Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in his amendment and speak to my own in this sphere. These amendments aim to remove the requirement for clubs to submit EDI statements to the independent football regulator detailing their plans to improve, as we have heard, equality, diversity and inclusion policies. This requirement was added to the original Bill by the Government and, in my view, is unnecessary and burdensome and could act as a Trojan horse for politicising clubs in ways that would be divisive.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just explained, it is a duplication of work that is already done by many clubs. The Premier League and the EFL already require their clubs to do work in this space to comply with the EDI standards of those leagues. Can the Minister therefore explain whether the expectation is that they need to more or to do EDI differently and what does “improve” comprise? Perhaps the Minister can elaborate on what she envisages will trigger sanctions for non-compliance. What would non-compliance look like?

This especially matters for all those clubs that this Bill will regulate beyond the Premier League and the EFL—all those National League clubs that operate on the tightest of margins with very small staff and volunteer teams. Think of the sanctions: clubs could face the IFR publication of a censure statement and/or the requirement to appoint an external EDI professional, and they do not come cheap. Clubs could face financial penalties or, ultimately, suspension or revocation of their operating licence, so there is a cost to pay and a lot of pressure to comply that could well generate substantial financial and time burdens on clubs.

All the evidence shows, across a multiple of institutions, that EDI regulatory regimes often divert scarce time, attention and resources away from the core mission and priorities of organisations. They also tend to expand their remit because one of the most obvious ways that regulated organisations prove their EDI credentials is through ever-more elaborate, flashy guidance documents, mandated training programmes, unconscious bias workshops and so on. It is a perfect example of a well-meaning policy that grows and proliferates, an exemplar of self-fulfilling mission creep. It was recently revealed, for instance, that Oxford University now employs 59 staff in EDI roles—a 20% increase since 2022—at a cost of £2.5 million a year before pensions and benefits. This seems baffling, given the dire state of university finances.

However, such concerns about EDI’s bureaucratic and financial burdens are not confined to a few of us here. As we have heard, last week, two regulators made similar points. The Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority announced their decision to abandon plans to impose diversity and inclusion rules on financial firms. Surely this must give the Minister pause for thought. It is surely not too late to consider deferring this section of the Bill to consider such adverse outcomes, and to consult on specifically this issue with stakeholders, fans and so on.

If we listen to the debate within the financial services sector, it is instructive. Wendy Saunders, a partner and head of financial services at Lewis Silkin, said that it was a huge relief that the FCA was no longer proceeding with its diversity and inclusion proposals, which she said

“would have imposed unwarranted costs on firms without delivering clear benefits”.

Instead, the regulators in financial services will limit their role to voluntary industry initiatives—I am not opposed to that. Surely such a voluntary approach is appropriate for football too. Requiring the new football regulator to impose what other regulators admit is too burdensome is not proportionate.

My key question to the Minister is still: what problem is this measure as a solution to? We heard in Committee and since that there is a concern about the lack of diversity at clubs’ senior management level. There is little evidence, however, that EDI—whatever its good intentions as a theory—will resolve this problem in practice. I would be reassured if the Government elaborated on how they envisage that EDI policies will operate in relation to HR and employment in individual clubs, because EDI has a very poor track record of improving workplace culture—the opposite is often true.

Last week, Trevor Phillips wrote an insightful comment piece in the Times entitled:

“There’s a better way than DEI to fix prejudice”.


In it, he warns of the way that EDI policies can stir up resentment and competitive victimhood that will do little but cause conflict in workplaces. He says that DEI programmes

“increasingly appear not to be aimed at making the workplace a better, more productive environment but a modern-day inquisition dedicated to damning white men merely for their existence”.

Meanwhile, at King’s College, members of staff were told that they could not get promoted unless they signed up to the whole of the university’s EDI initiatives, including taking part in activities run by Stonewall, an organisation now considered so controversial that it has been largely ejected from activities in Parliament and Whitehall. EDI training at Imperial College includes:

“How to be a White ally”.


Staff have been asked to agree that they have white privilege. I just want to know whether the Minister envisages that as a productive thing if it happened in clubs. Is that what she thinks EDI in clubs will look like? It certainly looks like that in many organisations. Does the Minister see the dangers of this introducing a contentious and politicised agenda into clubs’ culture? Although EDI is often framed as fostering better decision-making, in reality it often reinforces groupthink in workplaces.

