Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to speak in the debate on the Football Governance Bill, which is fundamentally a good Bill and one that the Government should be proud of. We should give thanks in that pride to the previous Government for doing much of the hard work in preparing it. I also personally thank the Minister for her careful introduction to the Bill and the Premier League, the EFL, Fair Game, Women in Football, the LSE, Civitas, the LCP, the FSA and the PFA for their informative briefings. I apologise to anybody I have missed out.

Many of us have waited a long time for this Bill and then, of course, we get two Bills in a year. Both major parties have edged towards increasing the level of regulation of our beautiful game. Some say that we do not require it, others that existing regulation does not go far enough. But, for those of us who have been watching football for a long time, the current system is failing both clubs and fans and is no longer financially sustainable.

The desire for a degree of regulation to make the game more sustainable has a long history. Back in the 1990s, Labour had a mini-manifesto for the game. Once elected, our efforts were of necessity focused on countering disorder and hooliganism. Tackling racism and violence were a priority for me in my role as the football hooligan Minister back in the late 1990s, and our actions were key to ensuring that we were able, as a nation, to continue participating in international tournaments.

In 2019, both the Tory Party and Labour made a commitment to football regulation in their manifestos. As we know, to their credit, the new Tory Government invited Tracey Crouch to lead the fan-led review, and this in turn led to a White Paper and, earlier this year, the first iteration of the governance Bill. Now it falls to Labour, as ever, to complete the job. The post-election gap has enabled the improvement of the Bill in several respects, including the regulation of the financial distribution payments system across the football pyramid and the issue of parachute payments. Changes relating to fan engagement and the equalities, diversity and inclusion provisions are also welcome, as is the shortening of the time for the production of the first “state of the game” report, which will help put football on a more sustainable financial footing.

While we produce some of the world’s best clubs and fantastic football, the Premier League is becoming a closed shop, dominated by the money generated by TV rights. The top of the league is the preserve of a few clubs, primarily the richest. The rest of the Premier League is made up of clubs trying to get into two of the three European competitions or struggling to retain their place in the Premier League. In 2022-23, 25 clubs, 20 Premier League clubs and five EFL clubs, received 92% of the distributable revenues of the English game, £3 billion, while the other 67 clubs shared just 8%, £245 million. The football regulator’s task will be to ensure that there is a more equitable distribution of football revenues across the pyramid.

Football must remain a sport about risk, reward and fair competition. The current relegation payments scheme prevents this. In the last seven seasons, two of the three promoted teams from the Championship have been those relegated the season before, bolstered as they were by their financial protection following relegation. Back in 2010-11, parachute payments were just £30 million. By 2020-21, they had grown to £233 million, an eightfold increase at a time when wages had merely doubled. In the Championship, the non-parachute payment clubs are forced to overspend on players to compete effectively for promotion, creating a risk of bankruptcy, relegation and often a long, painful recovery period. We need the regulator to come up with a system that softens the financial blow of relegation, but in a way that does not distort competition. Change will need to be gradual and carefully managed, so that club viability and competitiveness are preserved, and the strength of the leagues protected.

I welcome greater fan engagement and the protection of the heritage and culture of clubs. The devil will be in the detail on how best to achieve this. The prevention of breakaway competitions will, of course, benefit players and clubs at a time when I think we are reaching the limit of what extra competitions can bring to the game.

Finally, where would I like to see improvements and changes? The first “state of the game” report will set the tone for the future development of the regulator. The last Bill gave the regulator three years to complete this work. That was too long, so I am pleased that it has been reduced to 18 months, but see no reason at all why it should not be six months or perhaps, at most, a year. Shadow staff, already in place, will have access to data and football market intel sufficient to hit the ground running. There are urgent issues to be resolved and, if they want to demonstrate change by the time of the next election, the Government would be wise to listen to those supporting faster progress. A shorter period for the initial report would justify a longer gap before the second.

In relation to the regulator’s scope, I am strongly sympathetic to bringing the clubs in the top two women’s leagues into the regulatory framework. The rapid growth in women’s football brings with it the same issues and risks, and with this Bill we have an opportunity to address these before they become a problem. It might also help tackle discriminatory behaviour and the macho culture that can impact on the game. It does seem odd, having strengthened the EDI commitment, to then exclude the women’s game from the regulatory framework. Access to even a small element of the solidarity payments produced currently would be transformational for the game.

