Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, to what problem is this Bill a solution? That should be the first question we ask of every piece of legislation but, not for the first time, I find that I am the only person —so far, at least—who has asked it. Here we are, a revising Chamber conceived as a check on the necessary radicalism of the popularly elected Chamber. It is precisely our job to uphold the principles of proportionality, propriety and property. As my noble friend Lord Goodman said, of course people are going to be angry about individual market failures now, but it is our job to foresee that their anger will be all the stronger when there are worse failures, as assuredly there will be once the entire business is taken into state regulation.

I ask again: to what problem is this a solution? Are we facing national bankruptcy as a result of the terrible failure of football? On the contrary: every speaker so far has acknowledged the success of English football. The Minister called it our greatest cultural export. I understand that not only is the Premier League the most watched in the world but the sixth most watched is the English Football League, and they are the first and second in terms of takings at the gate. So to what problem is this a solution?

There are plenty of things that need reform—we have a Civil Service that has stopped bothering to show up at the office since the pandemic and a healthcare system that is delivering fewer and fewer procedures despite getting bigger and bigger budgets—yet we seem to be going after all the things that work, whether it is the City of London, private schools or now, outstandingly, what everyone agrees is the most successful football league in the world.

What are we going to solve by doing this? The Bill talks about the one notional problem of clubs closing and being allowed to close. The one that everyone keeps mentioning is Bury, but I cannot help noticing that Bury is still there. It is a wonderful example of what Joseph Schumpeter would have called spontaneous order. Without any regulation, that was solved. Can we be certain that, with the full force of coercive law, we would have improved that situation and made it more likely that we would have had the investment to come back?

I used to work at the Sunday Telegraph—in fact I still write a column for it, as did my noble friend Lord Goodman for a while. We had a former colleague there who is now, sadly, deceased, Christopher Booker, who had the wonderful phrase, “using a sledgehammer to miss a nut”. I am afraid that is exactly what I can see this legislation doing. It is not going to succeed in its declared notional goal but, my word, it is going to have a lot of unintended and unforeseen secondary consequences.

Who has ever known a regulator to say, “Actually, our job is done, we’re going to dissolve ourselves”, or even, “Do you know what? We’re probably doing a bit too much. Let’s take a step back”? Has there ever been an example of any regulator that has volunteered to relinquish its power? Once this one gets going, who can say for sure that we will not have gender quotas, net-zero policies, ticket price fixing and any manner of things beyond the remit originally foreseen? That is what regulators do. One more time, what is the terrible crisis that is so severe that it justifies bringing in a measure of this magnitude?

I was very impressed last week during Questions by the responses of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross. Those who were here will remember that there was a debate about boxing and about male-presenting boxers in female boxing rings. Despite a great deal of moralistic fervour in the Chamber, the Minister quite properly stood by the principle that it was not for Governments to tell independent sporting federations what rules they should follow. That has been a pretty good principle in this country.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord will take an intervention, it was actually about two rival bodies with different definitions of what they were, one of which was corrupt.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

None the less, the principle surely applies that these bodies, whether they are for boxing, football or anything else, exist to serve their members, and they have done so extremely well—this is something that sets us apart from a lot of other places in the world—without needing state regulators. It would not occur to somebody setting up a sporting federation now to go to the Government for a licence, and that is in keeping with our common-law traditions, in keeping with the principle of free contract and property and in keeping with the history and temper of this country.

Let us not abandon what should be those core principles that have served us extremely well. Let us defend the freedom of private organisations, which have never asked the Government for a penny in support, to do what they do well. Let us not intervene in something that is working extremely successfully. There is a basic principle that is often attributed to Edmund Burke, and in fact I think you can trace it all the way back to Confucius, but I am going to express it in the words of the third Viscount Falkland, a Civil War royalist who, if he was not exactly the first Tory, may reasonably be said to be the forerunner—let us say the morning star—of Toryism: “If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the first thing that I must do is admit to your Lordships that I am possibly not of your tribe. Of those here, I would lose the least sleep if football disappeared overnight—or at least not very much. However, I am in the minority. I was brought up within earshot of Carrow Road in Norwich and when it was a good day and nothing else much was happening, you could hear the noise coming across.

I know most people identify with a soccer team, and even I still check whether Norwich have done well and wonder what things will be like at home. It does not go further than that—I am a person who thinks that the church might look nice in good light but I do not worship there.

I welcome the Bill, at least in its intentions and approach, because I have covered sport for a long time and am interested in it. For a long time, I have heard about bad managers, bad actors and people taking over clubs. It used to be a property deal: you take over a nice city centre ground somewhere and want to turn it into flats or something else, and you offer the fans a deal that is miles away. The world has moved on and the money is bigger, but that is where I came in on this. There has always been a tradition that football attracts those who are doing deals—and fantasists are in there as well—and who want to take advantage of tradition and structure. If the Bill is about more than a business, we need the regulator. We need something for those people who feel that football and being a supporter of a club is a vitally important part of their lives.

We have a long tradition and a lot of clubs in the English leagues—and in Britain generally, but we are talking about the English leagues here. I recognise the comments that Wales should probably be addressed in Committee. There are five full-time professional leagues. Most countries get away with two—and let us face it, their trophy cabinets are a heck of a lot fuller than England’s most of the time. Look it up. How many times have Spain, Italy and Germany won the European Cup? And let us not talk about the World Cup, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, pointed out earlier with incredible simplicity and directness. We have a lot of these institutions, which people cherish, and that is why we need the regulation.

These are not businesses in the traditional sense of the word but something more. They can be sweated as assets, but they are not businesses as most people would understand them. They are institutions. As they are institutions that are part of our society, I would hope that the regulator will be prepared to act; there is no point in having powers unless you act—a regulator that does not act is basically a waste of paper. We will have to have a regulator that goes in when somebody breaks the rules and bites hard enough to leave a scar. They have to remember that it happened. It may not have to do it very often, but if we have a regulator that does not do it or that holds back, we will have problems. It will become bluster or a threat. We all know that, if you want an enforcement capacity, making sure that something happens is infinitely more successful than a big threat or a reference to “maybe sometime in the future”. We will have to do something along those lines.

If anybody here agrees with me—my noble friend Lord McNally should have been here, and the rest of my colleagues do not seem that inspired by this subject—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thought I would let that one fall.

If we are going to do this, what do we need to do to get out the great social power that this has? I would like to see a little more attention paid to using the great power we have in association football, or soccer—call it what you like—as a positive thread throughout society. If I remember correctly, Clause 1(3)(b) talks about that social power.

Would it not be wonderful if all these clubs that we are giving so much attention to and regulating properly did a little something that steps just outside football? I have a radical suggestion: why not have them run training schemes for people to be treasurers, secretaries and chairmen of voluntary groups and sports clubs—something small like that? That is my starter for 10. This would make sure that these clubs contribute to the society from which they draw their fan base and would make them an even better social asset.

There are many other things that have been suggested to me. For instance, should we be taking on the green agenda, as has been suggested by my own party? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield suggested this also, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who does not seem to be here at the moment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am here.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

She is a moving target— I appreciate that. If we are going through this structure, maybe clubs can be used for other social methods, but only if they are properly regulated.

The fact of the matter is that football—particularly at many of the clubs lower down—has been hanging on by its fingernails, and by tradition. What bank manager would have put up with some of the financial stresses we have heard about recently if they were dealing with anything else? Virtually none. There is something special about football. I hope that the regulator will put it on a firmer foundation.

As to my opinion on whether we should have parachute payments, and whether the arbitration is set to go through, football has had a chance to sort this out for itself. We would not be here if football had got a hold of it, spoken to itself—the various bits—and sorted this out. The previous Government brought a Bill forward only because football did not do those things. Football could have addressed this itself, so it should not blame others for its own inactivity. We have a situation where, as all noble Lords have said, a club going down will have greater costs than a club that is already down. Whether we use parachute payments or something else, that has to be addressed. I look forward to suggestions on that.

We have something here where we are trying to make sure that something fundamental to much of our society survives all the way down in its historical structure. That is what we should be worrying about. Yes, we must make sure that it remains a success—it will be much easier with football generating the money—but that social capital, that investment of faith in this game, is something that I hope all sides will say should be preserved. I look forward to discussions at later stages of the Bill but I hope we remember that we are not talking about a business or casual activity. We are talking about something that touches many people’s lives. I know that, and I am not part of it.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

People ask questions, but I would have thought that those three words, without putting finance before sustainability, could live together. The regulator has to ask “Is this sustainable? Is it successful? Will people work hard and succeed? Will it grow?” The little clubs all have aspirations to get into the Premier League and win the FA Cup. That is what drives them. So, please, we should not just look at the Premier League. Yes, it is important, yes, it is great, but the little clubs do not just want to be sustained—they want to grow, to be successful. So I cannot see why these three words cannot live together without qualification.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when trying to sum up these several hours of debate, I felt at times that we were dancing on the head of a pin. Sustainability —what actually does it mean? What do the Government think it means? That is the one question I would give to the Minister. Does it mean sustaining a successful Premier League? Well, I would hope so. Is sustainability making sure—remember, this Bill encapsulates it—that those five tiers of professional football are functioning? That is what is in this Bill—five tiers of professional football. That is what has allowed the resurrection of teams which got it wrong—there was somewhere to go.

Making sure that that is sustainable means that the fans want something. I hope I never cross the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on this subject because there was a great deal of fire in the belly there; my noble friend Lord Goddard might have got close at times, but I think we will give the noble Lord that one on points. The fans want something and are hugely emotionally and physically invested in this structure. That is what is behind the Bill. Football is not another business; it is not even another sports business. It is not—and may all that is holy be thanked—WWE. It is not something that we will throw away; it is embedded in the identity of much of our society. I say that as a rugby player. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, is my friend—I will say yes to him and “sir” when he is refereeing, but only then.

So it is that that comes through. The question here is about the word “sustainability”. What do the Government envisage it is? Let us get it out here now. Where will this be backed up? Where will it be shown so that we can know what is going on? Pepper v Hart is clearly not enough here. If we can get that, we can move on, but we must remember that we do not want the Premier League to be damaged, because it provides the money for the other good things to happen. That is the balance we must achieve—or at least get close to.

We cannot guarantee that it will be the best league in the world for ever. Will there be government intervention to make sure that it is successful? That would be a strange position for many noble Lords who have spoken.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

The point is that the government regulator should not make it less successful by over- regulating, mission creep and making it so difficult to keep it competitive that it ends up having a detrimental effect.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we come back to semantics, definition and interpretation. How do you interpret success? Is it by lack of regulation or by intervention? I do not think FIFA and UEFA would be terribly happy if it was felt that it was possible for a regulator to interpret success.

I hope that the Minister, who will have better access to this information than anybody else here—at least, I really hope she will—will be able to say what sustainability is, where does it go and what is the Government’s vision? That is what has happened here.

The Bill is about keeping five tiers of professional football functioning, with an escape route when it goes wrong, if we want to be terribly mercenary, for the top clubs. It gives a chance to rebuild and come back. That is difficult—Leeds have done it briefly; the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is smiling at me—but that is what is behind the Bill. It is not just about the Premier League, it is about the whole thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct—or rather, clarify—these points.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a long but I think helpful debate, particularly towards the end when the more conversational changes that Committee allows exposed some fundamental differences, if not in party politics then in political philosophy and outlook. It is very valuable that we start our scrutiny of the Bill by reminding ourselves of the differing views and hopes of not just your Lordships in Committee but the many fans whose hopes ride on the job that the regulator is being asked to do and the way in which it is being asked to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that it felt at times like matters of semantics, but it is important to make sure that the words in the Bill are carefully chosen and that the Government’s intentions behind each of those words are properly probed. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the Government’s intentions for the regulator and the way it will and will not carry out its duties.

I do not want to dwell too long on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton; I do not want to be accused of playing for time, as they do in football. However, I want to reassure her of the spirit in which those of us on these Benches are scrutinising this important Bill. As she said, and as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others said, the Bill has enjoyed cross-party gestation and support. I made that very clear in my comments at Second Reading. It arises from the fan-led review led by the former Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch, which was introduced to another place in the last Parliament. It has been changed by the new Government, as is their right, and we want to make sure that when it gets to the statute book it does so in the right shape and form. My noble friend Lord Moynihan noted that there are 340 amendments already tabled, and more than 100 of them are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I think it is a strength of this House that we will look at each amendment and give it the airing it needs, and that we scrutinise the Bill and read the Bill documents as carefully as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done. I know that your Lordships will not demur from that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, set out clearly and powerfully the case for her Amendment 10, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, particularly in the exchanges with my noble friend Lord Markham. I hope that that helped bring some clarity, both to the argument the noble Baroness was advancing and counterarguments from across the House. The exchange on her amendment chimed with our concern that “sustainability” is too imprecise or insufficient a term to stand on its own. She gave a practical and useful example of the way in which the Bill might expand on how we guarantee the sustainability of football and football clubs. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was seeking a cure for amnesia, understandably. I never had the pleasure of being the Bill Minister for this Bill, but he will remember from our many exchanges when I sat on the other side of the House that I was looking forward to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House. He will also remember that, as a Minister, I had the pleasure of taking a number of Bills through and faced keen scrutiny from him and other Members on the Opposition Front Bench, carrying out, as was their right, the Opposition’s duty to scrutinise government legislation. I hope that he remembers, as he does not suffer from amnesia, that I was always open to ways of improving Bills, including those I took through as a Minister. If he thinks I am being too careful or conscientious in my scrutiny, it is only because I learned from the best.

This is important because, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, the Bill brings about an unprecedented intrusion by the state into a sport and an industry that is a resounding success story. My noble friend extolled the benefits of inertia, and I agree. We want the regulator to be carefully constrained, but we want it to be respected and able to fulfil its duties with authority. That is why it is important that we make sure it is not backward looking, nor that it seeks simply to preserve football as it is today in aspic, but can demonstrate to football clubs and to fans around the world that it shares their aspirations for the future of the game.

My noble friend also struck an almost Schumpeterian note by reminding us that sustainability, particularly in this complex ecology of the football pyramid, has sometimes been delivered through new clubs, new tournaments and new successes emerging from the ashes of previous failures, so sustainability can be delivered in ways that may feel turbulent as we go through them. I thought that was a useful point. We want to ensure that we avoid the unwitting or avoidable failures, such as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, so powerfully set out in the example he gave, and to make sure that the clubs that matter so much to their communities are protected—they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, like just any other business; they have a social purpose, which we have already well considered—but it is the nature of sport that there are winners and losers. We also have to bear that in mind as we look at the regulator and the way it will carry out its work.

We could probably save ourselves a lot of time if we heeded my noble friend Lord Hayward’s referee’s whistle and just accepted his rulings on everything. I am glad that he had gone through the impact assessment so carefully. I agree that there should be more references to success than to Bury, for instance, in the impact assessment and some of the accompanying documents.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, was right to warn about the inadvertent danger of sending the message that a sport loved by 1.5 billion people around the world is not sustainable without a new law, a new regulator or the intervention of politicians. My noble friend Lady Brady pointed out in both her speech and her interventions that sustainability can mean different things to different people and that, as something with no end state, it is very difficult to define. I think that is why we have given it so much attention in our debate on this first group.

The noble Lord, Lord Birt, was very helpful in saying that sustainability is a necessary but not sufficient term. My amendment would strike out the words, not because I disagree with them but because I do not think they are enough. The way he put it was right: the regulator must not stop football developing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made a powerful case for adding the word enjoyment. I enjoyed not only the way he did it but also his powerful reminder of the necessity of government and state intervention in the past in football, particularly in relation to the disasters and terrible incidents that he rightly reminded us of, which we want to avoid happening again.

I was struck by the compromise from the Cross Benches from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and his suggestion of “financial sustainability and success”. I wonder whether the Minister will set out her thoughts on that, as well as on the point that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park made about growth. This is something, after all, that chimes with the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the work of the Government more broadly. We want to ensure that the regulator is a growth-focused one that helps the growth not just of the game but of our economy.

This has been a long debate, but in debates on the Online Safety Act, which I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships’ House, we spent a lot of time talking about having a declaration of purpose at the beginning of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, pressed me hard on it from the Opposition Benches. I remind your Lordships that we made that change and put it in the Bill because I thought it was important for the regulator to be given a clear message from Parliament and in legislation about what its role should be and how it should do it. I was glad to make that change.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, reminded us in his analogy with the BBC of the Reithian principles, which we also inserted into the Media Act—again a Bill that I took through. I was happy to amend it to make sure that that Act also reflected important statements of intent and ways of working. So I make no apology for having invited the Committee to spend some time thinking carefully, as we embark on our scrutiny of the Bill, about the role of the regulator and the message that we send through the Act of Parliament that we pass about the way it should do it.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.