I am just worried that this seemingly small part of the Bill will unintentionally drag football clubs into murky political territory. I note that there is a judicial minefield here. For example, if clubs chose to set quotas to fulfil their EDI requirements based on people’s protected characteristics, would that not open up the gate to biological males who identify as women being able to play in women’s sports? This is such a political and ethical topic, and noble Lords see all the controversies that the FA is involved in here—the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, spoke so passionately about this in Committee.

I am not suggesting that noble Lords have to agree with my sex-realist gender-critical views on this, but I urge the Government at least to wait for the judgment by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which relates to the definition of a woman and how a trans woman fits in under the Equality Act. Is there a danger that EDI provisions could unintentionally open clubs up to being challenged in the courts and make them subject to spurious litigation in this area?

In fact, over the weekend, we found out that one of the biggest girls’ football leagues in the country, West Riding Girls Football League, is being threatened by the Football Association with being shut down for refusing to allow boys to play in its matches. Last week, an emergency meeting was held by organisers of the league, which has at least 6,000 under-18 girls playing across more than 300 teams by the way—fantastic progress with girls in football.

At that meeting, managers voiced their concerns that allowing boys to play would open the floodgates and was a massive threat to the girls’ game. Parents are looking to take their daughters out of the league, with girls themselves saying that they will give up if boys join, and the FA’s response is that “this is part of our inclusion and diversity strategy”.

Your Lordships do not have to agree with me. The Minister may dismiss these concerns as all a bit culture wars-y, even a bit Trump-ite. Nothing could be further from the truth. So to reassure the Minister, I would like to call on one of her Cabinet colleagues as an ally. Wes Streeting told a Macmillan Cancer Support event: “There are sometimes some really daft things being done in the name of EDI, which undermine the case. For example, there was one member of NHS staff who was merrily tweeting a job ad online, saying that part of her practise was anti-whiteness”. As Wes Streeting said, “What the hell does that say to the bloke up in Wigan who is more likely to die earlier than his more affluent white counterpart in London?” He concluded that the real issue of inequality that affects working-class people is not addressed here, and called for the ideological hobby horse of EDI to go. I agree. I think we should drop it from the Bill, which does not mean that we should not fight tooth and nail for equality and fairness in all walks of life.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is rather an odd one. Apparently, we are in favour of equality but not in favour of doing much about it. A reporting strategy on what we are doing to improve equality and diversity does not strike me as terribly onerous. Indeed, if we are doing something that comes under the “expletive silly” category, we will know if it is reported. I suggest that we are trying to build a little monster here—build it up so as to have something to knock down. There are real battles to fight; let us wait for those.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I shall speak to Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. This was the subject of much debate in Committee, where there was a united feeling that we want clubs that are well run, with good governance, and that are sustainable. Wherever possible, we want a regulator to be light touch.

My amendment would encourage the use of independent non-executive directors to help in that regard and put it in the code of practice. I freely admit that having independent non-executive directors is not a guarantee of good governance, but most of us would agree that having impartial experts as part of a board is generally a good and sensible thing to do in any organisation. Members on all sides of the House supported this in Committee. I know that the Government are generally supportive of this proposal, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on how we can best help to make it happen. I believe that this would be a sensible move towards good governance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

53: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to prevent advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English footballEnglish football must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we debated this amendment on the previous day on Report, and I should like to press it to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 57 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, and I will speak also to Amendment 70. In Committee, we talked at some length about the importance of parachute payments, with my noble friend Lady Brady really bringing home how important they are to clubs. For promoted clubs that know that there is a big threat of being relegated for the next season, they give them the confidence to invest in new players and build the strength of the club. They are able to make that financial commitment only because they have the security of parachute payments behind them. Likewise, any clubs in the bottom half of the table, when we get to this stage of the year, are looking over their shoulders: were it not for parachute payments they would not be looking to make investments in the January window but thinking more about selling rather than recruiting players.

As mentioned on previous occasions, the fundamental reason that the Premier League is the most popular and richest league in the world is because every game is competitive. If we look at other leagues, whether it be in Italy, Spain, Germany or France, we tend to find two or three good teams and a lot of other teams which are, if it is not too unkind to say so, also-rans. A lot of games, as a result of that, are just not competitive in the same way, whereas we know that in the Premier League, every single game is competitive and capable of a surprise. That is because the bottom clubs invest in players to make it competitive, knowing that they have that safety net there. It is that that ultimately brings in the big bucks, in terms of the rights bids that fund the whole game: broadcasters around the world want to know that they will have good games week in, week out, and that is what parachute payments allow.