Similarly, we should look to include the regulation of all clubs in National League North and National League South. It seems odd to regulate one-third of the National League clubs and leave the sixth tier unregulated. Some of these clubs are significant community assets and businesses with turnover figures of £4 million, £5 million and £6 million a year. More fans are turning to watch grass-roots football, and here again is an opportunity to ensure consistency in our approach at all levels.

I have a small but significant point for the Minister. Can we ensure that, among the statutory consultees, we include the players’ union, the PFA? Try having a football match without its staff.

The Minister will no doubt have read the press coverage of the Fair Game report pressing for changes and the strengthening of the Bill. I am sympathetic to many of these, some of which I have referred to. I hope she will continue her already-begun engagement with Peers so that we can improve the Bill as it goes through its Lords stages.

The Government are to be congratulated on the progress so far. This Bill is a bit like a Brighton and Hove Albion substitution at half-time: a potential game-changer. It works. When I reflect on how close my club was to going out of business for the want of effective regulation in the mid-90s, I do not want to see other clubs and their fans put through that experience. It is my belief that this legislation, with its owners and directors test, a licensing and financial control regime, and a commitment to a system of fairer competition and financial fair play, will go a long way to putting an end to the era of irresponsible club ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Like other noble Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest—maybe a bit of a confession—in that I have been a Chelsea season ticket holder for the last 20 years. I also still feel a bit stiff from playing for the parliamentary team against the Army in the Remembrance Day game yesterday. Please do not ask me the score.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in thanking the Minister for her inclusive approach to date. I am sure that will stand us in very good stead as we get into a lot of what I think we would all accept are the quite tricky issues in Committee. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions. As ever, they show how fantastic this House is in breadth of experience. Talking to us tonight have been club directors, former FA chairs, Sport Ministers, sports media experts, supporters’ clubs’ chairmen, and rugby referees—all passionate fans, even if some of us are misguided about our choice of clubs. I will not point those out.

We are all here because we know that, as Bill Shankly famously once said, football is not a matter of life or death; it is much more important than that. I prefer the more fitting phrase that football is the most important of the least important things. Why? It is because, as we all say, it captures our hearts and that often overrules our heads. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Bach, during those 90 minutes all of us feel like brothers together in a community.

We would all agree that football clubs are a unique place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that they are more than just a business. They are part of the social fabric of a community and a force for wonderful social good. That is why I believe there is a general consensus among all the stakeholders—the supporters’ clubs, the FAPL, the English Football League—that there is a role for the football regulator in some of those basic protections. I mean clubs not moving away, as in the MK Dons example, the names, shirts, logos, the fit and proper owners’ tests, and the breakaway league threat—although I note my noble friend Lord Maude’s point that it was the English fans that killed it, unlike those in the other countries.

We also need to be careful in any area where the heart often overrules the head. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, gave a cautionary tale. We all know that fans can be a fickle bunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, said, more than anything, fans care about the success of their club. If you ask those Chelsea fans whether they cared about their owner being a Russian, they probably cared the most about being very successful during that time. As the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, asked, how quickly will today’s regulator be seen as tomorrow’s VAR—not the solution to the problem?

The general consensus here is that the regulator should be light touch. The high degree of concern is for overreach—very eloquently put by the noble Lords, Lord Hannan, Lord Jackson and Lord Moynihan—and mission creep. Just in today’s debate, I noted at least eight new powers that noble Lords have suggested, and this is just the start of the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, the £140 million of cost we are talking about for this regulator does not feel like a light-touch situation.

The biggest area for mission creep and the biggest potential involvement is the financial regulator being more and more involved in football financials. As noble Lords have said, the Premier League is the UK’s clear stand-out industry—number one in the world. Unlike any other industry, there is no doubt that it is number one. As mentioned, the Premier League is the richest and the Championship the sixth-richest, richer than the Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium. That has benefited all the clubs and all the tiers; it has led to investment in grass-roots facilities right the way through the game, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned.

The Premier League is the most attended worldwide of all football leagues; the second-most attended, as mentioned, is the English Football League. That is all founded on media rights value. I confess that, like the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I have some experience in TV media rights, having founded a pay TV company and been involved in many sports deals and seen worldwide the power of football. I have had pay TV businesses in Thailand tell me that they are going to have a big increase in subscribers the following year because they have won the English Premier League rights.

Why is the English Premier League so popular? It is because it has so many competitive games. Spain, Italy, Germany and France each has two or three top clubs. We would probably argue over which, but I can think of at least eight big clubs in the Premier League. As pointed out by noble Lords, we have many clubs—the Bournemouths, Leicesters and Brightons of the world—that have come in and shown real upward mobility and won competitions. That volume of competitive games really drives the viewership and the pay TV subscriptions, which drive the TV rights money, which funds everything else we are talking about here.