The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.

Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.

In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.

I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.

When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.


In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.

I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.

If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

The noble Lord asked, perfectly sensibly, in relation to my Amendment 12, whether I am expecting the regulator to positively intervene to promote growth. No—my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there. There will be some harm, because additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator, but that has to be as limited as possible.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it depends on whether by harm you mean spending any money on regulation. Yes, making sure that there is any structure of regulation is a harm, but it is a necessary harm, because the Bill is not just about the top guys in the Premier League. It is about the entire structure, five leagues down, and should possibly go even further. It is about making sure that there is something below that, so that if things go wrong in your competitive league—and they will; the big boys will eventually lose, or at least they should—you have the capacity. That is something that we have all embraced, and I hope the regulator allows that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

People who live in Sweden should not be deciding whether Leeds football club moves to somewhere such as Harrogate, Huddersfield or Bradford—or other equally distressing possibilities, at least in theory—because it is set in Leeds. But if they want to have a say on other matters and the club wants to consult on those, there is more potential flexibility. The Bill can achieve that, but we do not want to miss the point of how local economies are impacted by this sport and its importance. The regulator certainly has to take that into consideration.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I hope I might be allowed to say a few words about my amendment in this group, if everybody is okay with that.

I asked for a definition of “fans” because I had a nightmare, and this discussion featured largely in it. A fan is a self-selecting person who has made a commitment. If there is another definition out there, save it, please.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

A financial commitment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

They have made a financial commitment or signed a pledge—I do not know, but they have made a commitment. They have said that they are a part of this and there is no compulsion; they have made a decision. That is why I felt we should have this in the Bill.

Apart from anything else, this is British law we are talking about, and the English leagues. I do not know why we are bothering discussing what people in South Korea or San Francisco are doing, because we can only deal with what is in our own legal framework. If they join a group over here and make a financial or long-term commitment, maybe then they are consulted. But it is here in the UK that you have to make a commitment; it is about the local base. These people are committing to something which is located in a place. That is why I tabled this amendment. My noble friend got to the guts of it when he said that it is an emotional commitment.

We need some guidance on what the Government are going to say. You are not going to keep everybody happy, clearly, but let us at least know why we are unhappy, and we will see what we can do about it at another stage if that is appropriate. That is what my amendment is for, and I hope we can reach that point with all rapidity.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest of a kind as a season ticket holder at Wycombe Wanderers, who are still top of League One, as they were when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore, I would count as a fan under the definition in Amendment 17A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. However, I want to describe a group of people who would not count, as I think it casts some light on our proceedings as to what the regulator might say and the Government’s view.

Last year, a Spanish-language YouTube channel, La Media Inglesa—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly; it is apparently the largest football YouTube channel—wrote to every single EFL club asking why Spaniards should support their club. Wycombe Wanderers were the only club to reply in Spanish. As a consequence, 100 Spanish supporters turned up to see Wycombe play Derby County at Adams Park, then again for a game against Sheffield Wednesday, and then again to Fratton Park for a game against Portsmouth—and so on, and so forth. They greatly enlivened the proceedings by waving their scarves, chanting loudly and showing commitment—to pick up the word just used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—to their team.

The point we are trying to get to the heart of is not exactly who we think is a fan, but what the regulator’s view will be and what the Government believe the regulator’s view might be, given that “fan” is not defined in the Bill. There is obviously common sense in the approach just taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, among others. He suggested that, logically and intuitively, there must be some sort of difference, in respect of interest in the ownership of the ground and the prices of tickets, between fans who live in the broad locality and fans—however committed—who travel to the ground from a great distance away.

That is precisely what we need to hear a view about from the Government Front Bench. What I suspect the Minister will say—knocking the issue back across the Benches—is that these are matters for clubs to decide for themselves. If that is the Government’s view, then the Minister in due course should tell us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not want to get into a fight among Tories, but I want to clarify my position. I disagree with both noble Lords, in some ways. My point is that I want football clubs to focus on football and not to have rows like this. This is precisely the thing I am objecting to: the introduction of at least in some ways contentious political or scientific matters. I simply say that this should not have anything to do with the regulation of football. That is all, and that is the reason I oppose it—not because I am taking a particular view on climate change or net zero.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have the last amendment in the group, which seems to be where my amendments are occurring today. I think we should have somebody at each club who addresses this issue. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this; it is an undeniable thing. You could probably quote one person who has said, “No, it isn’t”, but you cannot list everyone else who says that climate change is real without being here all week. They will then disagree about its extent, but they will not disagree on the fact that it is real.

There should be somebody at each club doing exactly these things to make sure that the business is sustainable, and to address the various problems. If it is just one person, as was suggested, it is simply a question of saying, “Please pay attention: can we raise the issue and see what is going on?” This could be someone who is managing the flood risk; the fact that grounds are being flooded is unarguable. Someone should be saying things such as, “What is the least damaging type of cup?” All of these issues will be important at different levels to different groups, but they are important. If other regulations are coming up to deal with this, you would be an absolute fool not to bring them into your plan.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is probably right on this, and it is nice to see him on the Bill.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I rise to strongly oppose the idea of adding environmental sustainability to the regulator’s remit, as this group of amendments seeks to do. I do so not because this issue is unimportant: of course, it could not be more significant for us all. My objection is both practical and principled, because barely has the ink dried on this revised Bill, and already we are seeing a litany of attempts to extend the regulator’s scope. This, I am afraid, is what many of us who work in football are so worried about. We are the first major country to introduce a government regulator for football, and immediately there is pressure to have it solve every challenge on the spectrum.

Let me remind noble Lords: this Bill already gives enormous power to the regulator. It can decide who can own a football club; how the club can spend its money; how it should organise itself as a business; how it must engage with its supporters; in what circumstances it can move location; the approach it should take to equality, diversity and inclusion; the overall flow of money; and even the continued existence of key competition tools throughout the ecosystem. However, even that does not seem to be enough. Today it is environmental sustainability; tomorrow it will be something else. We already have amendments tabled to mandate specific kinds of corporate social responsibility; to add the women’s game to the IFR’s scope; to meddle with free-to-air listed events; to require regulator consultation on political statements made by clubs; and even to govern football clubs’ relationships with sports betting.

It is a well-known phenomenon that all regulators significantly expand their scope and size over time but, if we start before it has even begun, imagine what this regulator would look like in a decade. Where will it end? I do not expect it to be anywhere positive for our currently world-leading football pyramid.

The Premier League and its clubs, as well as many EFL clubs, are already taking substantial action on environmental issues, as all responsible businesses should do. We already have comprehensive environmental regulations that apply to all businesses, as well as the aggressive targets of a country reaching net zero. In addition to serious and often innovative action to reduce their own carbon footprints, many clubs also campaign and donate substantial resources to environmental campaigns.

Premier League clubs also do a huge amount to help other clubs in this regard. Let me give one example: the Premier League has put in place a brilliant programme to provide grants of up to 70% of the costs associated with installing modern LED floodlights at stadiums across the National League system and women’s football pyramid. This has already helped dozens of community clubs both to lower their running costs and to minimise the impact they have on the environment, but it is fair to point out that Premier League clubs make these sorts of voluntary contributions while facing already unprecedented financial demands. Again, I will give one example.

The Budget increases to employers’ national insurance contributions will cost Premier League clubs an additional £56 million annually. That is an extraordinary new burden—more than £0.25 billion over the rest of this Parliament. This new bill also comes on top of the £1.6 billion in pyramid support that we already provide, as well as our significant investment in youth development and community programmes, and the constant need to maintain expensive infrastructure and build new facilities. The Government want us to spend even more on grass-roots pitches and, through the Bill, they may force us to give even more to the well-funded Football League.

All of this is before Premier League clubs can focus on their most basic and fundamental requirement—of which the Bill takes so little account—to keep their own teams strong and competitive on the pitch. Let us remember that that is what the fans really care about. It is our ability to do that which underpins the overall health and sustainability of English football.

We must not compel this regulator to interfere in areas far beyond its core purpose, adding yet more cost and complexity to what is already a set of implementation challenges. Every additional requirement we add dilutes its focus and risks its effectiveness, so this group of amendments surely cannot adhere to the basic principles of good regulatory design. Effective regulators need clear, focused remits. They need to do specific things very well, not everything poorly. Let us not undermine this regulator’s clarity of purpose before its work even begins.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

14: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment includes the social responsibility duty as part of the definition of English football sustainability.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my name is to amendments in this group which will undoubtedly be accused of a bit of creep from the mission on the Bill. Having said that, what inspired this creep was Clause 1(3)(b), which says that football is sustainable if it

“continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.

There are two issues. The most substantive amendment is Amendment 245 and I apologise for the paving amendment, but it is the way I could get the matter discussed.

Nothing has the reach of football in our society. It is seen as a local totem in which we seem universally to be interested—I speak as a follower of an oval-shaped ball, not a round one, so with a bit of envy—so there is the ability to go forward and make changes. We might hear about the good contributions made by certain clubs. They do things within their own environments that are of benefit to their communities. I thought, “Why don’t we use football as a basis for helping the rest of the voluntary sector?” The voluntary sector tends to be dependent on itself: amateur sport, music and drama and the likes of environmental schemes where people put their hands in their pockets to go out to do things that have a social benefit.

Let us face it: we are taking on a Bill here because football, at least tiers of football, are in a mess, but we think they are important so we want to keep them. I do not think it unreasonable that they should help voluntary groups. In Amendment 245 I suggest that these clubs, which are great institutions with local kudos and power and structure, should undertake the very small duty to train people to run those local groups. Okay, it may not be about football, but it is about the local community. I suggest not that the clubs do it for those groups, but that they train them in how to do it themselves and be the treasurer, secretary or chairman. Noble Lords might disagree with that list, but these things contribute to the whole of society. It will also enhance the position of the football club. Unless it is done in a mean-spirited way, it will be something that reaches out.

Also, it is a fact that all groups like to sit in darkened rooms and talk about themselves to themselves. My amendment would force clubs to look out of that room to somebody else and appreciate that other people will help them. When I said that to the Minister in one of our meetings, she said that football manages to sit in a darkened room and does not talk to most other groups, but we will let that one fall. We can get something that helps groups that help society to run. The difficult bit for an amateur as the treasurer is to be constructive with a balance sheet, or as the secretary to figure out how to run a DBS check: “What am I legally supposed to do with it?” People will say that other groups do this, but nothing has the centralised pull of football. My amendment is a probe. Its wording is very general. This expertise might be pulled together. Sports have governing bodies that will run this, but most other organisations do not have that structure. I just cannot resist the image of the local am-dram group finding itself sitting beside the local rugby union team for the same class. It appeals to me somehow, but they all have the same problems, and they all have the same virtue that they are local, running it for themselves, and they benefit the community. I hope that we have at least some support for this idea and this structure.

The other amendment is about encouraging professional football clubs to get people to play football. It is an odd thing, but it struck me earlier: that is not really what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Government do not want it to be about that, but I would have thought that getting people to play football—getting the benefits of exercising as opposed to just watching—might sit reasonably well with the Bill. Certain clubs might have schemes that do good things, but why do we not bring them together and find out which ones work best? Football does some of this, because it has competitions and gives awards for who runs the best community scheme. I know because I have attended them, and I thank the EFL for doing that. I do not think that making sure that clubs take on some role in the community is unreasonable, as a reward for the amount of time we are putting into make sure this structure is sustainable. There are certain limitations here, and I have accepted that those should be put forward if these ideas are accepted, but we may just be pointing to good practice. I hope we will do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising these important issues around corporate and social responsibility and duties to facilitate training. It has been an interesting debate and I had particular sympathy for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. I will, however, take their amendments in turn.

First, on Amendments 14 and 245 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government acknowledge football clubs’ central importance as community assets and their role in communities. However, this amendment would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and the Government do not believe that social responsibility is an issue where statutory intervention is necessarily justified. We believe that the regulator should be tightly focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures as exposed by the fan-led review. What is more, mandating how clubs should approach community funding could discourage their pre-existing work, crowding out some of the great initiatives already taking place.

On Amendments 90 and 247 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, opportunities for training at amateur and community level and for women are vital. They support the next generation of English football and are crucial in getting more women into football. I speak as someone who was not allowed to play football as a girl in school, so I strongly believe in those opportunities being available. The Government are committed to supporting these opportunities. This is why we are continuing to fund the work of organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation and welcome work already being done by the game itself, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. However, such training opportunities, and the women’s game more broadly, are not within the intended scope of the regulator.

On the regulator’s role in relation to whether it should require clubs to facilitate training for young women and girls, the regulator has a tightly defined scope: to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football. The regulator will also be focused on the men’s game at the outset; women’s youth training is therefore beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training to the future of football and are committed to funding organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation. The football industry also understands its importance, as was noted during the debate, funding numerous initiatives through the Football Foundation and the Premier League Charitable Fund. It is therefore the Government’s belief that the regulator would be an inefficient way to support women’s youth training. Further collaboration with the industry is, in our view, the most effective way to invest in England’s football future.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point about whether we should require the regulator to facilitate amateur and community training and development. That is an appealing proposal, but the regulator has a tightly defined scope in its objective—to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football—therefore training and development in this regard is beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training, as I have highlighted, to the future of football. In our view, collaboration with the industry and funding through the spending review is the most effective way to invest in English football’s future. I am happy to discuss both those points with noble Lords outside the Chamber before our next Committee date. As with the noble Lord’s other amendments, the amendment under discussion would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and into areas in which the Government do not believe that statutory intervention is justified.

On Amendments 151 and 165 in the name of my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, corporate responsibility is an important part of any business, and it is no different for football clubs. However, this addition to the mandatory licence conditions would impose more prescriptive burdens and regulations on clubs. On the content of the proposed condition, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability and the societal impact around clubs to the purpose of this Bill. As I set out, the regulatory scope will focus on issues that football has clearly shown it is unable to address through self-regulation and which would pose a threat to the continued operation of football clubs.

On equality, diversity and inclusion, it is right that football clubs should be more transparent about what action they are taking on this issue. That is why we have included equality, diversity and inclusion in the corporate governance condition, which will mandate clubs to report on what action they are taking on this issue. We expect the regulator to produce guidance on the specifics of what this will entail, in consultation with the industry. We do not think it is right to put such detail on the face of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted player welfare and the duty of care. The Government will discuss player welfare with the leagues, the FA and the PFA to drive action on this issue. We will continue to urge competition organisers to work together to develop a consistent programme of support which allows academy players to access an offering of independent support and advice when required. This is very important.

Many, if not most, clubs already have a positive impact on their local community, a number of examples of which have been provided. We do not believe that the regulator should be attempting to micromanage clubs in this area. However, relevant safeguards are in place in the Bill to stop a club harming the heritage and community of the club.

While I understand and strongly endorse the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, for the reasons I have set out I am unable to accept it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, made that the most positive rejection of an amendment I think I have ever received; I thank her for that commitment. Although I would have preferred it, as my noble friend Lord Goddard put it, to be something that “must” happen, the Premier League saying that they will do this is a pretty good second.

It would be good to arrange a discussion and to say that the outreach work beyond football could go to groups who do not normally think that football has anything to do with them. Some groups already do this, and that is the essence of running voluntary groups. It would be a very big step forward and, if the Premier League are prepared to do it, more power to their elbow.

I understand the idea of focus. I did not mention the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, because I knew she would do a better job herself. I do not think we have quite captured in this Bill the social responsibility inherent in football’s role. We should have another look at this issue, because we may just be encouraging others to do the heavy lifting.

There is something about football. It has a nationwide pattern of facilities which can reach all these local communities. There are very few who would not be reached by football. It does not reach everywhere—some places in the countryside may not be affected by a local club’s activity—but it reaches most people, including virtually all the major population centres.

I hope that we can go away and have a little think about how to give a few more nudges to these positive responses. Having said that, and in thanking all those who took part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I appreciate that with legislation it is always better to have what you want on the face of the Bill. The women’s game needs more attention here, as this is something that deals totally with the top five leagues of the men’s game. It is also true that with a little bit of will, we could amend it. However, we are sitting here thinking about what would be best for the development of women’s football. When the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will give us a better steer on what they regard as that future. It is a growing sport that has outstripped everybody’s idea 20 years ago of where it would be, and we need to discuss what is happening there. My gut instinct is to resist this for the women’s game, but my legislative experience says we should have a definition here.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am scratching my head a bit on this. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that I would like to see the women’s game included. However, I accept that there is a debate to be had around that, so there could be an argument for having that as part of secondary legislation. What I do not understand that there could be a debate about is whether the Premier League or the EFL should be included. I do not understand for one moment why you would not have that on the face of the Bill. I do not think any of us would debate for one second the thought of somehow having all these discussions and not including the Premier League or the EFL.