It is probably put best by Paul Barber, the well-respected Brighton & Hove CEO and deputy chairman: the relative comfort that parachute payments provide to Premier League clubs, especially those newly promoted, means that owners are more willing to commit funds, knowing that if the worst happens and relegation occurs, clubs have support to adjust to a very different reality.

I am aware that the Bill does not require the regulator to consider parachute payments. I know the Minister has made this point before, and we understand it, but the fact does not negate the risks. That is not to say that the current system of parachute payments is not without faults—no one is saying it is perfect—but it is true that every major league club has a similar parachute-type mechanism in some shape or form. That is why we feel the need to ensure that parachute payments are not part of the regulator’s remit, as in the original Bill put forward by the Conservative Government. It is very important.

On the tiny chance that the Minister does not accept Amendment 57, I have also tabled Amendment 70 as a compromise. Amendment 70 states that if the regulator does include parachute payments within the scope of revenue distribution, a final proposal cannot abolish them entirely. The intent is to give a greater degree of certainty that parachute payments will not be disregarded in their entirety. It acknowledges the regulator’s right to consider them if it believes it is necessary, while also ensuring some level of security.

Competition organisers would be able to propose a reduction in parachute payments if they so wish, but could not do away with them altogether. This is fundamentally important to clubs, which often invest with three-, four- or five-year business plans. That is of course exactly what we would want reputable, well-run clubs to do. We want them to invest on the back of a certain set of circumstances and economic conditions and not expect some major parts of that—namely, the parachute payments—to be potentially withdrawn mid-way through.

I believe that this is in keeping with the Government’s stated intentions and I know the Minister does not envisage parachute payments to be abolished. If that is the intent, why not give us greater guarantee of the fact by putting it in the Bill? Although I would prefer parachute payments not to be considered at all, I am under no illusions as to the parliamentary arithmetic. Therefore, in the likely event that they are to be included in the Bill, we have tabled Amendment 70 as a sensible and measured compromise that does not deviate from the Government’s stated policy.

On the small chance that the Minister does not accept my Amendment 57, I hope that she will find herself able to accept the compromise that we have put forward in Amendment 70. I strongly urge her to look favourably on such an amendment in the spirit of consensus, which I know noble Lords in this House respect. If she is able to accept Amendment 70 or give an undertaking for Third Reading, I will not divide the House on Amendment 57 but, unfortunately, if she does not accept what we think is a very sensible compromise, we will have no option but to divide. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient to give our opinion on this matter, which is very straightforward. Parachute payments are a system that is in place for today and not set in stone. This is an ongoing process, and the situation will change with the Bill. There is the suggestion that parachute payments are a great drop down and land with a heavy thump. Hopefully, we will raise the ground up a bit or have some cushioning in place. Having one system built in for ever goes against the purpose of the Bill.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests, as declared in the register. I support my noble friend’s amendments, which would remove parachute payments from the backstop.

I hope it will assist the House if I explain why I am so concerned about the inclusion of parachute payments within the definition of relevant revenue. It is not because I believe that the parachute system is perfect—I really do not. It is not because I believe that the precise level or design of parachutes should be fixed forever or protected from scrutiny—I do not. Nor is it because Premier League clubs are insensitive to the aspirations of clubs throughout the pyramid—we are not. We all share the same common goal: a thriving, dynamic, sustainable football ecosystem from top to bottom. It is because the backstop mechanism as it has been designed is so fundamentally unsuited to addressing the issues of parachutes.

The previous Government’s backstop was badly flawed, enabling a binary choice between two proposals, one of which must be selected in its entirety. That was highly unusual and posed significant risks. However, that mechanism could have just about been tolerable because, by isolating solidarity or voluntary payments as the sole issue for resolution, the backstop at least delivered a binary choice between two numbers. That is a judgment the regulator could reasonably make. I remind noble Lords that the levels of solidarity are explicitly linked to parachute payments in the existing distribution agreement between the Premier League and the EFL. One can be used to smooth the potential rough edges of the other, which is what the previous Bill correctly recognised.

