of blame. It was the turning of ordinary people on their neighbours. It was taking the propensity of humans to group together and turning that into a sinister tribalism. Why look to the difficult solutions to complex problems when people can simply blame the groups, over there, that they have been taught over many years to hate and fear? In the ’20s and ’30s, it was the Jews, the Gypsies, the gays and the disabled. It was the intellectuals and the trade unionists. It was anyone who challenged that narrative of hate.

So who is it today? Fascism did not start with the camps, and the ideas underpinning fascism are not artefacts of history. I end with the plea that we do not treat fascism and tyranny as an historical artefact, and that we remember that they are a living possibility—even now, even here. The overthrow of fascism is not a bauble to admire once a year. Rather, it is a reminder that we should never let it get that far ever again, that we must be on our guard and that we should never let it flourish.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we are and will always be proud of our club, Morecambe FC. Just one week ago, Morecambe lost a match and, unfortunately, confirmed our relegation. I was gutted, but I know that we will come back fighting, because resilience runs through our town, our fans and our club. In Morecambe, we have the best fans in the country. When we went to Chelsea, we overwhelmed the home fans a little bit. I do not think they were expecting that level of noise, energy and passion from a club that went on to get beaten 5-0.

The truth is that Morecambe FC and its fans have been badly let down by poor ownership, which has damaged our club. Throughout the difficulties, the Shrimps fans’ trust and the board have done an incredible job of holding the club together. They have shown what it really means to care about a club. Despite their efforts, they have been kept at arm’s length while ownership talks drag on, leaving the club stuck in limbo and going from transfer window to transfer window. That is why the Secretary of State and I directly promised Morecambe before the election that we would deliver an independent football regulator. This Bill, which delivers the regulator, will strengthen suitability tests for owners and directors. It will introduce a licensing system to make sure that clubs are run responsibly. It will give fans a proper voice in how their clubs are managed. These are crucial steps to fix English football.

This Bill started in the last Parliament and was brought forward by a Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch. It had cross-party support but, surprisingly, the Conservatives seemed to have spun on a dime. Their leader said that introducing a football regulator would be “a waste of money”, but one only has to look at the wider social, cultural and economic benefits of football to know that this is simply not true. Grassroots football gets people into the game. On matchdays, football brings people to pubs, cafés and shops in the area. Clubs often provide facilities for schools, youth teams and community groups. In my constituency, we have the Morecambe FC Community Foundation, which works with young people, elders, veterans and others. It is a really important local organisation.

Clubs such as Morecambe are part of the fabric of our towns, and part of what gives us our identity. They bring pride, passion and unbeatable matchday traditions, and in Morecambe we bring the best pies to football. Let us back this Bill’s sensible, light-touch regulation, and back clubs and their fans, who mean so much to so many towns.

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. In Morecombe, the Shrimps are an integral part of our community. They bring together people from all backgrounds who share in our love of the Shrimps. The Morecambe FC Community Foundation runs a range of programmes that support education, health, social inclusion and sports participation. I am not the only parent from Morecambe who has had a child come back chattering about the professional footballers who came to help out that day.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because our respective teams are currently propping up the bottom of league two. She mentions the important community work that the Shrimps do, and that is vital. We are fortunate at Carlisle United to have very generous owners who have invested huge amounts of money over the last 18 months, but even I can see that community work can best be guaranteed by having a fairer distribution of revenues.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. In Morecambe, the football club is a community hub that we cannot afford to lose. We have the Shrimps Trust, which is a democratic and representative voice for the fans. The board of Morecambe really want us to survive and thrive and is doing everything it can to make that happen. It is passionate about our success.

The Shrimps have been under a lot of pressure in recent years due to a combination of ownership issues, financial instability and the threat of relegation. My hon. Friends have laid out coherently the challenges with financial flow, ownership and governance, so I will not go through them again. In my first speech in Parliament, I reiterated my promise to the Shrimps to deliver an independent football regulator, a stronger owners and directors test, better fan representation and much better measures on financial sustainability. I only hope that it does not come too late for Morecambe FC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have been very generous with my time and have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so I will make progress.

Too many clubs have faced the precipice. There have been more than 60 instances of administration since 1992. That is simply unacceptable, so in the short time that I have left today I will turn to the detail of our legislation.

The Bill will introduce a new regulator for the game. It is intended to cover the top five levels of the men�s game. There will be strengthened tests for owners and directors. It will make clubs more financially resilient and will put fans back at the heart of their clubs. This is designed to be a light-touch regulator. At a very basic level, owners need to do three things: be an appropriate owner, have a sensible business plan and have proper engagement with fans on key issues. I will take each in turn.

Being an appropriate owner means that club custodians must be suitable; we are protecting fans from irresponsible owners. Having a sensible business plan means that clubs will need clear financial plans, with detail on risk management and resource plans for owners. Having proper engagement with fans on key issues means setting a minimum standard for fan engagement. We are ensuring protections on changes to club crests, home kit and club names and giving fans a voice in the day-to-day running of their club.

Clubs will need a licence to play. They will not be able to join closed-shop breakaway leagues or move around without proper consultation. A football-led solution is always the preferred outcome to financial distribution. In the Bill Committee on the previous Bill, Dame Tracey Crouch rightly said that

�distributions are an issue for football�

but that if no solution is found, it is

�important for backstop powers to be there to intervene���[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2024; c. 234.]

If a football-led solution is not reached, the regulator will be ready to step up, if asked, to facilitate a solution as a last resort. The state of the game report will underpin that, informing the regulator�s work through a broad review of the financial health and economic issues in football at any given time.

As I have stated more than once, the Bill is very similar to its previous iteration, but we have made some moderate changes. Fans will have a greater voice and will be consulted on changes to ticket prices. We have brought more clarity and certainty to the backstop, so all issues relevant to redistribution can be considered. By removing the provision on following Government foreign policy, we are making the regime more independent.

The Bill is a historic piece of legislation that has been developed over several years, including by the previous Government, who recognised the need to regulate. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto said:

�We will introduce laws to ensure our fans never again face the threat of clubs in England joining breakaway closed-shop competitions and giving them more of a voice through the Independent Football Regulator.�

[Lizzi Collinge]

rose�

[James Wild]

rose