I will freely admit that I am not very well versed in this, but my understanding is that, if it was mentioned on the face of the Bill, that does something about the hybrid nature of the Bill and would mean there are greater consultations and involvements that we would have to have—maybe some other noble Lords can help me out here—with those bodies that are impacted by the Bill. If that is the case, and if it is absolutely obvious to everyone here that of course the Premier League and the EFL are going to be involved in this, and probably some others as well—maybe the noble Lord can help me with this in a minute—I think there are consequences from not having it on the face of the Bill. That means it is not getting the proper involvement that you would expect, having the Premier League and other impacted bodies such as the EFL as part of this.

Again, all of this is an education for me and I think my noble friend Lord Goodman might be about to stand up to help me on this. But, if not, maybe the Minister could answer that, because it seems so obvious to everyone here that of course it is going to include the Premier League and the EFL. Why would you not have that on the face of the Bill?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

So it is very difficult for clubs to play in another country and get permission from UEFA. For historical reasons, the case of Berwick Rangers will remain. However, I am concerned that the Bill seems, in Clause 2(3) and (4), to be contradictory. It must be set out there that this does not preclude clubs in Wales from being regarded essentially as English clubs—which, to all intents and purposes in terms of playing, they are.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I will make one small and quick point. We talked about this being for fans and the traditions of the game. These accepted historical changes to the structure are something that most people involved in football accept. I hope that when the Minister replies she will accommodate them. If not, a small amendment would be appropriate.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I spoke at Second Reading on issues affecting Welsh clubs and it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments.

The New Saints perhaps offer a different Welsh perspective from those that we already have heard. TNS FC, known for a brief period as “Total Network Solutions” after a sponsorship from a local IT firm, are a Welsh professional football club that play in the Cymru Premier League but is based completely in England—in Oswestry, Shropshire. I declare an interest as that is where I was born. TNS are the most successful club in the Welsh league structure, with 16 league titles to their name. Recently, they became the first side playing in the Welsh system to qualify for the group or league stage of any European competition after reaching the league phase of the UEFA Conference League. They play in the Welsh league because the club was formed in the village of Llansantffraid, on the Welsh side of the border, in 1959, later merging with Oswestry Town, based in Shropshire, in 2003.

TNS FC sit at the pinnacle of Welsh domestic football, while occupying the peculiar position of being a club based in England. Does the Minister not agree that it would be unfair that TNS would be the only club playing in the Welsh top division to be regulated? Would it not create a difficult situation for Welsh football if a club with Welsh roots, playing in the Welsh league but geographically situated in England, had to comply with regulations that other teams in their league would not, perhaps creating a competitive disadvantage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I do not think that it would. It is designed to stop owners disposing of the assets. I will give the noble Lord the example of Brighton, because what happened there is very instructive. Back in the 1990s, it was taken over by some rogue owners —Bellotti, Stanley and Archer. Apart from becoming local hate figures, they sold the stadium before they had anywhere else to locate the football club. Then they tried to blackmail us politicians in Hove Council and Brighton Council—we were not a unitary at the time—into providing them with a completely unsuitable site for relocation, with no planning permission and no business plan at all. That was wrong, and it destroyed that club for a period of time. It has taken us a long time to recover from that. It has taken the support of fans and the good will of good local politicians to rebuild Brighton into the excellent and well-run club that it is today. Now, I would say that, wouldn’t I? But it is the truth, and that was the situation.

This amendment is quite personal to me. I did not go on marches, protest or do what I could as the leader of the council to see that position undermined. I would hope that the noble Lord opposite, as a supporter of Peterborough, would have a similar passion for his club. That is the reason for this amendment. We want to make sure that we provide fans with that security and knowledge and understanding of the importance of that commitment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, if we are talking about influence, it is reasonable that we know what it means. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, this is an example of why we have this Bill. There have been rogue owners, and one of the traditional ways they come in is by looking for a property deal on the site. It is important to remember that as an example of what happens when you get this wrong. We need to balance these two points together. I hope that, when the Minister comes to answer, she will at least start to shed light on how we will seek to do this.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I have talked to quite a number of major new investors in English football and have not found one who opposes the general principle of having a regulator. They are quite relaxed about it, yet they are the major new investors. I think one reason is that, when people invest, they often find some hidden nasties that had not been disclosed about the investment and its finances. That extra element of transparency is not necessarily a discouragement to investors; it can be an encouragement, particularly to reliable, long-term investors.

If you talk to a random selection of football fans, one case that will always quickly crop up is the Glazers buying Manchester United, not with their own money but with leveraged buyouts. I am rather more benign about the Glazers, because their intentions were always very open: they were borrowing money from reliable sources and attempting to make a profit. I would not be too comfortable about that if it were my club, but it cannot be denied that what they did was clear, transparent and out in the open. Anybody who thinks that there are not people today who the fans believe are generous and beneficial owners who have put lots of their own money in, but who have in fact borrowed the money from sources that are not public, are being rather naive, because that is still a model through which people buy football clubs. Football clubs are easy to move money in and out of and speculative investment has proven over the last 20 years, particularly in English football, a reasonable bet and may continue to be so. Indeed, the whole case of the Premier League is that it will continue to be so, so the regulation being proposed is not necessarily an anti-business case.

There is another interesting aspect that does not come to light because we do not know about it. I hear from current and recent professional players about the impact and influence of agents. Are there now agents who are sufficiently powerful in the game, with the corporate entities they have created to own footballers and, more critically, footballers’ rights, that their unseen investment in a club could have an influence in ways that the wider public, including the fans, do not know about? It seems to me, from a fan perspective, that that is a problem for the health of the game. On balance, the good, long-term investor who could make good money —that seems to be a rational motive—will be in favour of this element of transparency and not against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments seem quite reasonable. It would be interesting to see whether conflicts of interest at this level are addressed. I hope the Minister has a nice succinct answer that means we can all go away and move on to the next group. Having said that, I shall sit down and allow her to give it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, again, there is good sense behind the amendments that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have tabled in this group. They address a critical issue about ensuring transparency and fairness in the governance of our beloved game.

Amendment 34 seeks to introduce an objective test to determine whether a proposed director of the new independent football regulator has a conflict of interest. Under the previous framework, the decision was left in the hands of the appointing party, leaving the process vulnerable to subjective interpretations and, potentially, political interference or favouritism, which I am sure we all want to strive to avoid. By introducing an objective test, the amendment would remove that ambiguity and ensure that potential directors are rigorously vetted before they take office. That is an important suggestion that would uphold the values of fairness and accountability in football.

Amendment 35 would take that further by requiring all directors of the independent football regulator to not only undergo this rigorous vetting but publicly declare any potential conflicts of interest. This would be a vital step in increasing transparency and holding accountable those who wield the new powers the Bill brings about. We on these Benches all agree that the integrity of the sport must be upheld through adherence to ethical standards and think that the amendments are an important step in that direction. The chief executive officer of the independent football regulator will be given the task of maintaining a register of these declared interests, ensuring full transparency and accountability in football governance.

Similarly, Amendments 43 and 44 would extend this principle to members of the expert panel, ensuring that they too declare their interests. Again, the independent football regulator’s chief executive will be responsible for maintaining a register of interest for the expert panel, providing an additional layer of transparency. By implementing these measures, we would reinforce the importance of ethical conduct and accountability across the regulator’s board and its expert panel, both of which will be key to the fair and transparent governance of football under the new regulatory regime.

Finally, Amendment 331, which would expand the nature and definition of a conflict to include a situation where the perception of a conflict may arise, also has some merit. Perception is often just as important as reality in maintaining trust. By introducing non-exhaustive examples, the amendment would ensure that we address conflicts of interest in a comprehensive and forward-thinking manner.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for tabling the amendments, which represent a robust and progressive framework for managing conflicts of interest in the governance of the sport. They would introduce clear, objective tests, require declarations of interest and ensure transparency through the form of the public registers, all of which are important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I imagine that this could be a rather tricky area, for the reasons we have just heard. I can see that someone who has great expertise —an ex-international, for example—would be useful on a board and may be asked occasionally to comment, which would not mean a great deal of compensation or money. I am sure the noble Lord does not want to see those sorts of people excluded.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 36 seems to be taking a sledgehammer to a nut. If you have some expertise and you are commentating, you may well be qualified to be in that role. There is a balance to be struck here. The Minister might ask, “What would be an unacceptable position within the media that would exclude you from this role?” If you are a senior executive with Sky, in the current situation, that would exclude you, but what if you happen to be a commentator, say, for a local paper dealing with your own local team, and possibly going on further? Would that exclude you? I would be interested to know if the Minister or the Government have an opinion on this, because there is clearly a balance here, as the noble Lord has just pointed out.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This is exactly why we want to have these sorts of debates in Committee. Funnily enough, I put my name to this amendment. As noble Lords know, when I talk about media interests, I do so as a former director of a pay TV company. I was thinking about media interests less in relation to broadcasting and more that—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will know this—when you are making sports media rights bids, all information is good information. You would then be party to a lot of privileged, and maybe even inside, information.

I agree that there is a balance to be struck, because these are exactly the sort of people you want involved in the regulator as well; but if they have a current role that involves them bidding for media sports rights, that would probably rule them offside—if you will excuse the pun. Again, that is exactly why we bring issues such as this to Committee to discuss.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is grouped with Amendments 41, 46 and 48. This is a pretty straightforward amendment, simply seeking to change in the Bill the word “may” to “must”.

For context, the Bill as it stands says that a non-executive member of the board “may” be removed from office in certain circumstances. That is clearly appropriate and something that we should expect. Similarly, the Bill says that an executive member “may” be removed in certain circumstances. Again, that is something that we should expect and is totally appropriate.

However, the circumstances in which such a removal can take place are actually rather serious. They are laid out quite clearly as being when the person is

“guilty of serious misconduct … has a conflict of interest … has failed to comply with paragraph 6(4)”,

which is about information on conflicts of interest, and

“is unable, unfit or unwilling to carry out their functions”.

I think we would all agree that, whether we are talking about a non-executive or executive member of the board, we need to take such issues seriously.

That is why I ask the Minister why it is only “may” be removed and not “must” be removed, because these circumstances would seem to justify removal. If anybody falls foul of the items identified here, there really has to be a presumption that they will be removed, and so the word “must” might be more appropriate.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the difference between “may” and “must”—or may and shall—is a pretty old parliamentary debate, but the noble Baroness has something here. I read through the amendments and thought, “It’s pretty clear. How could they stay if they’d done these things?” It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. I know that “may” probably means “must” in certain circumstances, but if we could just have it clarified, we might get through this very quickly. It is very worth while having it clarified in this case.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are making, but I am always hesitant to say that something “must” happen. I speak here as someone who spent many years as a personnel/human resources director, acting as the final stage of appeal in disciplinary matters. As the noble Lord implied, I know that there is a debate in legal fields, because nowadays lawyers generally do not like being bound by something that tells them that they “must” act in a certain way.

It does not seem to be appropriate to insert “must”. The noble Baroness said that there would be a presumption—and I think so too. As the noble Lord said, these are very serious offences, but until one is confronted by a set of circumstances, I hesitate to bind anybody to a certain decision. There may be special circumstances where one is found guilty of only one of the categories and circumstances, so I am not convinced that “must” should be inserted in place of “may”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the three amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

On Amendment 45, it is very important that we have Chinese walls around media interests and that we preclude, if possible, any potential conflict of interest. We are not talking about a corner shop; we are talking about very serious big business and huge amounts of money for broadcasting rights. The information that will be contained within this regulator and the expert panel is phenomenally important in terms of its commercial confidentiality. Therefore, it is appropriate to put in the Bill a protocol which precludes the possibility of any interference from those who have a vested interest in media, and particularly in the workings of the expert panel.

We can look at models across the world whereby you have to keep secret from many people confidential information that is market-sensitive and may affect stock and share prices. Some of the information in the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission would fall into that category. This is not quite as lucrative, but it is very big business. Therefore, we need to protect individual clubs that do not have economic heft, and bigger clubs that may be affected by a leak of information or inappropriate use of information from the expert panel.

Amendment 47 strikes a balance on the ability to pay an expert the appropriate amount of money. You want someone who has accumulated knowledge, skills and experience of football on the expert panel, but you do not want to pay them more than, for instance, the Prime Minister is paid. You want to have a set amount, and I think it is appropriate to put it in the Bill, in primary legislation. We know that £91,346 is pretty much two and a half times the average salary. It is a decent amount of money for the services that will be provided by the members of the expert panel.

The amendment I support most strongly is Amendment 49 because, as Judge Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court judge in 1913, said, daylight is the best disinfectant. That was not said by a British historian, as people think, but by a Supreme Court judge. He was absolutely right about this in all the ways government is conducted. This gets the balance right, because there will be Chinese walls between different functions within the independent football regulator. This is light-touch transparency. It would not divulge the intricate proceedings of the expert panel within the IFR, but it would allow people to make a value judgment on how key decisions had been reached and who had made them. There would be accountability and transparency, as you would know not only who was making a case but the reasons why they did not support a decision. It is right that we would not include detailed minutes of the deliberations of the expert panel, because that would not be in the interest of the game and good governance, but it would be important to understand how decisions were made.

If you put that together as a complementary mechanism, with parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the independent football regulator as a whole, it is a very useful amendment for making sure there are key checks and balances. It would make sure that certain clubs are not dominating and certain other clubs are not being pushed out, and that everyone has an opportunity to have empirical evidence, data and proper facts put before the expert panel. Ultimately, the panel will be accountable, first, to the IFR, then to Parliament and then to the wider public, including the fans.

I am not saying that the IFR is exactly the same as the Securities and Exchange Commission, but, for those reasons, I think there is a framework here that can be used to make sure that we deliver a decent and effective IFR—but in a fair and equitable way that is open, transparent and, above all, accountable to the taxpayers and people of this country.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. The middle two of these amendments are effectively a rehash of arguments we have already had—fair enough, so I will not comment on them. But, on the first one —about the numbers on the panel—and Amendment 49, what are the Government’s plans? Do they have any idea what would be a top number, or have they ever given this any consideration? That would be helpful to know—20 would seem to be a reasonable figure.

On the transparency of decision-making, the Government must have some idea, at the very least, about reporting, because it is almost impossible not to have some plan for reporting. If they have a standard or are thinking about one, it would help if we heard it now.

A couple of these amendments are well worth discussing, particularly the one on transparency. But I suspect that the Government have a plan for this—if they do not, they should have—and I look forward to being reassured by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This is another example of the benefit of getting different brains on the committee. I absolutely hope that that would be the case, but it is probably a question for the Minister to answer. It is definitely logical.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will make some brief comments. As I read the Bill, the Secretary of State providing some finance might be necessary, particularly in starting up. One of the things we do not want is an underresourced regulator blundering around making mistakes. A bad regulator is the worst outcome you can have, and that is usually because it lacks resources. When the Minister responds, can she give us some idea about when the power to give extra money would be used? This being done badly would be the worst result.

When the noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about regulation, I am afraid I kept thinking about Fulham and Al Fayed. Are your internal control structures right? Are you doing something wrong? The damage that could be done by bad organisation immediately catches in the back of my throat. The regulation will not be straightforwardly financial; it is also about reporting structures, the care of your workforce, et cetera. Surely that should be covered by the Bill. These are questions about where you draw the line. If we have a regulator, does it regulate the whole thing? I think it has to; it cannot be just financial. If these are socially important structures—this is what we keep coming back to—we have to look at this question.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has a point about the costs involved. I hope that we will get an answer when the Minister responds—at least a rough ballpark figure—because it will clarify what we will do. Those of us who approved the idea of a regulator think that it has to be properly resourced and that it has to cover the whole thing. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more guidance about what will happen and what the Government’s thinking is at this point, because they should have an answer by now.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, my understanding from the Premier League is that the Government’s estimated cost of the regulator is £10 million a year, and the Premier League considers that to be very low. We have heard a lot about how the regulator has been based on banking regulation, but the FCA costs £762 million a year and Ofcom costs £127 million a year.

It is worth noting that there are two critical but unrealistic assumptions in the impact assessment. First, it assumes perfect compliance, and, secondly, it focuses solely on ongoing compliance costs, such as information-gathering and engagement with the regulator and supporters. It does not account for the potential costs associated with, for example, licence conditions enforcement action that may arise through the commitments procedures. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward.

In earlier debates in Committee, I read out what Mark Ives, the general manager of the National League, said:

“We are concerned about the costs … The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern—it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to the clubs”.