However, the expansion of the Bill’s scope to include parachute payments transforms the backstop entirely. It is no longer about determining quantum, but now forces a judgment on the wholesale redesign of football’s financial architecture. It has become a choice, not between two numbers but two fundamentally different systems and it is substantially more legally and financially risky as a result.

The crucial thing to appreciate is the connection between the now systemic nature of the backstop and the position of the EFL. The EFL’s chair has called parachute payments

“an evil that needs to be eradicated”

—not reformed or adjusted, but eradicated. When we combine that system, a binary process, with the open agenda of one of the two parties, we create an absolutely intolerable risk. The backstop offers no capacity for careful calibration or fine tuning, which I would be wholly supportive of.

There is no part of this Bill that allows the regulator to make a reasoned, balanced judgment. It creates a binary, “winner takes all” approach, with no room for nuance but plenty of room for poison pills and final damage. It enables a proposal from the EFL that would level down the bottom half of the Premier League, rather than genuinely elevate the entire football pyramid. Surely, we want a mechanism that delivers both a strong Premier League and a strong EFL, rather than a zero-sum game.

The Government have made their political choice on the backstop, but I believe that they did so without the full understanding of its implications for the delicate ecosystem that sustains football at all levels. If we are to avoid serious, legal and economic consequences for football over the next few years, the Government would be well advised to now address the serious problem they have created. If they are not prepared to revisit the decision on parachutes, my amendments on how the IFR should make its final decision offer a constructive path forward that would benefit the entire pyramid. The proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, offers an alternative. There can be no doubt that change is needed.

We all want the same thing—financial sustainability throughout English football—but the starting point must surely be a shared recognition that we cannot achieve this by dismantling the very mechanisms that have made English football, from the Premier League to the National League and beyond, the world’s most successful ecosystem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I will just add a penny’s worth. In the Bill, there is a backstop. Let us remember the history: the backstop was brought in to sort out the trade agreements after Brexit, and how Brexit would operate in Northern Ireland. Few people understood what a backstop was, and that was part of the trouble. We had to find a better way than what the backstop suggested.

Listening to the wonderful words of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for saying that they sounded to me very much like what Saint Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13. The Corinthians were fighting among themselves. Who was better? Who had more gifts? “I’m for Paul”. “I’m for Apollos”. “No, I’m better than you are”. And Paul says, “Okay, fine. Let me show you a better way”. He talks about love. He talks about faith. He talks about hope. That was the better way.

What is being proposed by these noble Lords is a better way—a better way of resolving disputes that have to do with football. As I said before, football clubs are tribes. They think theirs is the best. Of course, we have to congratulate Newcastle. I live in that part of the world. I shouted a lot, even though I was watching on television, and lost my voice in the process. Football clubs have a tradition and a history; they are tribes. If you give them a backstop, you may be there for I do not know how long. The dispute resolution that has been recommended would be a better way of doing it.

Since we are doing regulation as a new thing, which has not happened in this country before, people need to have confidence that what you have written is not another sham rock on which this ship will find itself broken apart. A backstop sounds good but, in practice, I am afraid it has not worked so far, because everybody abandoned it.

So, I urge the noble Lord the Minister—she may feel “No, I haven’t got the authority to oppose this”—that it would be much better, when you come to respond, to say that you will take this amendment away and bring it back again at Third Reading. She may still reject it then, but it would be worth giving this some thought. It would help the House not to go through a system of rejecting every amendment. I have voted against some amendments because I was not sure they were helping the Bill—but if this one is pressed to a vote, I will definitely vote for it. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that is not the better way. The better way would be for the Minister to take it away and have a think about it so that, at Third Reading, it will come back.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard a great deal of eloquence. This is a subject where there has been an almost seductive charm coming at me. There has also been the novelty of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, applying for a pay cut; that is beyond belief.

What has always struck me is that this is a complicated process, where you have a big beast and a smaller one. The Government’s attempt has been to bring this forward. It may not be the most elegant solution but, let us remember, it is supposed to stop you getting there.

We have had years of this. Anybody who has been following this Bill, waiting for it to come forward, has had years of people not agreeing. We have had years of entrenched positions, of people thinking, “Oh, you have to have us as the greatest league in the world, otherwise it doesn’t work”. No—you have to be profitable. You cannot guarantee that the Premier League will be in a dominant position. That is what competition is. You have to have something that works, where people have to come together and talk.