Fundamental to that, I believe, and if you speak to the Premier League, is the parachute payment element of it all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, come February, any club that does not have the comfort—for want of a better word—of a parachute payment will suddenly be thinking that it has to cut back on wages and sell players because it will be in financial oblivion if it gets relegated the following season. It is not just the bottom three clubs but the bottom six, seven or eight that will be in danger of that. All of a sudden, you have a third of the games remaining, probably even more, and they become uncompetitive. The value that the world TV companies are paying for disappears.

Now, things are always a game of two halves. If you speak to the English Football League about this, which I have, it says that the flip side of these parachute payments is that relegated clubs are much richer and that two-thirds of the promoted clubs depend on those parachute payments. That distorts competition in the EFL. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, the Premier League is the most generous in the world in terms of the big solidarity payments, which enables, among other things, the English Football League to be the sixth richest. So, in absolute terms, the English Football League is very rich. However, the English Football League would say that the issue is not about absolute wealth but about relative wealth: because it does not have nearly as much money as the Premier League, it is harder for it to compete.

Among all of this, we are asking the regulator to step in. That is the danger from all this, because we are asking this regulator—unlike any other regulator that I am aware of—to get involved in the redistribution of money from one entity to another. All the other regulators might talk about payments that they have to make, but they do not talk about taking money away from part of the industry and giving it to another part. Yet we are asking the independent regulator to wade into exactly that issue—the use of those powers—like some sort of super-referee. That is the danger, and I believe that we will get some unintended consequences.

There seem to be some elements in some of the detail that will actually prevent deals being done. We will put restrictions on deals being for more than five years. Again, the Premier League will say that if it is longer than five years, it is prepared to pay over more money. Is that not the basis of a potential solution? Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but surely it is not the role of the regulator to put in red lines that could stop those sorts of agreements coming in. I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward: surely, if you have only the objective of sustainability and not the objective of the success of the Premier League or the Football League, the predisposition of the regulator must be to think about redistribution between clubs in terms of sustainability, rather than their overall success. Should one of the objectives not be the success of the Football League and the Premier League?

Most of all, anything that reduces the competitiveness of Premier League and Football League games will decrease viewership and TV rights. That is a danger, because the Premier League has no God-given right to be number one. Spain and Italy used to be number one. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, the European Champions League has absolutely been set up to try to compete with the Premier League. We really do not have a God-given right and we need to tread very carefully. At the very least, as the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Taylor, said, we should consider sunset clauses as part of all of this.

Clause 7 says that the regulator must exercise its functions in a way that avoids impacting the sporting competitiveness of any club against another club. Is that not exactly what the parachute payments are doing? They are eliminating competition in the lower half of the clubs towards the end of the season. Is that not exactly what UEFA is concerned about? It says that any member association might

“be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that”

the association

“may no longer be considered … fully responsible”.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord seems to be obsessed with competition at the bottom end of the Premier League towards the end of the football season. What about the distortion in the English Football League as a product of the parachute payments that he accepts have a distorting effect?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That shows why the subject needs to be considered in detail in Committee. Leagues are deciding payments between themselves and their clubs. We are asking about the regulator and about trying to change that structure—the competition between the clubs and the different leagues. As part of that, there is the risk that UEFA will be concerned about this, so will the Minister meet UEFA to try to get its approval in advance? The last thing any of us want is England being banned from the Euros because we have a Bill which oversteps the mark.

This has been a very good discussion. There has been a lot of passion, as we expect, and a general agreement that there is real social good. But we have the UK’s number one industry here and we need to tread carefully to make sure we have a light-touch regulator without the mission creep and the unintended consequences. I look forward to those discussions in Committee.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

The point I am making to the Minister is that the wording of this clause is so loose and, dare I say, not well drafted that it will give rise to misunderstandings and potential litigation. On that basis, the Minister should take the opportunity, perhaps on Report, to come back with a much tighter wording in order for us to understand the Government’s aims and make sure that it is litigation-proof as we go forward, because we are creating an unprecedented regime.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by the amendments from the Benches opposite because there is a degree of amnesia in some of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, moves to strike out “sustainability” from Clause 1. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in another place at the beginning of the year. In Clause 1, “Purpose and overview”, it says:

“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.