He went on to say that many clubs in the National League are run by volunteers. We should give the clubs an idea of what it will cost, so they can work that into the budget. Each club should know whether it will be fully funded and fully staffed, so it can do the right job.

We have heard throughout Committee that the powers will be extended. The more that the powers are extended then the more complicated the Bill will be, the more staff they will need and the more costs there will be. Each club has to pay that cost because it has to have a licence. The way that you discharge the cost of the regulator is to add it to the licence. All 116 clubs, even though they are not listed in the Bill, will need to obtain one of those licences to operate.

Cost is a huge concern. It appears from what has been said that the Premier League would be picking up the majority of that cost. There is a big difference in the Premier League between those at the very top and those at the very bottom; they have very different pressures on their finances. I can only endorse what my noble friend Lord Hayward said and urge the Minister to give us an indication.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with

“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—

in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.

The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.

It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.

The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.

This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.

The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.

This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words now. I remind the Committee that many of the people taking part today do not like regulation. I have heard that—a lot. I have a bad short-term memory because I am dyslexic, and I have got the message very clearly, so can we just leave it there?

The aim of the Bill is to create a sound framework for football. Even if you do not think those at the top are in trouble, everybody is agreed that, periodically, the other bits look as though they are going to collapse and fall away, or will have to be replaced, as well as all the little local dramas going on. That has been going on for decades, and we have all heard it.

We are going to have a regulator. The worst type of regulator is one that stands back and does not intervene until it is too late, and has to go in with a heavy hand. We want a regulator that we know will intervene and, as I put it at Second Reading, bite hard enough to leave a scar; a body that will actually do something and let people know that there will be consequences for not complying with the regulation. That is what the Bill is about—and what it has been about since the first version. I hope that we can progress on the line that we are trying to make the regulator work properly, and that we do not have too much repetition of points that have already been made.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 71. It was criticised from all the other Benches on grounds of fairness. I just want to interrogate slightly what the critics mean when they say that this regulator will make things fairer.

We are famously a fair-minded people—you can always appeal to a Brit’s sense of fair play—but the word can be ambiguous. Does it mean equity, merit or need? Suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and I were to buy a cake together, and he spent £3 on it and I spent £2. What would be the fair distribution? Would it be a 60:40 distribution—in other words, dependent on what we had put in? Would it be 50:50? Would it depend on which of us looked hungrier—in other words, based on need? Sometimes these things are all merged together.

I find that, in politics, the word is a kind of boast; it is used to mean, “Look at me: I am a nice, caring person”. It is a way of signalling your decency: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” When applied to this particular case, we are in danger of entering into a kind of Atlas Shrugged world, where we politicians and state regulators decide what is fair, rather than leaving it to those most involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, says that we want a regulator that can bite and leave scars. I would rather not have the scars. I would rather have our extremely successful football system unscarred. He added that it existed for decades without regulation, which I think tells us something. I accept that we have lost that argument and will get some kind of regulator, but I appeal to the Government, at least on the other amendments in this group.

The Minister, at Second Reading and again at the start of Committee, repeatedly said that she wanted the scope of the regulator to be restricted, and I do not for a second doubt her sincerity. We also have heard lots of people on all sides already trying to extend its scope—not to limit and circumscribe it but quite the opposite. Indeed, if we look down the list of some of these amendments, we see that, even before it has come into law, people are saying that it needs to apply to women’s games, we need regulations on diversity of ticket holders, and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support and to give an example of a similar unintended consequence. This is around the 3 pm kick-off on Saturday games and not allowing those to be televised. Again, that was set up exactly because Premier League games, if they were televised, would impact the attendance of the Championship League and other EFL games, because they knew that people would be watching those games instead. Within that regulatory framework, they had a view on the impact of how that one competition could impact the other competitions.

In a similar way, what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is trying to do is to add, in proposed new paragraph (d), the impact on the women’s game and make sure that it is one of the considerations taken into account. Without it, you could be taking action around the men’s games in the competition that has those unintended consequences—so I support it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is one of those that reflects real life. Anybody who has set up any club of any structure at any point knows that, if you are working between two bodies—I have seen it very much at junior level between rugby and cricket clubs—their interests seem suddenly to contradict each other under a new set of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will have a reassuring answer about the flexibility and ability of the regulator to intervene and try to find a way forward, because this is a real problem that will occur every now and again. It is probably not a structural thing, but “Is the flexibility there?” is a genuine question. I do not think any of us wants one of our regulators to suddenly start having a negative effect.

My Amendment 70 in this group basically says that support should be available for the women’s game. We have already covered this issue at some length, so I will not go much further than to say that we should not exclude giving the women’s game some help, because it is developing and going forward, and it is very important to the foreseeable future of developing elite-level sport in this country. We should address that by having another look and asking what the capacity is.

I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is ready to speak to her amendment. Can we find out what flexibility there is and what the regulator is seen to be doing to handle these not quite down-the-line situations, where there are positive outcomes that we hope would be facilitated by it?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say just a word, because Amendment 72 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is included in this group. We have, to a certain extent, discussed this already, because this reflects on the kind of support that clubs would get were they to seek a licence, get a provisional licence or try to comply with the regulations that will be there. The Minister was very reassuring when we discussed this previously, but I hope that, at some stage during the passage of the Bill through either House, we can get a little more detail on how this may work in practice.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to support my noble friend’s comments and amendment. We have already set out our concerns about UEFA and FIFA’s objections. The Minister has suggested that our concerns are somewhat misplaced. Given the comments that have just been made, our concerns have unfortunately not been allayed. The fundamental issue is that, rightly or wrongly, the letter from UEFA and FIFA was in the papers; we have seen concerns that were raised.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Minister has not been able to fully explain to the Committee exactly what has been said. She said that constructive conversations have happened. That is great news and we are all pleased to hear it but, up to this point, she has not been able to give us any detail to match the concerns that we have seen in this letter. Does she feel able today to give us a bit more detail and some categorical examples of where FIFA and UEFA have said that they are now happy with the Government’s position and happy with the Bill as it is? We could balance that with what we have seen in the papers and the press from the letter, and what we have heard in some—I am sure—well-intentioned comments from the Minister about what has been said, but with nothing tangible to back it up.

Does she have any correspondence with UEFA or FIFA, or any more tangible evidence that she can give us, to help us with the words she has been saying, which, I am sure, reflect conversations she may have had in meetings? This would give us some more tangible evidence that the issues that my noble friend has raised will not come to pass. Until we have that, we will have to return to this and, I am afraid, press the Minister for any more information she can give us.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, could we have the answer tonight as to what the state of play actually is? If we get some assurance that, “Providing we do not do X and Y, which we hope is not the intention of the Bill, we are fine”, then this will get put to bed. If the Minister can see some way of assuring us, even if it had to be on Chatham House terms or something, that would help, because we do not want there to be a problem. If we can get that assurance out there, this issue will go away. Let us face facts: it just would not exist.

We want there to be a competition. Presumably, Europe wants the Premier League there. The reason why we have this Bill is about Europe. It was because of fans protesting that they were going to lose their competition and their traditions to Europe, and politicians saying, “We’ll intervene”, which most people agreed with. If we can get an assurance that there is something solid that means we would have to do something radically different to turn this bad scenario into a living nightmare, that is fine. We cannot guarantee the future; we can deal only with the Bill in front of us. If the Minister can give us those assurances she will have my full support.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, over the weekend, I and colleagues from across the Committee wrote to the Minister and sought to be very specific about the points that have just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Brady. It would be helpful to the Committee—I mentioned this to the Minister this morning too—to put on record the specific concerns that could lead to differences of opinion between the two regulatory frameworks: the regulatory framework we are seeking to put into legislation and the regulatory framework that already exists within UEFA and in FIFA. Indeed, if the answer to all the points that I will raise is that there is no conflict, the Committee will be satisfied and so will I.

I would be grateful if we could have specific clarification on UEFA and FIFA’s position concerning the regulatory powers contained in the legislation. Given the extensive scope of the Bill’s powers and their potential impact on clubs and national teams participating in UEFA or FIFA competitions, I would be grateful if the Government could confirm whether UEFA and FIFA have been consulted on each of the following categories of powers: whether UEFA has specifically approved the proposed regulatory framework, particularly the revenue distribution backstop powers; the licensing framework and powers; the IFR’s independence; the IFR’s accountability mechanisms; the Secretary of State’s broad-ranging powers; the delegated powers; the financial oversight mechanisms; and the interaction between IFR rules and UEFA/FIFA regulations. If there are any areas where UEFA or FIFA has or will, in response to this request, express reservations or express modifications then I would be grateful if the Committee could be informed.

Have the Government commissioned expert legal advice on these issues? How has this impacted on the design of the legislation? How will potential conflicts between UEFA/FIFA regulations and these various powers be resolved, especially regarding revenue distribution arrangements, competition participation rules, financial monitoring requirements, the licensing system, and the extensive rule-making powers granted to the IFR? This clarification is essential for ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory framework and avoiding any potential conflicts with existing football governance structures.

As my noble friend mentioned, as reported in the press, in a letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State, UEFA warned against “government interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference to

“guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”.

The Bill, however, gives the regulator and the Government the following powers over football in England. I would very much welcome confirmation from the Government, not today but in due course, that in the meeting the Minister of Sport had with UEFA— referred to by the Minister on an earlier Committee day—the Minister brought these powers to the attention of UEFA and it confirmed that they do not amount to “government interference”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real.

UEFA says that it is concerned and that:

“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.


My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now.

Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to clarify my position. I did not want an absolute yes; I wanted a probable yes in the most civilised world. Going forward, that is what I was looking for, because we cannot let UEFA dictate our sovereign law to us, can we?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brady for her Amendment 67A and for the passion and clarity with which she set out her reasons for it; I am also grateful for her undoubted expertise in this area, as in so many others that we are examining in this Committee. This is a very important point, as my noble friend Lord Markham echoed. A number of clubs enter teams in international competitions, and these international competitions have their own requirements and rules by which the clubs who take part in them have to abide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. Your Lordships may expect a former TUC leader to advocate the principle of workforce engagement and consultation, but it was over a decade ago that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his report No Stone Unturned, talked about the value of what he called “shop-floor wisdom”.

It is not just a case of fair access. In my experience, there have been many positive examples of where shop-floor wisdom has made for much better decision-making. The workforce and their representatives are what I would describe as the canaries in the mine. They can see when organisations are heading for trouble from the inside, they have good ideas about how to make industries stable, sustainable and fair, and their ideas deserve to be heard. Nowhere is that more relevant than in football. When club owners and managers tell the regulator a particular story, players and their representatives can provide a crucial quality check.

They may agree with the owners; they may not. But the new regulator would benefit from hearing the workforce perspective. I have heard a lot about finances in this debate. I offer just a gentle reminder that, if you were to ask any fan, they would say that true wealth is created on the pitch. Like Labour and, indeed, across this House, the PFA proudly believes in the unifying power of football in society, and it is a guardian of those values. Players must have a right to a voice: a right, enshrined in law, to be consulted on equal terms.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have had my name down as a supporting figure on three occasions. I just cannot resist, with this talk of “should” and “must”. It does sound awfully like “may” and “shall”, which is something steady to go back to. My question for the Minister is: is there any difference legally between the two words? If there is not—in certain circumstances, there is not—can we just hear that?

On the amendments, I start with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I supported. Yes, you should consult your players. They are your primary asset; they are what the fans come to watch. It would seem sensible; that is why I am in support. I realise that I might be backing two horses in the same race by putting my name to these two amendments, but the fact is that various fan groups need some interaction with the regulator. How that is done is incredibly important.

To return to the players, without them you have no product. You have no financial resource; you have nothing to come behind. Not consulting them is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Many people will tell me that they are overpaid namby-pambies or whatever. I do not agree, but people will tell you that. The fact is that every time you run around as a professional athlete, you are risking your career, or risking it being shortened. Every time you are told to play that extra game when you are not quite ready for it yet, or you are a little bit tired, you are risking your career and your professional value. You may be playing injured, for instance. We should hear from this group. They have short, often very productive careers.

Often, though, they do not. What we tend to do in this debate is think about the Premiership, but we are talking about the entire structure, going down. Many people are just making a living—sometimes a good living—for a short period of time. We must make sure that they are consulted as well. The entire structure going down is something that we are in danger of forgetting repeatedly in this Bill. So I hope that the Minister will give us some clarification here. Players must be consulted and there must be a way of talking to the fans. Is this just another one of the hardy perennials of Parliament going down the “may” or “shall” route? Does the wording change in the lead amendment make any difference?

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I wholeheartedly agree that footballers are at the heart of football. Without them, we certainly could not achieve anything at all. The relationship with players is absolutely vital to football clubs. West Ham was one of the very few clubs during the pandemic where I and my footballers took a 30% pay cut to ensure that all other staff were paid in full and that nobody lost their job; that is part of the spirit and it is why footballers really must be consulted.

I also support Amendment 86, which would introduce vital principles to guide the regulator’s approach. These principles reflect a sophisticated understanding of how football actually works and what makes it successful. The existing principles in Clause 8 of the Bill appear largely defensive and process focused. In essence, they tell us that the regulator should use resources efficiently, co-operate with stakeholders and act proportionately. With respect, I would argue that these are descriptions of basic administrative competence, not meaningful regulatory philosophy. No one would argue for inefficiency or disproportionality, and that is really the test of whether these are real, consequential principles.

More concerning is what these principles admit. They say nothing about preserving what makes English football successful; nothing about maintaining the competitive tension that drives our game’s appeal; and nothing about enabling the responsible ambition that has created the world’s most watched sporting competition.

Let me begin with the fundamental point that I believe is captured by this excellent amendment: the need for clearly identified harm and least-intrusive measures. Football thrives on calculated risk taking and sporting ambition. A regulator consistently intervening without clear necessity will suffocate the very qualities that make our game exciting. This is not about weakening regulation; it is about making it effective.

Consider how successful football regulation actually works. The Premier League has developed sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining financial sustainability while preserving competitive tension. When issues arise, they are typically best addressed through existing structures that understand football’s unique dynamics. This amendment would ensure that the regulator works with those proven systems rather than creating unnecessary parallel requirements.

The principles around competitive tension and ambitious ownership are particularly crucial. The Premier League’s success rests on maintaining genuine competition, where any club can succeed through good management and investment. Aspiration can happen because clubs are empowered and incentivised to take measured risks in pursuit of sporting achievement. The amendments focus on commercial autonomy and innovation, reflecting another vital truth: football’s success comes from constant evolution. The Premier League leads the world precisely because it enables responsible innovation in everything from broadcasting arrangements to community engagement. Overly prescriptive regulation risks spoiling this competitive advantage that we have developed.

Most importantly, these principles would ensure that the regulator maintains proper focus by requiring clear evidence of harm and demonstration that the existing structures cannot address issues. We would avoid unnecessary intervention while maintaining proper oversight. This would help us enhance, rather than inhibit, what makes English football successful.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

91: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Televising of football matches of national interest(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert—“(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally tabled two amendments about making sure that terrestrial television carries football matches.

When we talk about the quality of football that makes the nation treasure it, access is an important factor. We have had many arguments about what should be covered by free-to-air services. What should be on there? The “crown jewel” events. We are talking about something that we have had for a long time, because there are certain events that will not be hidden behind a pay wall. Seeing one or two of these primary gems makes sure that you have a better connection with the rest of the game. I hope that we will make sure that we continue to get them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving the amendment at the start of the debate on this group. Amendments 91 and 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raise an important issue that I welcome the opportunity to discuss.

The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. From the start, there have been strong voices from a number of areas that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for the football authorities and other bodies to take the lead. I am sure the noble Lords will agree that the bar for statutory intervention in any market should be high, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although with different words. That is why we have ensured that the regulator’s remit is focused solely on tackling the specific market failures that carry a risk of significant harm to fans and communities but which we believe the industry cannot solve through self-regulation.

I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to see more matches free to air and understand the frustration of fans who do not always have access to watch their team. I have particular sympathy for the point made by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie about the access of young people to sport. However, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on which free-to-air football matches are broadcast and to have to take into account the desirability of promoting more football matches becoming listed events. This widened remit of considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would prove a distraction from the key responsibility of the regulator to ensure the financial sustainability of football clubs and would widen the scope of the Bill.

Turning to Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I was slightly surprised that the Opposition were so keen to debate this amendment now given that it is contingent on Amendment 263, which we will come to later in Committee. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I will respond.