Is the Government’s solution better than the one from the noble Lord, Lord Birt? I think the thump of hard reality is something we need. I will quote the noble Baroness back to her. I said that all sport tends to suffer from people sitting in darkened rooms, talking about themselves to themselves. The Minister said, “No, in this case, it’s people sitting in darkened rooms refusing to talk to each other”.

That is something I have carried through on. We have had people defending entrenched positions and people saying, “It is not fair”. They have changed over the course of this long debate. The first people to really irritate me were those in the EFL, two or so years ago, when they started on this. There has been no compromise here, no movement and no understanding of the family. If it is a family, it is in a soap opera somewhere.

So the Government’s position is the one that I would prefer, although I would not say that I am terribly happy with either. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. At the moment, I am slightly more in favour of what the Government are bringing forward.

[Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)]

My Lords, I rise as a supporter of AFC Wimbledon, a noble club, the great romantic story of the 20th century in British football—a club that was stolen, and a club that restarted and reinvented itself. That is the spirit that football is all about: the local clubs, with local supporters. Those clubs need protection, and they need to have it explicitly stated that they and their interests will be carefully considered. That is why I support this amendment. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the criteria set out in proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment 72. That is what would give the lower-league clubs the protection that they need. The people who hire the young people we train are dependent on those revenues and on support in this kind of way. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Maude. I will also speak to my own amendments, Amendments 91 to 93, 94A and 94B, which are consequential on the Government’s Amendment 90. What all these amendments have in common is that they are all about post-legislative review. To explain them, I go back very briefly to when, in Committee, I tabled a sunset clause suggesting an independent review that would report to the House, with a power to recommend that the regulator either continue, continue under certain conditions or cease to operate. While I am not at all sure that there was a consensus for the sunset clause, there was very clearly a consensus across the Committee for better post-legislative review.

On that score, I am delighted to see government Amendment 90, because it contains, to my mind, some of the key objectives I was seeking to put forward in the sunset clause. If noble Lords read the clause that the Government have tabled, they will see that it sets out a review, it sets out that the objectives of the regulator will be reviewed, and it will even be seen whether the regulator’s objectives remain necessary. This is a very big concession by the Government. If the tone of debate on Report has been better than in Committee, I think it is partly because the Government have moved on several very important elements, one being growth and another being this. I gather that it is extremely rare to put a post-legislative review of this kind into a Bill, and I think the Government should be congratulated on that. I read it as an escape clause for the Government. In the event of the regulator going wrong, there will be this fundamental review, so I think the Government are being prudent in so doing.

My amendments to government Amendment 90 simply seek to ensure that the review is carried out by independent persons—the same sort of independent people I named in the sunset clause—who would then report to the House. My noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment specifically proposes an examination of the financial effects of the regulator on clubs, because he fears they will be damaging. Once again, I am very grateful to the Government for their Amendment 90 and I wait with interest to see what the Minister will say in response to these amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the Government for Amendment 90. It is the sort of thing that improves a Bill, improves the ongoing process of a Bill and means that it is not just dead when it finishes going through its parliamentary life. There probably should be far more of these in legislation, so I thank the Government.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94D and in so doing echo the welcome that the House has given to the Minister on introducing Amendment 90. Amendment 94D focuses on the role of the FA and recognises that when the 2023 White Paper was written and supported by both sides, it expressly backed delegation as a good idea. We understand that the shadow regulator would also welcome the ability to both formally and informally delegate functions to competition organisers, especially around first-line areas such as monitoring and administrative elements of licensing.

My amendment does not require the Government to do more at this stage than recognise that, following the review of the Act, if that report concludes that the regulator’s objectives could be achieved more effectively by delegating an IFR function to the Football Association, at least on the face of the legislation, that would be possible. As I say, it recognises that in the White Paper the Government saw merit in sharing or delegating regulatory responsibilities in certain circumstances. It also begins to address the current complete severance of the umbilical cord between the role of the FA, as the national governing body of football in this country, and the contents of this legislation, and goes at least one step towards addressing the fact that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA, not least in accordance with the FIFA and UEFA statutes. We know that legislation that compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England would be non-compliant with these statutes. This amendment at least opens the door a little to the FA undertaking its role as the sole regulator of football, which has otherwise been stripped bare by the other clauses.