As we face a changing media landscape, we must account for alternative forms of content and ensure the scope of the backstop is not restricted only to television broadcasting rights. This amendment intends to ensure that it is clear that a wide variety of content is in scope of the definition of “relevant revenue”. However, the existing drafting of the Bill has already been chosen carefully to ensure that we encapsulate alternative media sources. The current definition of “relevant revenue” already covers all sales or acquisitions of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches, which would apply to revenue produced by online content as well if that online content used footage from broadcast matches. Therefore, the concern underlying the amendment is suitably addressed by the current drafting of the Bill. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope that they will not be pressed.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, that was not the most positive response I have had to an amendment, but it was worth raising the idea of the listed events and certain things being culturally important. I will take away what the Minister has said and look at it, but it is about the principle that certain things are a little more important and reflect well on the actual product. It can be regarded as a little bit of advertising for those people who are taking some money.

If we cast across to other sports, I hope that people will bear in mind the experience of England Rugby. At one point, it was selling its home games, which meant that fans saw England only when they were away—that was the situation a number of years ago. There is a certain point beyond which you are cutting off people and interest, and possibly the expansion of the rest of your market. Yes, things hide behind paywalls if you have not got the money to pay for it or, as often happens in the modern broadcast world, you discover you bought the wrong bit. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I reserve my position about looking at it again.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, there are quite a lot of amendments in this group, so I should say at the outset that I am trying to get assurances from the Minister on two specific points. They relate to the “state of the game” report, on which I know a lot of work has already been done.

The first assurance is that the report will be as comprehensive as possible. My colleagues and I have listed a number of items that should be included. Some are issues that we have already discussed. Some are very significant, such as community, social impact, how well managed clubs are, an assessment of the distribution arrangements, issues around women’s football, multi-club ownership, player welfare, equalities and social inclusion. All those things should be encompassed by the “state of the game” report, and, without going into any one of them at this stage, I hope we can agree that this report should be as comprehensive as possible. It is important that the regulator has independent and substantial information on which to make judgments. That is the first point that I raise with the Minister and on which I seek her assurances.

My second point concerns the timing of the report. As I said, I know that a lot of work has gone on to prepare for the report. The Bill suggests that it should be out as soon as possible, but gives an 18-month deadline. One amendment in this group seeks to reduce that to 12 months. Given the amount of attention on the Bill, that it has been in the pipeline for so long and that people are aware of these issues, a 12-month timescale should be appropriate. I hope the Minister agrees that the report should be published as soon as possible.

There is also the question of how often we should have this report. The Bill suggests five years and my amendment suggests three. It suggests that the report should be presented to Parliament. This is not a controversial area, but some reassurances would be beneficial, so that everybody is clear where we are going forward.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the “state of the game” report is one of those things that has been almost universally welcomed. It will look at this very big and complex industry, with a very successful top and struggling foundations—that is how the industry appears to many people.

My name appears on this amendment alongside that of the noble Baroness because of things such as social impact. We are doing this because it is reckoned to be an important subject that matters a lot to people, and we keep being told that it is a big business—the biggest invisible earner going. If we get a report that is too narrow, we will not be looking at this huge social impact and what goes on.

Many of the things that we are talking about here are out of scope of the main operation of the Bill, but they should be looked at somewhere. The women’s game is one that comes to mind, along with players, which these amendments propose would feature here. If we are not going to look at such things in the Bill, we should look at them in the “state of the game” report.

It is a huge subject that we are talking about here; we have taken on something that is quite brave. If we do not find out how it is functioning and what is going on, we will be missing a trick. I would hope that we would do this as soon as we can—having slightly more frequent reports, at least at the beginning, would not be a bad idea. The “state of the game” report is a huge opportunity for gathering a great deal of very useful information.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I support many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has raised under Amendment 94. I see that the Chief Whip is in his place; he will be pleased to note that nine of the amendments that we are considering now came from the Labour Benches, and that we have reached page 6 of the Bill.

The noble Baroness made the important point that Parliament should receive and debate the “state of the game” report. I am perfectly happy for the regulator, if we are going to have one, to present the report. However, in presenting the report, full attention needs to be paid to factors relating to the community and social impacts of regulated clubs and the women’s game. It is impossible when looking at this overall—and the Bill says that:

“A state of the game report must include … an overview of the main issues that the IFR considers to be affecting English football”,


—not to consider the development in the women’s game. It is a central part of English football, as cited in the Bill.

There is one other area at which we need to look at a later stage, on which I have no intention of detaining the Committee this evening. The regulator is looking at English football clubs and the game in England, but 14 Premier League clubs are in multi-club ownership, which stretches far beyond our shores. That is much more than in any other league in Europe. That has significant impacts on the financial regulation of the game. It provides greater bargaining power in commercial contracts and increases significantly the brand reach of those clubs, while allowing for the pooling of resources. There is flexibility with player transfers and loans. Certainly, within the English game, there is prohibition control over the management of more than one club, and UEFA states that you cannot have one controller covering two or more clubs in the same European competition. All these are actually central financial issues, and they have to be considered in any assessment of the health of the game in England.

I am concerned—I hope the Minister can respond and help me with this—that, if the regulator is prohibited from looking at the impact of multi-club ownership, there is a huge amount of important material when it comes to understanding the financial health of the game in England that would be outside the remit of the regulator. If I am wrong on that, no doubt the Minister will say that the regulator is absolutely entitled to look at each and every aspect of the multi-club ownership that takes place, principally in the Premier League. I will not detain the Committee by going further, but I simply table the fact that I think it is an essential and central point in any state of the game report and of the work of the regulator moving forward, and I would appreciate any clarity that the Minister can throw on that this evening.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too hope very much that the Minister and the department will look favourably on these amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans. They seem to be absolutely essential for reasons of efficacy and to give confidence to those who will be regulated that they and others will be properly consulted. I would be very surprised to be told that the regulator would not intend to do so. If that is right, it is surely essential, as in other legislation, that this is put in the Bill so that there is no doubt about it and so that the confidence that is absolutely essential is promoted.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment about the bodies that will be regulated has a fair bit of common sense behind it. I am sure the Government will have done great work on consultation and making sure there is communication between the bodies that will be being regulated and the new regulator. If the Minister can tell us how this is being done, some of my worries will be removed. Also, stating where that information will be provided would very much help. If not, it has to be in the Bill somewhere.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and say a little about the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Moynihan.

The amendments relate to the guidance the new independent regulator will be required to publish. My noble friend Lady Brady and I agree that the Bill, as drafted, should be strengthened to ensure that the regulated clubs have the information they need to meet the requirements of the new regulator.

My Amendment 116 would require the independent football regulator to issue a code of practice for competition organisers and licensed clubs. The regulator would be required to consult the FA, each competition organiser and each club in preparing this code. The overriding point of all the amendments in this group, I think, is to support clubs and competition organisers in complying with the requirements of the new regulator. We cannot expect the regulator to be effective unless it is doing its work in a clear way. These amendments would help to deliver that clarity.

I will not speak at length on this point as it is a simple one. We seek clarity from the Government more than anything else. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance today that the regulator will produce a code of practice for regulated clubs and competitions? Might there be a way of publishing a draft code of practice while the Bill is being considered? That was certainly very helpful when we looked at the new regulatory regime brought in through the Online Safety Act, although I appreciate that, in that case, Ofcom had more of a head start than the shadow regulator does here—but it would be helpful if that were feasible.

My Amendment 117 delivers much the same result as the sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brady. Again, we want to give clubs and competition organisers a fuller picture of the independent football regulator’s plans for the future, so they can prepare for the impact it will have on the game. Again, I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment and the point that lies behind it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for putting forward these amendments.

On Amendments 112, 113, 114, 115 and 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, we clearly agree that producing guidance will be a really important part of the regulator’s work. It will help to clarify the practicalities of the legislation and ensure that clubs’ owners and competition organisers know what is expected of them and what to expect from the regulator. However, while I recognise the intent of the approach proposed, I disagree to some extent with the approach to guidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has suggested we take. Amendments 112, 113, 115 and 117 would require the regulator to produce guidance on all aspects of its functions. This is likely to be a disproportionate and needlessly burdensome requirement that would likely end up being more unhelpful than helpful.

There is little benefit in issuing guidance on issues that are self-explanatory or that do not have a direct impact on the industry. I will endeavour to find some examples of that type of guidance to meet some of the queries from noble Lords—for example, on every one of the regulator’s operational or administrative functions, excessive guidance would make it harder and more burdensome for clubs to understand and comply with the system, not easier, and National League clubs would potentially struggle to sift through reams of guidance to get to what was relevant to them. We expect that the regulator will publish guidance on all relevant parts of its regime, as appropriate. It is in everyone’s interests to maximise the industry’s understanding and compliance.

On Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the regulator is already required to publish guidance on how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. We believe that this requirement is sufficient, and it will be for the regulator to determine what that guidance should look like and how best to aid the industry without unduly burdening it.

I turn to Amendments 116 and 118, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 116 would require the regulator to prepare and issue a code of practice for all competition organisers and licensed clubs. We do not believe that a code of practice for all clubs would allow for a proportionate, tailored approach to regulation, where what is required of a club should vary depending on the club’s specific circumstances. The regulator’s current approach of bespoke regulation will address the unique challenges and risks faced by clubs better than a list of one-size-fits-all recommended measures, and its guidance, as per Clause 12, should already help clubs to understand what is required of them and to comply.

On the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on Amendment 118, the regulator is already required to consult such persons it considers appropriate when publishing guidance. We strongly expect that this will include the FA, competition organisers and regulated clubs, since those persons will all be directly relevant to and affected by that guidance. However, we have not taken the approach in this Bill of listing every person the regulator should consult for every piece of guidance issued. To do so would, in our view, be counter to the operationally independent and agile regulator that we are trying to establish.

There may be times when different levels of consultation are necessary, or with different stakeholders. The regulator is best placed to draw the line between comprehensive consultation and needless bureaucracy, and to ensure that the correct groups are consulted on a case-by-case basis. On the specific consultation requirements in the Bill, including on guidance, the regulator has a regulatory principle that it should co-operate and proactively and constructively engage with clubs, owners, officers and competition organisers. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, some confidence around the collaborative points she raised. This amendment would require the regulator to consult on minor revisions to guidance, needlessly creating an administrative burden for the regulator and those consulted.

Finally, Amendment 119, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 119A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to the Secretary of State guidance in Clause 13. Amendment 119 seeks to extend the period that the Secretary of State cannot amend guidance on the regulator’s functions from three to five years. While the regulator must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, as an operationally independent body it will not be obliged to follow it. The industry and fans alike have been clear that they do not want to see excessive ongoing government involvement in football. That is why the Secretary of State may not revise this guidance any more frequently than every three years. The Secretary of State must consult both the regulator and anyone else they consider appropriate before publishing or revising any guidance, and must lay the guidance before Parliament. While I appreciate the concerns of undue influence, extending this to five years, when there may be an issue that needs clarificatory guidance before then, would be sub-optimal.

On Amendment 119A, I agree that the regulator should be independent and free from government influence. I do not have the level of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, requested. However, I am confident that appointments will be made on merit. I will write to him with additional detail following the debate. Secretary of State guidance on this point would be unnecessary. The employees of the regulator will already be independent from the Government, like other regulators in the country. Independence has been at the heart of the regulator’s design, with it having sole discretion over its operational decisions. The aims of this amendment are therefore already achieved by the Bill’s current drafting.

I have noted the points from across the Committee on the amendments in this group and I am happy to discuss these further ahead of Report. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I take it that we have a consensus that there should be some way to find out what the regulation is and the reactions to it. Will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be published somewhere we can find it? That is the real point.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify whether he means once the regulator is up and running. I assume so. It would be very unusual for that to not be the case, but I will confirm that and get back to him, I hope, in the course of the evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a concern with the whole of this part of the Bill and the way in which operating licences will be required and the adjudication made upon them. This part of the Bill is nine very dense pages of text, backed by three or four schedules. At various stages, it includes such dark phrases as:

“An application must be accompanied by … such other information and documents as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.


I used to be a lawyer, a long time ago, and I am reasonably accustomed to reading Bills and Acts, but when I start to read through this part of the Bill I can feel my lifeblood draining away. What of the owner or board of a small club looking at what will be required of them?

I noted that in the Minister’s winding up of the last debate she said that well-run clubs have nothing to worry about, which was meant to be reassuring. It does not matter how well-run a club is; it will have to comply with all this, and it will have to set itself up with lawyers, consultants and accountants to draw up a strategic business plan. A lot of clubs will not have a strategic business plan. That does not mean that they are badly run, but they will have to prepare such a plan. A strategic business plan is a document containing the proposed operation of a club: its estimated costs, how those costs are to be funded, the source of such funding and other information as may be specified by the IFR. That does not get done spontaneously or arise automatically.

The reality is that this is a very demanding regime intended to be put into law and enforced by the new regulator. I wonder whether there has been sufficient consideration given to putting in place a halfway-house system of regulation. Think about how companies are regulated: it is a requirement that, if you set up a limited company, designed to limit the personal liability of owners of the company, it is registered with Companies House. By law, certain listings are required and a certain amount of information has to be made public, including the filing of accounts. However, you do not have to get consent from a regulator to set up a company; you just have to register that it is in existence and subject to the laws that apply to it.

As we know, the state of football is pretty strong, stable, vigorous and successful compared with football in other, similar jurisdictions to ours. Have we given sufficient consideration to whether it might be good to take time, before we require small clubs up and down the country—which are not necessarily finding it easy to get through from week to week, month to month and year to year—to submit to this horrendous set of requirements just to get a licence to get on to the field of play in the first place, before they even set about winning a match, to go back to the drawing board and construct a regime that would require clubs to register in the same way that a company is registered, subject to rules and requirements for disclosure and transparency, and to changes being registered. That would reduce hugely the burden on clubs and would start to introduce the kind of consistency which, for reasons that I totally understand, is being sought.

I oppose the whole of Part 3 and its accompanying schedules—I am not even going to think about the plethora of regulations, guidance and further verbiage that will come out of it—standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient for me to say a few words on this. Primarily, I am drawn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for the reasons he gave. We have heard that this is a wonderful, successful league. Bits of it are but, unfortunately, those are the bits at the top. Most of the cultural capital, I am afraid, is in the less glamorous clubs with less successful balance sheets.

We have a situation where we want to maintain the whole of the football structure: five leagues. This has proven to have—let us say—attracted financial irregularity; I think it was described as “chancers and fantasists”. We have to do something to stop this or we will start to have more disasters that mean something to the fan base.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, starts to address this. I hope that the Government are far more in tune with that amendment than with some of the others in this group.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 128. We are getting to the crux of what this regulator should be about: making sure that there are sensible financial decisions, and that risks are mitigated so that they do not jeopardise clubs’ futures.

Clubs in the EFL are expected to lose around £450 million this season and are reliant on owners to fund the shortfall. If this funding is not forthcoming, it can lead to financial trauma. Only 66 of the 92 clubs that filed accounts for the 2021-22 season included data on wages and cash reserves. Nottingham Forest spent £58,606,000 on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves—five hours’ worth of reserves. Surely that cannot be acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to his Amendments 125 and 135. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to him and to the Minister what may be more palatable than what his amendments suggest. Amendment 125 is rightly concerned that the rules for a provisional operating licence should be made speedily. Everybody must know what the rules are. The amendment would require that these rules be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day that this Act is passed. If the noble Lord is going to bring the amendment back on Report, I respectfully suggest that it would be more acceptable to say within one month from the date when the Act is brought into effect. The noble Lord will know that under Clause 99(1) and (2), Part 3—with which we are concerned—comes into effect not when the Act is passed but at a later date when regulations are made.

In relation to Amendment 135, the noble Lord is rightly concerned that the IFR should make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence speedily. He lays down a period of one month from when the application is made. The amendment would allow for an extension of only two weeks. It is an absolute rule, subject to a two-week extension period. I respectfully suggest that that is far too confined. It is normal in a provision of this sort to allow for the period to be extended if there are exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to envisage cases where, rightly, the IFR cannot take the decision within a period of one month plus two weeks.

For example, the IFR might reasonably take the view that it needs answers from the club to questions of detail, which it puts to the club, and the club may not provide those answers, or be able to provide them, within the period of six weeks for which the noble Lord’s amendment allows. I understand and I share the concerns at the root of Amendment 135, but it really needs to have an exceptional circumstances provision.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, looking at these amendments, I think that a little bit of agreement is breaking out that certainty and getting things done quickly are required in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have made drafting suggestions on the hoof, and we are lucky to have him to fulfil that function for us, but something that clarifies and addresses the issues raised here would probably be helpful. If there is something that we have all missed and it is hiding somewhere, that is great, but we need those answers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group, and I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has suggested in relation to Amendment 125. We are grateful to him. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that we are seeking to make sure that we get the right balance with this group of amendments. We are keen to close the unfortunate gap that the Bill currently poses, which is that, if it passes without amendment, nobody will know what rules the regulator might yet specify or the period in which it might specify them. We need a bit more clarity for those preparing to be regulated and wanting to do so in this way would be useful. With gratitude to the noble Lords who have done the work of the Committee and suggested ways in which to improve on this ahead of Report, I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, regarding Amendments 150, 152 and 164, I will not repeat what has already been said about community assets. I will speak just to my Amendment 248A, which probably counts as a miscellaneous amendment. It is a probing amendment, strong concerns having been raised by the Supporters Trust at Reading. It seeks to insert a new clause, after Clause 51, on ticket pricing, meaning that regulated clubs would have to adhere to the following rules: dynamic pricing strategies being prohibited, concessionary tickets being mandatory and ticket prices for away fans being kept at the level set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. It is a simple amendment, but I suspect that it will not be universally supported.

I understand why clubs want to use dynamic pricing and how it can be used very successfully, but this amendment seeks a more fan-inclusive approach. The Supporters Trust at Reading quoted the Early Day Motion tabled in September 2024, when 19 of the 20 2024-25 Premier League clubs increased their ticket pricing. Abolishing or reducing concessionary tickets would be very bad news for older or younger fans who felt the effects of the cost of living crisis harder than most. Also, Fair Game has said that the constant rise in ticket prices has priced long-standing fans out of the game and that there should be proper consultation with supporters to address their concerns.

I do not seek to open the debate on what a fan is, but this amendment is about giving consideration to how fans can be engaged in discussions about ticket pricing. I am expecting many noble Lords to tell me that this is too interventionist and that it will limit clubs too much, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, going through this long list of amendments, I think that we can all agree that “miscellaneous” is a good description of this group. On what is a competition, I added my name to one of the amendments, but probably should have added my name to the one about heritage. Is it a ground part of the heritage, is it part of the structure, is it what is going on? I should have put my name to this and look forward to the Minister’s reply. If we do not include this, we are missing an important part of why this Bill is justifiable.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, although not necessarily the wording of it or the outcome. It is related to something that the noble Baroness and I have worked on for a long time and which is covered in my miscellaneous Amendment 258A. It binds the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and me to the same cause. There is still a major problem of abuse in the ticket market for football, not least for membership cards. Last season alone, in February one club had to cancel more than 30,000 membership cards. They were all in the hands of the touts. This is a massive problem now.

When we started to campaign to sort out the secondary ticket market, it was much smaller. Fifteen years ago there were some 120 professional touts. Now there are subscription groups which get together using bots to get hold of tickets, place those tickets on the secondary market and sell them illegally. Viagogo is, regrettably, used as a speculator—a ticketing lobby. From that, those tickets are sold abroad illegally with, quite often, information hidden behind the icons. This goes against the terms and conditions set by the clubs, which do a huge amount of work across football to make sure, especially at sold-out matches, that tickets do not get into the wrong hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Addington.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

It is nice to have a little fan club.

My amendment may be making the ultimate pedant’s point, but the Bill says that a relevant thing that cannot be interfered with is the name of a team operated by a club. My amendment refers to the name of the club itself. Is my point covered by this? I do not know. If it is, tell me where and I will be terribly happy.

The main point is that we will be still talking about who a fan is this time next year unless the Government make a decision and come up with something solid. It affects how the regulator operates and who they exclude. The Government may well have to decide who they are going to offend, but please let us do it, because otherwise fan involvement will mean nothing.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I would like to make a short point, but it is an important one that has barely got a mention. Football clubs have a very strong interest in consulting their fans. The fans are their customers. The truth is that, if you look across the gamut of clubs all the way down the pyramid, the composition of those fan bases will be very different. Broadly speaking, the higher up the pyramid you go, the more dispersed the fan base will be. Famously, almost none of Manchester United’s fans actually live in Manchester.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his vigilance on this topic, as he always showed when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. I know he will be particularly vigilant as the Minister holds the responsibility for gambling. I am sure that she will be glad to have the chance to talk about something directly in her portfolio, in addition to the work that she has been doing on the Bill.

I am pleased to hear that the hip operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, went well, and even more pleased that she missed my disobliging comments about Arsenal this evening. That is the team she supports, so it is probably just as well that she was not here to hear them.

Of the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am more taken with Amendment 143, which seeks to require football clubs to consult their fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. I am mindful of the example of Wonga, a payday loan company rather than a gambling firm, and Newcastle United. It was an important reminder of the discomfort that fans feel when they are forced to wear the logo of companies and others of which they might not approve when they buy the football strips of the team they support.

Engaging fans on sponsorship is worth while, particularly where the companies are ones about which clubs know that fans have views. The noble Lord set out the growing concerns about the prevalence of gambling in sport and its potential to influence fans, particularly younger and more vulnerable groups. If we can strike a better balance between the immediate commercial needs of clubs and the long-term interests of the fans who support them then that is worthy of our consideration.

I am struck too by the points that my noble friends and others have raised about the importance of sponsorship deals on the finances of football clubs—particularly those in the lower leagues—to maintain their financial stability, which is such an important point underlying the Bill. Although Amendment 143 has much to commend it, the consultation must be a genuine and two-way conversation between clubs and fans to address the importance of investment in the sport and the good work that many are doing.

The second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, Amendment 255, seeks to prevent regulated clubs and competitions promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship altogether. In doing so, it rather overrides the open-minded consultation of his first amendment. I think this goes too far: an outright ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship would, in my view, be too blunt an instrument for addressing the complex issue of gambling and the broader questions of sponsorship in football.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling both amendments and the fact that we can consider them side by side in this group. I look forward to hearing what the Gambling Minister has to say about them.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on this one—both noble friends, actually. I am afraid that if you want to see a country where gambling advertising and gambling problems are linked, you just have to look at Kenya—especially at the young. There is a chronic problem there, and it is doing enormous damage. Football has enormous reach and enormous power; it will reach out to you, and it reaches out to the most impressionable. I hope that the Government take some action here, showing a way forward that at least reduces the harm.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, means well with her point about the front of the jersey, but it is a team game. People run up and down; the back is still there.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for these amendments. As Gambling Minister, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impacts of gambling sponsorship in football. Slightly bizarrely, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to discuss gambling in your Lordships’ House. I am confident, from working through the measures in the White Paper, that it will not be the last, but I acknowledge the noble Lord’s long record of campaigning on the issue of gambling harm.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and join others across your Lordships’ House in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a speedy and good recovery. We look forward to the noble Baroness working with us while the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering from her operation.

Starting with Amendment 255, the Government do not believe the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship. This is outside the scope of the regulator and commercial decisions are, rightly, decisions for clubs. Further, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, with significant consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. This might mean players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors.

All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorships within football. The Government will closely monitor the implementation of the codes of conduct to ensure they have a meaningful impact. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about children and young people. I am happy to liaise with him and other noble Lords on this further as the codes of conduct are implemented.

On Amendment 143, I agree that where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear, it must be in a socially responsible way. Both the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, mentioned that the Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season. That is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, referred to around 40 clubs that have already taken action on gambling sponsorship. As I set out in my speech at the GambleAware conference on 4 December, I really want to see the gambling industry further raise standards to ensure that levels of gambling advertising do not exacerbate harm.

I apologise to the noble Lord if my response to his question was not clear. We are trying to address volume across different companies, where even if one company has only a small amount, the collective volume can become quite significant. That is a specific issue we have asked the gambling industry to look at. Where there is volume across the piece, individually it might not be excessive but together it might represent a significant amount of gambling advertising beyond what is deemed acceptable. This work will be monitored closely.

--- Later in debate ---

So a balance can be struck between people airing their views, with the recognition that the expression of political opinion in official media settings or on social media accounts is fine, and recognising that if we want to play in the European competitions organised by UEFA, we need to abide by their rules. That is a significant point for the whole of this legislation. We can mandate the regulator to undertake a whole series of important steps on regulating English football, but if he conflicts with UEFA, it is UEFA that will dominate and ultimately decide whether our clubs play in Europe. We should never forget that on every step of our way along the legislation that we are considering, both tonight in Committee and, ultimately, in another place.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I make a brief reminder here that objections have been raised to all sorts of things. I remember when it was the poppy on jerseys in a football match. Apparently, a political statement is one that you either do not understand or do not agree with. I ask the Government, and indeed all noble Lords, to be very careful about this. These amendments are trying to exclude things that might be positive and good, because there will always be somebody who disagrees with them. All I will say is: tread very carefully here. Remembering the dead of World War I and World War II would not be seen as an overt statement in this country, but apparently it is elsewhere.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I am so glad that these amendments were tabled, because it gives us a chance to reflect. The statement that to determine what is right and wrong between different countries and cultures is very complicated so it is easier to say that it has no place in the game seems fair enough to me. Politics is complicated. We find it complicated in this place, even though we are the legislators and the politicians. Once you start introducing it into football, you can get into a real mess.

I am also not sure about a few things, so I want to share some confusion. One difficulty is that, for example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, last week that he does not consider the rainbow armband to be political, but I think that it is highly ideological and political. Last month, the FA dedicated a 35-minute video to the Rainbow Laces campaign, showcasing an activist-heavy panel that included its women’s talent and senior game EDI consultant coach developer. That title gives the game away before we go anywhere.

Guess what? That particular individual used to work for Stonewall before being brought into football. I hope that we in this House understand that Stonewall is at least a highly contentious political organisation which is now at the heart of defining what is considered to be inclusive football. The problem with this profusion of rainbows on laces, pitch flags, ball plinths and all the rest of this branding is that any objection on the basis of politics leads to an accusation of being insensitive to lesbian and gay people or being homophobic. Indeed, it is the very opposite. I think that trans ideology is discriminatory against lesbians and gays because it does not understand same-sex attraction. If noble Lords are lost and are thinking, “Oh God, what is she going on about?”, that is fine. It is a political matter and nothing to do with football. I worry when football managers and teams get embroiled in this.

I was unsure about this amendment. I am usually the kind of populist democrat who says, “Vote on everything; go and have a vote”, but I did wonder when the noble Lord said, “See what the fans say—don’t put out a statement unless they agree with you”. Maybe it is because I am from a Celtic family—although some of them support Spurs. I hope that noble Lords can get their heads around this. Celtic’s fan base has gone completely bonkers on the Israel-Gaza question. It is like a Hamas support group on tour. The irony is that their sloganeering in support, as they would see it, of the Green Brigade and all the rest of it—their support for Gaza resistance—has put them completely at odds with Celtic’s owners and the board, although the Celtic Trust, the shareholders’ group, agrees with them. It has split the club. But everyone should keep out of this. Let them sloganise away, but do not get involved one way or another. Make the political point.

However, I cheered when Crystal Palace put out an official statement after the 7 October pogrom. I thought it was great that at last somebody had come out and condemned the murders and hostage-taking. We have seen what has happened to Israeli teams, which have been subjected to anti-Semitic attacks, one of which almost brought down a Government on the continent. We know what is going on. I am interested that football is getting involved in this. I have already commended those Spurs fans who have started a grass-roots campaign in support of Emily Damari, the last remaining British hostage. I want Spurs fans to chant this young woman’s name at the ground. Her uncle Rob is a Crystal Palace fan. As he pointed out, they may not have the grass-roots campaign, but at least Palace put out a statement.

I am into all this. I genuinely do not want to say that we should sanitise football clubs of all political discussion. It is impossible. It is not going to happen. I do not want the Government interfering in it or a regulator being involved. I do not want people being in a situation where they fail, or refuse, to acknowledge that they are putting forward, for example, EDI policies. These are politics in disguise, although they will not admit it. Politics is complicated. Let us keep it out of football. The fans will be political just because they are stroppy like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My point was that the 25 badges and clubs that I listed are those which have been granted through delegation by the College of Arms to the English Football League. There are many splendid but unofficial badges used by teams elsewhere in football.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Very brief.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I will take that advice.

I put my name to Amendment 237, because I thought that it was about an identification symbol. That is what heraldry is all about, except that we do not use it any more to define who is going to belt who over the head in the middle of a medieval battlefield. All I can say after listening to the speech on this amendment is that I have learned much, but I am not sure when it will be useful.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for these amendments, which address changes to club heritage assets and what should be safeguarded by the regulator. I if may say so, this debate could be used as the definition of a lordly debate.

The Government understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord seek to avoid a misuse of any heraldic terms. I am grateful for the historic background that he gave in what was one of the Committee’s more unusual contributions, but one from which we all learned a great deal.

This specific clause is intended to work in tandem with the FA heritage protections, with the regulator acting as an enforcement backstop to the FA’s rules. The FA’s heritage protections use the term “crest”, and therefore this amendment would risk the regulator being out of step with the rest of the industry. However, I stress to the noble Lord that officials have liaised with the College of Arms on this. We are keen to ensure that the Bill does not incorrectly signal that the regulator would ever override the separate process of the College of Arms. We have engaged and will continue to engage with the College of Arms to ensure that it is content. This may be something that we return to upon further discussions with the college and the FA. I acknowledge the intent of these amendments but, for the reasons that I have outlined, ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I asked for this amendment to be degrouped because I wanted to ensure that the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion reporting was treated separately and as an important issue in its own right in the Bill. I thought that would mirror the way the Government have treated the same topic. I had problems with the original Bill that the Conservative Party introduced when in government. I was ready to oppose it, but in a fairly limited way. When the Bill came back with the new Government, things had been added. One of the announcements the Government made was of the importance of adding EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—and that they were bolstering that in the Bill. I immediately became concerned. As we have all noticed, we have discussed it quite a lot already, but there is always more to say.

I want to establish something: it is admirable that corporations, institutions and football clubs are today keen to try to make themselves more welcoming places for minorities and for everyone. They should not employ any discriminatory practices that prevent people being able to participate equally—in this instance as fans, in employment or at any level of staff, management or players. The only thing that should matter is merit rather than prejudice; that should be the key principle. To be clear, my objection to the regulatory requirement for EDI reporting being added to the original Bill was not because EDI is some righteous vehicle for fairness in football governance but rather because EDI is a bureaucratic process—I would even say a bit of a virtue-signalling racket. It is expensive, ineffective and often counterproductive, and it opens the door to political interference by the state in football, something that a number of us are worried about.

On effectiveness, I remind the Committee that the Post Office won awards for its diversity and inclusion policies. The Post Office also had a modern slavery statement, a carbon reduction plan and a very worthy statement of corporate social responsibility. All the while, senior management at that same Post Office allowed its own sub-postmasters to be treated in the most inhumane, unfair and possibly unlawful manner. You can tick all the good governance boxes in the world and have award-winning EDI schemes on the books, but it does not equate to good governance.

To be less cynical, most employers mean well when they decide to implement EDI measures, but they can be so desperate to be seen to be doing the right thing that they rush into initiatives that do not work even on their own terms. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the CIPD, has found a worrying number of business leaders who say that they did not do any research before launching their EDI schemes.

Talking of research, I urge the Minister to look at the government-commissioned report of the inclusion at work panel. It was convened by Kemi Badenoch when she was Equalities Minister and Business Secretary. In case that allows anyone to dismiss the report as some kind of biased Tory report, the panel comprised a range of private and public sector experts. It was advised on by a renowned Harvard University professor. It really is just research. The report concludes that EDI practices are often polarising and counterproductive, and can even be unlawful. For example, in pursuit of a more diverse workforce, overzealous employers have used so-called positive discrimination even though it is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. I am worried that this is the kind of thing that will happen in football.

I remind noble Lords of the case that I mentioned very briefly in the debate on an earlier group in relation to the Royal Air Force. In 2022, hoping to meet its diversity targets, it overlooked eminently qualified white applicants for female and ethnic-minority recruits. This was then found to be unlawful, and those candidates who were passed over received financial compensation.

I remind the Committee of the case of Linzi Smith, who was reported to the police, a victim of surveillance and barred by her beloved Newcastle United Football Club for holding legal views and expressing them, not at a football ground but on social media. Her football club and the Premier League have disciplined her, and she is now banned from attending football. It is an atrocious case.

I also draw attention to a compelling new study released by Rutgers University, which has found that EDI training often sows divisions and resentment in organisations, and that EDI practices can lead to perceptions of prejudice where none objectively exists. For example, it can happen when prioritising EDI schemes, then sending employers on endless training sessions and workshops, and telling them—depending on their race, sex, disability or whatever—that they are either victims or oppressors. Guess what: this fosters and exacerbates conflicts and resentments.

What is heralded as an effective solution to bigotry and prejudice seems instead to be fuelling the very problems that its advocates claim to want to solve. Therefore, I ask the Minister to pause and think before adding this to the Bill, to avoid opening up a hornet’s nest of division in football clubs.

After all I have said, we should not be surprised to discover that things are moving pretty quickly and we could be behind the times. In America, US corporates and organisations are now realising that what they call DEI rather than EDI is causing real problems; they are starting to realise that they should get out of it. Richard Lowry, editor-in-chief of the National Review, recently wrote that one of the most important events in America this year, outside the presidential election, was the intellectual collapse of what was described as the “DEI fad”.

The Wall Street Journal and various other American newspapers have noted some of this. Walmart, America’s largest private employer, is just the latest company to abandon DEI. It announced that, from 25 November, it was rolling back a slew of initiatives related to DEI. This has included winding down programmes providing assistance to suppliers that are 51% owned by women, minorities, veterans or members of the LGBTQ+ community. It is also phasing out the phrase “DEI” in its corporate messaging, and says that it will no longer give priority treatment to suppliers based on race or gender diversity.

According to the City Journal, Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, has dismantled its global equality, diversity and inclusion department as it oversees a broad revamping of the company’s workforce. It is now emphasising hiring on merit, while truly caring for people, regardless of arbitrary one-dimensional identity or affinity group labels. It says that that is the way to go.

This is not just me going on about EDI; this is major corporates across the world, which have tried this stuff and said that it has been a disaster. You can also look at Harley Davidson, the car maker Ford, and the farming goods company tractor today. They have all rejected EDI goals, targets, report writing, quotas and so on. We have also seen consumer boycotts that have forced brands such as Bud Light and Target to retreat from EDI-inspired marketing campaigns. That seems to me to indicate that maybe a pause is required.

I now want to come back to football.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am glad that you agree.

Football can learn from other people; and, as we are importing EDI from the corporate sector and the university sector, we should see where it has been a disaster there before we impose it on football.

Most people in football, for obvious reasons, are not experts in EDI. You can imagine a situation where a football team is basically told that the regulator could punish them if they do not live up to the EDI requirements stipulated in the Bill. They will do what every organisation does in this situation. They will think, “We don’t know anything about critical race theory; we don’t know anything about decolonising; we don’t understand this stuff, so what should we do?” Of course, they outsource the work to the experts, who know. Third-party outsiders are brought in house. They are the kind of professionals who know all about EDI. Those professionals are not necessarily motivated by fair-minded, pragmatic goals. They are often activists: individuals or organisations committed to what I consider to be a political ideology—something like critical race theory. Look at how the diversity industry has wrought havoc on all levels of the public sector in this country: universities, museums, the Civil Service. This is a real source of contention. It does not matter what side you are on; it is causing divisions.

What began as an attempt to remove barriers for historically disadvantaged groups has grown into a thriving grievance industry. We have seen that one of the slogans of EDI is to bring your true, authentic self to work. My attitude is that you should leave it at home. The only thing you should bring to work is your professional self.

I commend the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, for making the point that your political views, if you are, for example, a hospital doctor, should stay at the door of the hospital. We are not interested in your true, authentic self. But of course, all the people are coming in and saying, “I have to express my true, authentic self as a doctor and tell you everything I have ever thought about Israel and Gaza”. That is out of EDI. That is where it came from. Your own Health Secretary has rather courageously pointed out that that that should be discouraged, if not disciplined.

This part of the Bill will oblige clubs to employ expensive pen-pushers with a particular expertise in writing reports, all because of the mandatory inclusion reports. These reports will not write themselves. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who is not in his place. He was talking about the challenges of writing complicated business plans. You have to get all the lawyers in. Let me tell you: to write an EDI report, you also have to learn a new language. It is a completely different world. They will be paying people to write this stuff.

It does not come cheap. The cash-strapped clubs facing financial strain—an issue we are keen to do something about—will now have to find the money to pay all these EDI directors. By the way, the assistant director of EDI community services in one local council was earning £103,000. These guys are not cheap. Which council was that person working for? Birmingham. It has gone bankrupt. This is what happens. You can waste money and your priorities can get completely distorted.

I do understand, by the way, that many football clubs have big EDI departments. The Premier League is like so many big well-endowed organisations and corporations, which very often have huge EDI sections—it is a growing industry. I disapprove of that, but that is up to them; I just do not want it to be regulated. But legally requiring smaller clubs to publish their inclusion strategies—explaining how their strategic plans will fulfil the EDI requirement, with annual equality reports and so on—seems to me to be taking their eye off what should be important. It inevitably steers organisations away from their actual purpose: winning games. Diversity training cannot become as important as football training. Encouraging clubs to demonstrate their EDI credentials could be an indulgent and dangerous distraction from what they should do and what they can do best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing this amendment and for giving us opportunity to look at the new additions that the Government have put in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough reminds us, this is one of the areas in which the Bill has changed from the Bill that was before the previous Parliament. He did not like the other one either, but I think that it is clear that he likes these provisions even less.

While I am highly supportive of efforts to improve equality of access for people in football and indeed in all sports—when we last looked at these issues, I spoke about the progress we have made in tackling the horrendous racism and homophobia that blighted football for a long time—I share some of the concerns that my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, have raised about enshrining in law what are clearly shifting sands. As the ever-changing acronyms and the ever-expanding rainbow of colours on flags and lanyards show, this is an area that continues to change, and we must not allow the noble aim of opening up access for people and treating everybody with equal respect to be pegged to a certain moment in time in the way that it is done. I am mindful too, as my noble friend Lady Brady has just reminded us, of the enormous strides that clubs have taken to drive improvement in this area, and we congratulate West Ham on the recognition that they have won for their work on that.

We must be very wary of what is a mandatory requirement in the Bill, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on, and the clear cost and burden that will impose on the clubs that have to comply with it. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough spoke about those costs and burdens, and he was right as well to worry that, with the work that is done in this area, we sometimes inadvertently bring about division rather than diversity as we pit various groups of people against one another in what sometimes feel like informal hierarchies of grievance.

I share some of the concerns that my noble friends have raised, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for honing in on this further requirement that the Government seek to impose on clubs. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that they have raised.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, all I can say about this is that I may not have disagreed with every single word that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, but I certainly disagreed with her tone.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, reflecting the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I fundamentally disagree on this area of the Bill, but I am glad of the opportunity for your Lordships’ House to debate this issue and thank her for the amendment, as it allows me to clarify why the Government have added this provision.

The Government believe that equality, diversity and inclusion are key elements of good corporate governance. This is not about moral panic, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, or virtue signalling, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, will have a different view on the research from the likes of McKinsey, but it has shown that diversity on boards and in organisations promotes better governance, decision-making and transparency—arguably, the noble Lord’s point about its growth as a company might demonstrate that it could have a point. All this, in terms of better governance, decision-making and transparency, contributes to improved financial sustainability. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, highlighted the value of considering EDI within the corporate space.

This relationship between diversity and better corporate performance is recognised also by the Financial Reporting Council and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. The industry is already taking action in this space, and I welcome the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this area and her example of PLEDIS, but for a regulator that will be introducing a corporate governance code and requiring clubs to report against it, it is only right that such a code also covers EDI. The regulator will look to co-operate with other stakeholders, draw on the expertise of the sector and add to industry initiatives. I am sure that they will want to engage with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this point as well.

As with fan engagement, this will be a statutory baseline, so clubs that already champion equality, diversity and inclusion will not have any additional burden placed on them other than having to periodically report on these things. Under the corporate governance code, clubs will simply be required to explain how they are applying the code and what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. That is not onerous, but it is a very helpful transparency measure. This transparency will only be a good thing, and I am afraid that if noble Lords disagree with that, we are simply of very different minds on this issue.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare again my interest as counsel for Manchester City Football Club in recent disciplinary proceedings brought by the Premier League. I offer my support to Amendment 173A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We discussed the principle of consultation on Monday evening. I repeat that, in my view, consultation with clubs and specified competition organisers is vital to ensure that they have confidence in the operations of the regulator. It is also vital to ensure that the regulator is operating, as he or she would want to do, in a fair manner. I very much hope that the Minister will give consideration to that and bring an amendment back on Report, in relation to Amendment 173A and earlier provisions of the Bill.

I am far less keen, I regret to say, on Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which seeks, as I understand it, to remove from the Bill the discretionary licence condition relating to restricting the clubs’ overall expenditure. I suggest that it is important to see the limits of that power of the regulator, because Clause 22(4) provides that this discretionary licence condition

“may not impose restrictions on expenditure of a particular kind or a particular transaction”.

As I understand it—the Minister will say whether or not this is correct—the regulator would therefore not have the power, using the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to say, “You can’t buy a particular player for £50 million”, as that would be outside the scope of Clause 22.

It is not difficult to see that there may be circumstances —one hopes that they would be very rare indeed—where the regulator takes the view that its objective under Clause 6

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,

which is what it is there for, would be damaged if it did not have a power to restrict in exceptional circumstances a club’s overall expenditure.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am beginning to wish I had jumped up before the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because I have come to a similar conclusion.

For every success story in football, if you look you will find a failure. It is often the case when people come forward and buy themselves the dream team, then something goes wrong. You will find that especially in the lower levels. There are stories of those clubs, with Bury et cetera copping out, that have more expenditure going out on wages than they have coming in from revenue. If the regulator does not have the power to stop that speculative spending in certain circumstances, it is being denied a basic power over one of the biggest problems that has led to instability, particularly in the lower parts of the game. After some of the discussions we had on this, I really cannot see how we can support the lead amendment here and still have the central thrust of the Bill.

How will the regulator assess the slightly strange finances of investing in people who are always one trip away from being worth nothing? One accident on a training field and your principal asset is worth nothing. How is that taken into account and balanced, which would require a level of expertise? Does the Minister have examples of where information will be gathered to make a sensible assessment on this?

On speculative purchases, we have heard about deals with agents, et cetera, on other parts of this Bill; it is important to bear in mind how these are done. If the Minister has information on how that information will be gathered and those assessments made, I would be very interested to hear it.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the repeated statements “For every winner there is a loser”, “The Premier League is in terrible danger” or “Football is in terrible danger” just ignore the fact that football is tremendously successful in this country. If for every winner there is a loser, there would have been no progress in the last 20 years. There has been progress and enormous success. We now have the greatest football league in the world. The statement that “Your biggest asset is only one accident on a training ground away from being worth nothing” completely ignores the fact that all football assets—all players—are insured. If, God forbid, your best player was injured irrevocably on the training ground, you would receive an enormous insurance payment, so it is just not true. The actual commercial realities of what is going on in football in this country seem to be completely mis-stated so often in this Chamber. I hope that the Minister will take heed of the tremendous success that private enterprise, unfettered by an onerous regulator, has created in the world of football in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this is one of the best debates we have had in Committee to date. I am equally sympathetic to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the concern about the practicality of this, but none of that is covered in Amendment 200, which is in this group.

Let us just assume, hypothetically, that a state-owned entity acquiring a football club in England has an excellent human rights record and no problems with modern slavery. Under Amendment 200, it would be banned from owning a club in England because it is state-controlled. All the points that have been made are relevant and important, but Amendment 200, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is very specific and states that:

“No state-controlled club may be granted an operating licence”.


There is no reference to human rights abuses or to any of the important issues regarding the supply chain, which have been mentioned. It simply states that a foreign-owned, state-controlled company cannot own an English football club. If we pass this amendment, immediately we would then have to divest the Abu Dhabi United Group of its majority ownership of Manchester City and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund of its ownership of Newcastle United, to mention but two cases.

How have the Premier League and UEFA addressed this to date? They have focused on the word “control”. When the Premier League addressed the Newcastle ownership test, it received “legally binding guarantees” that the state of Saudi Arabia would not have control over Newcastle United in the event of any deal. However, the Bill goes much further. It grants powers to the regulator that are not just about control. An individual has to be considered who has

“a higher degree of influence”

over the ownership of a club. The control test that UEFA and the Premier League currently use, which is a tough test that takes up a lot of time and energy, is overridden by a requirement in this legislation—for the first time in sport—to test whether an individual has a higher degree of influence. There can be no doubt that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, as chair of the PIF, has a very high degree of influence over that board —he appoints it. Indeed, a Minister from that board has been appointed to be chairman of Newcastle.

If we go forward and accept Amendment 200 as it stands, what would we be saying to football, to Newcastle, to the Qataris—who might want to acquire a company, which there has been much speculation about, not least in this Committee—and to Abu Dhabi in relation to Man City? It would drive a coach and horses through the current ownership of the Premier League. It would be a very serious decision by the Government to take state control over who owns the football clubs in this country.

I say that because it comes down to the degree of state influence that is behind the regulator. The Government have said:

“Regarding the scope of the tests, we recognise the trade-offs involved, and are aware of the range of corporate structures behind clubs”,


and they specifically mention here sovereign wealth funds. They go on to say:

“We are designing the legal scope of the tests with these challenges in mind”.


They call them challenges, to be faced down at the request of government. We would have an open back door in the Bill if we accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, straying into foreign policy in a way that we do not currently do. We have plenty of legislation elsewhere on the statute book allowing the Government to intervene if they felt they needed to in a certain circumstance.

The Government have therefore further confirmed the scope of the regulator. To me, it is incredibly important that the regulator is not given so many powers as to require it to have direct influence. I lost an amendment on Monday night, when I asked for that at least to be defined and for consultation to go out to find out what “significant influence” means in this context. I think that is extremely important.

I have a question for the Minister. I cannot find an answer as a result of the debates we have had so far, but football needs an answer and probably needs it now. Is it the Government’s position that the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, should be able to own Newcastle United under the definition of ownership in the Bill? It is a very simple question, with a yes or no answer. If yes, why have Ministers deliberately constructed a Bill that will quickly put him through the ownership test of significant influence, and why did the Minister confirm on Monday that she wanted incumbent Heads of State to be tested? If no then surely the Government should say so, and we should have that as part of an open debate.

I hope that, if that question is answered this evening, there will be no doubt in future about what the Government intend, not least following the Prime Minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week and his offer to go to a football match with the Crown Prince. It is only reasonable for Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince to know whether he is expected to divest himself of the interest in Newcastle United or not.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Scriven to this debate and congratulate him on making those points. When it comes to the modern slavery amendments—to take on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—if other people are looking at this, surely the regulator should be able to take their opinion. Surely that would be a reasonable step. If the Bill does not allow that, I am sure we could do that quite easily.

On state ownership, I put my name to Amendment 200 because I thought that at the very least we deserved an answer. The previous Government’s Back-Benchers did not like the Telegraph under control and, let us face it, more people have heard of Newcastle United than they have the Telegraph.

This is an important point. Are we happy with a cultural asset being in the hands of a foreign power, regardless of the fact that we have a reasonably good relationship with it on most things? It is not all things, as we do not like certain things about it. That is a real question, and the Minister is being asked a series of real questions. I hope that at the end of this we will know whether these points are worth pursuing at other stages of the Bill. These questions really should be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we have indeed touched on the matter of foreign ownership elsewhere in the Committee’s discussions. I am very glad we have had the opportunity to have a proper debate on it this afternoon, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that it has been a very good one.

Of course, there are, and have long been, a number of clubs in English football with some element of foreign ownership, whether through individuals or investment vehicles. Many of them have been very generous funders of the sport and in certain cases have turned clubs around for the better, with huge benefits to their communities. But there is a fine line to tread here between maintaining that inward investment and openness to the world, and preventing malign interference.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has been able to join the Committee today. I enjoyed the debate he brought on sportswashing, to which I responded. We touched on some of these matters, and my view when speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite, which I still share, is that there is a distinction to be made between news organisations, which provide information to the populus, and sports organisations. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan has pointed out on previous groups, sport has always succeeded in rising above politics and has often been a forum in which people can raise complicated issues and foster dialogue between countries that may not be able to talk about things directly quite so easily.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, address modern slavery once again. I am conscious that we had Amendment 153 on modern slavery from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in that rather strange miscellaneous group the other day, so I will not repeat what I said about the issue then. But I am interested in and broadly supportive of the issues they are raising and very glad to have heard the contribution of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who has done such important work in this area. I am glad we have been able to return to the issue of modern slavery and let other noble Lords add their voices to what we said when we were debating Amendment 153 on Monday.

As someone from Tyneside, I must add my concern about the implications of Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which, among other things, would prevent clubs being owned by sovereign wealth funds. I think he accepts that if we were to accept his Amendment 200 the way he has worded it—he alluded to the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s investment in Newcastle United—it would have the consequence that Newcastle might not be granted an operating licence and so would have to withdraw from the Premier League. I have to say that he would not be very popular on Tyneside if that were the case.

It would be very helpful to have some clarity from the Minister about how the regulator will deal with clubs that currently have foreign owners or foreign sovereign wealth fund investment, and how it might approach prospective owners from abroad in the future. Like others, I would be very keen to hear her answer to the questions that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised and repeated so powerfully today.

During the course of this Committee, the Prime Minister has visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He was there just before it was announced as the host of the 2034 World Cup. He has invited the Crown Prince to come and watch a football match here in the UK when he next has the opportunity to visit. I would be interested to hear whether they discussed football and some of the issues we have discussed today, or indeed the thorny question of whether the Bill would bring the Crown Prince and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia into scope in the way that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But somebody who is not subject to sanctions but who is connected to a Government whom the UK is in dispute with would not be covered because of the removal of this provision from the Bill. I am happy if the noble Baroness wants to write on this, but this is an important matter because this is a change to the Bill. I understand the Government’s stated reasons for changing it—we do not want to see football teams in this country unable to take part in international tournaments and we want to make sure that the regulator is independent of government—but I worry that by making the change in the way that we have and by not adding in the additional safeguard such as the one I am proposing through my Amendment 198, we open ourselves to a situation where somebody connected with a foreign Government cannot be taken into account by the regulator. If she is happy to commit to write on that, we would be grateful.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

We have gone through this several times. If there could at least be some private way in which those people involved in this could see this letter, it would be of assistance, because this is becoming a hardy perennial that is getting in the way of progress.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I think everybody is thinking about the previous examples we have been given, but would not the example that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just gave us of the non-sanctioned Russian individual be covered by the other considerations and the holistic attitude that my noble friend the Minister was telling us was the basis of the approach of the regulator?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we need an answer about why these things are carried on for so long, because there are administrative burdens. If we want these clubs to survive and come back, we could probably make a case for two things. One would be an intermediate regulator, which I do not think would be terribly popular with certain sections of this Committee, and the other is deciding when you can come out of this, because there are duties that are probably an appropriate burden for a professional structure. A good few clubs have gone in and out of this structure, but there is a certain level at which you are not receiving income, you are not receiving support and you have become a part-time asset to the community. Surely there is some point at which there is a cut-off. A better definition of the Government’s thinking on this might be helpful.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say a word about Amendment 207. It talks about a club that is not a regulated club but bears a very similar resemblance to one that is in things such as the name, the shirt colours and things of that type—almost an imitation of another club in order to get some support, finance or whatever. It may seem that this is highly unlikely, but I have a nightmare scenario where the super leagues that are being proposed do not take off, and therefore people try to create an artificial super league by, for example, having a team called “Manchester Blues” or “Liverpool Reds” getting into competitions with clubs abroad as an imitation of the super league that has been proposed and rejected. I want some assurance that should that nightmare scenario come about, there is some provision for being strict about what can and cannot happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, partly because dinner is fast approaching and partly because this is an amendment to probe the Minister’s response to a good existing clause, Clause 48. This clause is about preventing home matches being relocated. The amendment is to probe whether the provision is sufficient to meet widespread fan concerns about possible exceptions.

There is increasing discussion about domestic football games being moved overseas. We have seen statements from the chairman of my own team, Liverpool, and broadcasters such as NBC are talking about relocating Premier League games abroad. The FIFA working group is reviewing its policies to allow this. There are all sorts of stories, rumours and plans afoot to possibly allow Latin American domestic games to be played in the United States. There is historical evidence showing that the Premier League once proposed an additional 39th game to the season, which would not be played at the ground of a Premier League club. We also see countries such as Saudia Arabia that have intervened—let us put it that way—in sports properties, buying them and moving them around, for golf and boxing. There is reason to think that this is not a very remote possibility.

The Bill sets out to prevent clubs relocating matches away from home stadia without the approval of the regulator. I hope that enjoys widespread support; it is welcome and important. The point of my amendment is to probe the idea that the clause is not quite as watertight as it should be. The concern is that the current wording is based on the relocation of matches which are already designated as home matches. What happens if the competition organiser allocates games directly, before the season’s fixtures are issued, to Riyadh, Los Angeles, Singapore, Paris or wherever? They could claim that no home game is being relocated and say, for example, that weeks 10 and 20 are weeks in which games are played elsewhere. What if the 39th game proposal, so widely reviled by fans, is revived? That is not about the relocation of a home game; it is an extra game.

The new clause addresses this by placing a requirement on the regulated competition organisers to seek approval from the regulator before moving a domestic game overseas. That way, there is no longer a need to define what a home game is to bring it in scope, and it ensures that as part of the assessment of this request to relocate a game, the regulator must specifically consult UK-based fans of the clubs involved in the relocation. Importantly, this does not rule out the relocation of a game; it requires any additional fixture that is part of a competition to be subject to consultation in the way specified in the Bill.

I would welcome the Minister’s observations on this amendment and her assessment of two questions. First, what happens if the competition organiser allocates games directly to an overseas location? How will the existing clause protect against that? Secondly, what happens if the competition organiser creates a new format, such as another 39th game that cannot easily be defined as a home game? The amendment tries to cover those extra, niche cases. With that in mind, I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am assuming that this is a probing amendment. Other sports—not British sports—do this, such as American football. Is it the Government’s intention that the regulator will make sure that such games are played at home? If the Minister can say that that is the intention, we are all comparatively happy; if not, we have a real problem.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield. If all football fans were surveyed—more than the 20,000 to 30,000 that responded to Dame Tracey Crouch’s report—this would be one of the issues they cared about most. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mann, will not mind me putting words in his mouth, but if he were here, I think he would say in his Yorkshire tones, “Home should mean home.” The Government must do everything they can to ensure that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the amendments in this group, although I think, as my friend Lord Maude of Horsham pointed out, we are all listening with different hopes and expectations about what she may say.

Briefly, my Amendment 256 in this group specifies that the regulator must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than His Majesty’s Treasury in the abstract. It seeks to ensure a clearer line of accountability and strengthen the governance structure for decisions relating to the levy. The Chancellor might well delegate this responsibility, but she should be accountable in law and the Bill ought to point to her as the Minister at the head of that department and not anyone else at the Treasury. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s responses to the amendments in this group.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, it is probably important to remember that a lot of this is about making sure that we preserve our football league. If a different Government had not intervened, we would have a European Super League and the Premier League would not be there. That is what happened.

We must remember that the preservation of those top five leagues is intrinsic to the Bill. If we want that to carry on, some money will occasionally have to be raised to support their structure so that it is more stable. The noble Lord’s amendment is reasonable. There may be a reasonable answer about why it does not have to go in, but I agree with the concept.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

What the noble Lord says is simply not the case. When the European Super League was proposed, what stopped it from happening and what made the clubs drop it like a red-hot potato was the fact that the fans reacted with fury. Admittedly, the rather populist Prime Minister of the time responded to the fan fury by uttering threats, but it was not the politicians, the Government, your Lordships’ House, the other place or a fantasy regulator who stopped it; it was the fans who stopped it, and we should have absolutely no illusion about that.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, that might be the noble Lord’s interpretation, but, ultimately, it is government that makes law.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, just to be clear for the record, no law was passed in this instance. In a matter of days the clubs quickly withdrew from the competition because, as my noble friend mentioned, it went down like a lead balloon and fans were up in arms. The Government were nowhere near it. That was a perfect example of where the clubs and the fans regulated themselves.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to do that. It was not specific to this group. There have been a number of examples which have been unwieldy, to say the least.

I turn to Amendments 260, 269 and 293 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. They alter the backstop method to enable the regulator to trigger the resolution process. The current drafting permits only the competition organisers to trigger it. That is quite a profound change, if you think about it. To date, we have been saying that the regulator should step in only as a last resort if the competitions cannot reach an agreement among themselves. What we are saying here is that the regulator can step in—I guess, in theory even if the competition organisers have agreed—if it feels for some reason it is not quite happy with the agreement. That seems quite a shift away from the principles we were talking about earlier. Our concern would be that we are suddenly setting up a role for a quite muscular regulator which can interfere maybe not at breakfast, lunch and tea but quite a bit of the time, to say the least.

Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, states that the leagues can trigger the resolution process if there has been a change to revenue received by other leagues, as mentioned. Again, I think we could get into situations where a five-year deal has been put in place and a league is suddenly trying to reopen the deal. I am delighted that the Championship has a good Sky deal. Do we think that gives cause to reopen the deal? That would be a concern there. I am always a great believer that a deal is a deal is a deal. You live by that deal for that time and when it comes up again, that is the time to negotiate. Amendment 264 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, again makes provision for multiple competition organisers to trigger the backstop and mediation process.

In all of these, there is a general concern that instead of the backstop being the backstop, as it is called, it becomes almost the first stop and the first resort. It goes to the concern that noble Lords have mentioned many times that while we start with the principle of a light-touch regulator, very quickly we get into a scenario of a pretty heavy-touch, muscular regulator. That would be our concern.

Amendment 261 provides that competition organisers must obtain the regulator’s consent before entering into a distribution agreement. Again, this adds another level of complexity. If the competitions have agreed between them, why do they need to get the consent of the regulator? It goes far beyond the original intentions of the backstop per the Dame Tracey Crouch report, in which she referred to it as the nuclear option, and how that would be the only case it would come up in. Instead, through these amendments, we would be setting up a lot of situations in which it would be the first resort.

While I understand that the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are noble—as ever—I feel that this is another circumstance of mission creep and unintended consequences, where we would end up with a very muscular regulator. Those are our concerns.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am not very bothered by having a muscular regulator; I want an efficient one that gets things done and looks after the lower clubs. There is a disagreement between us that has been there all through this Committee.

I regard the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as a smorgasbord from which we should select something that is actually going to get us to have a look at what is going on. There are lots of options and I have put my name to one of them. Making sure that we get the regulator right and get money going down to preserve something we regard as good is the primary objective. It is not just to take money off the Premier League; it is to make sure that the structures below survive.

If the Government think these amendments are not the right way to progress, hearing why from the Minister would be sensible. Nobody is quite happy with the backstop power in the regulation structure at the moment. Everybody is a little bit upset about it. People who were happy are now not happy. The Premier League and EFL are having great fun not talking to each other or disagreeing. I have no real objection to a slightly more muscular approach. I do not think it is a light touch that is required; it should be efficient.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group cover a wide range of issues relating to the backstop. While I understand the intentions behind many of these amendments, I fear that they collectively risk making an already contentious and divisive mechanism even more complex and counterproductive.

I respect that Ministers believe they have designed a balanced mechanism that places incentives in the right place, but I think what we will come to unpack is that that is wholly mistaken. I believe this Committee will see that this backstop has not and will not incentivise industry-led agreements, which is supposedly its overreaching policy purpose. I believe we will see that it will not result in a balanced, pragmatic solution that will be good for football.

It will instead drive posturing, game playing and the development of extreme and damaging solutions. We will see that this backstop is legally untested and uncertain, and it could sink football and the regulator into a legal and political quagmire that could drag on for years. Worst of all, we will see that this backstop has already poisoned, and will continue to poison, the well of football bodies’ relationships, when we all need to work together for our continued collective success.

I will briefly address some of the amendments in this group. The proposal to expand the scope of the backstop to include multiple parties all at once—for example, the National League, or potentially the FA and, even in the future, the women’s game—is concerning. This risks creating division where none currently exists. The Premier League, far from being at odds with these stakeholders, has made intensive and carefully considered efforts to support them, just as it has with the EFL.

Just a few months ago, the Premier League announced a £12.6 million package for the National League system over three years, a substantial increase on previous arrangements. For the women’s game, the Premier League has provided significant financial assistance, including a £20 million interest-free loan to help the new Women’s Professional Leagues Limited in its formative years.

These are examples of proactive, voluntary agreements that demonstrate collaboration rather than conflict. This set of amendments would encourage all stakeholders to start competing, simultaneously claiming the Premier League’s revenues, fracturing relationships and introducing adversarial dynamics where none currently exist.

This is not the way to build a sustainable and co-operative football ecosystem. Indeed, I will make a prediction: it is far more likely that the National League will seek to trigger the backstop in relation to the EFL, which does not provide any financial support to the leagues below it. The idea of the IFR triggering the backstop mechanism independently is particularly troubling. The purpose of the backstop, as described in the Bill, is to act as a last resort when the parties fail to reach an agreement; it is not supposed to be a front- stop. Allowing the IFR to bypass this voluntary process would undermine its very purpose and disincentivise genuine negotiation.

The idea that any change—not even a reduction—in revenue received by one party could automatically trigger the backstop is, frankly, unworkable. Revenue distributions in football are dynamic and fluctuate according to complex interrelationships. The amounts change every year, almost always upwards. A mechanism that automatically treats any change as a potential trigger would, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, be absurd. It would trigger perpetual uncertainty, which is the last thing that football needs.

Finally, and more positively, the suggestion that the IFR could impose its own settlement deserves careful scrutiny. I have tabled my own, slightly different amendments to that effect, which will be debated in a later group. I fully agree with noble Lords that the binary mechanism in the Bill is unworkable for football. However, with respect, I am not sure that this particular amendment would place incentives in the right place. To allow the IFR to impose its own settlement only where both parties’ proposals are inconsistent with the IFR’s objectives would allow parties to offer unrealistic proposals. It would mean they could anchor with a very extreme demand, knowing that the IFR would be forced to step in and create a compromise. This would further entrench division.

What is striking about the amendments in this group is that they demonstrate a fundamental dissatisfaction with the mechanism in the Bill from all sides of the House, as well as the main competition parties involved. The Premier League has raised serious concerns about the divisive nature of the backstop, while the EFL has, I believe, inspired the amendments in this group. It too sees significant flaws in the process as designed. This really should give the Government significant pause for thought.

Let us not forget that English football’s success has been built on collaboration and solidarity. UEFA has made this very point about the deficiencies of the current Bill’s mechanism. A backstop requires thoughtful, proportionate regulation that respects the autonomy of its stakeholders. These amendments, and indeed the existing backstop mechanism, would disrupt that delicate balance. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on whether the backstop as designed is fit for purpose. It should be fostering co-operation, not driving division. If that requires revisiting the mechanism, we should do so without hesitation. Football’s future really does depend on getting this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This goes to the principle of the redistribution amendments in the group. We have had two debates on this; I hope this will be the hat trick, so to speak, because it is talking about the general principle of whether the regulator should be involved in the redistribution of revenue. This goes to the whole of Part 6—Clauses 56 to 60—and stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

As noble Lords have heard me say before, what it comes down to is that no other regulator—and I am still ready to stand corrected—is given powers to take money from one part of the system and give it to another. The FCA cannot take money from Barclays and give it to NatWest; Ofwat cannot take it from Severn Trent to go to Thames; Ofcom cannot move money from ITV to Channel 4. No other regulator can do that. It is unheard of. But that is what we are proposing here.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

That is the point of the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

No, I do not agree that is the point of the Bill. That is the fundamental difference. I would totally agree that there are certain protections about the European super league, about moving home grounds, as in the case of MK Dons, and about fit and proper owner tests. I would agree they are very good roles for a regulator to play. What I do not agree with is giving a regulator unparallelled power to take money from one part of the sector and give it to another.

What are we trying to do here? Is the English Football League impoverished? Does it have so little money it cannot run itself? We know the answer to that is no. It recently had a very good Sky deal. The Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world. That point has been made before. We are saying that Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal, which are very good footballing nations, and all the other leagues in the world apart from the top six, all manage to live on less money than the Championship. But we are saying we need to fix that. That is what I do not understand. We are trying to say we will give unparallelled power to try to fix a situation that has had unparallelled success and makes the Championship the sixth-richest league in the world. We cannot argue that is because clubs do not have enough money to be viable in that. If that was the case in the Championship, how do the Portuguese league, the Belgian league, the Netherlands league and all the other leagues cope? This is not an area I believe the regulator should be intervening in. There is no market failure there.

What I have heard noble Lords speak about a lot is fairness or narrowing the gap. Well, I am sorry, but competition and sport are not about fairness, not about trying to narrow the gap or level down. We are not trying to equalise. The whole point of sport is that it is the most competitive thing out there. There is nothing more competitive than a game of sport. That is the whole lesson. It is not about trying to equalise. It is about winning and losing. What football has done is create that very successfully, with great fluidity. As I mentioned in the last debate, over half of clubs at some stage have succeeded in getting into the Premier League. This is something that is working. I do not see any evidence of market failure. So why are we asking the regulator to get involved in all this?

I truly believe we will endanger the whole game and the whole income. Noble Lords have heard me say before: let us maximise the size of the cake before we argue how we distribute it. I fear here that by trying to equalise and level down, all we will do is make the games less interesting, the league less competitive, which will mean fewer people watching, less TV rights money and the result being less money to distribute. That is why I do not believe this is the role of the regulator to take, and this is why I feel strongly that all those clauses that seek to give this unprecedented power should be removed.