That is the same wording as is in the Bill before us. I say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that this Clause 1 is exactly the same as the Clause 1 that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have brought to this House, had he still been the Minister and had the Conservative Party not lost the general election. So I am extremely puzzled by the approach of noble Lords opposite.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Picking up that point, I think the noble Lord is trying to make it appear as if this is a partisan thing, but it is not. I would have tabled exactly the same amendments if this had been the previous Government’s Bill that he refers to. This is not a party-political matter at all; it is about a game that we are passionate about and that is a spectacular success. We do not want to see something done that damages it.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord has the benefit of supporting Horsham FC. I have the benefit of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion, and I am absolutely passionate about my football club, which is one of the best clubs in the Premier League. I would not be party to wishing to do anything that damages the Premier League, and neither would my colleagues on these Benches. We recognise, understand and appreciate that the Premier League is an institution that is more than worth supporting. It is the best in the world and we know that.

The other thing that noble Lords need to focus on in this debate is that when the noble Lords opposite were in government, they were very keen to have this legislation. A DCMS report published in September 2023 quoted the findings of a research paper that showed that there continues to be

“a widespread issue of clubs being run in unsustainable ways from a traditional financial analysis viewpoint”.

That was then the position of the party now in opposition, and I am hoping that it has the same range of concerns about our football finances now as it did back then, because it was quite clear that that was the primary motive for the legislation, and it is the primary motive for the legislation today. It is about its financial sustainability.

If a product or a good cannot be produced in a way that is sustainable, it will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made a great song and dance about, successful. That is why my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have tabled our amendments in the first group—to focus on making sure that the Bill and the regulator that the Government are seeking to create promote the sustainability and success of our beautiful game. That is why we are here today; that is what we are arguing about and what we are so passionate about. It is for that very reason that we tabled our Amendment 10 to Clause 1.

I hope that the party opposite is not going to suffer from this collective amnesia for too long, but that it will get behind the Bill, get behind the purpose and objectives set out very clearly in that first clause—a clause that, in government, it amply supported and gave voice to. We need to get behind the Bill and make sure that it is sustainable for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

The problem with the idea of sustainability, which is undefined in this Bill, being the purpose of the regulator is that it can get in the way of ambition and aspiration, of calculated risk taking, and all the things that make the Premier League such an exciting and competitive league. Those are the reasons it is the best league in the world, and it is that competitiveness which drives the commercial broadcast values which are the revenues that underpin the entire football pyramid.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I am told that EFL clubs are likely to lose around £450 million in this current football season, and I think the noble Baroness said something similar. The regulator in this Bill, which is focused primarily on financial sustainability, is surely a good thing for football regulation because it is trying to make sure that those clubs—yes, involved in the business of risk and jeopardy—are financially sustainable and have a duty to their communities, and that their activities do not risk the future of those clubs. The point of the legislation, from the previous Government and our Government, is to make sure those clubs can be sustained and not have undue financial risk.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord; he made his point very well. The Bill does not say “financial sustainability”. Sustainability is not defined. If you put sustainability above overall success, growth and the competitive nature of the game, you might have a safer league, but you will have one that no one wants to watch. You might, notionally, have a more sustainable ecosystem, but it will also be smaller, more boring and poorer. If sustainability is the number one aim of the regulator, can the Minister explain to us what she and the Government consider to be the definition of the “sustainability” of English football? Can she also explain why sustainability does not include supporting the sustainability of the success and growth of the Premier League?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The point that I was trying to make is that I absolutely agree that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well intended in terms of sustainability. I am worried that, as we all get back to the mission creep point and try to resolve all these things, we get into the law of unintended consequences. I know from speaking to a club chairman that if you put that money aside in that way, all you will do is deter their ability to invest in players. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, if we want to make ourselves unpopular in all this, it is by starting to do things that stop clubs buying players and investing. We think that VAR is unpopular today. Suddenly, you make all the clubs put £30 million to £40 million in escrow and they cannot buy those players. That would be a very brave decision for a Minister.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Following up on my noble friend’s point, looking at the finances of some clubs, you do wonder. Would the noble Lord, who has been in business himself, tolerate a situation where he only had five hours’ worth of reserves? Nottingham Forest last year spent something like £58 million on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves. I know that this is not uncommon across the world of football, but is that a highly desirable state of affairs? Is that not something that we should focus on? Is it not why we want good financial sustainable regulation? That is why we have got to this point where both sides of the Chamber have accepted the need to have a football regulator.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord may be looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is not that they have got only £25,000 in cash. You have to look at the whole balance sheet. The fact that they have a load of players who are worth a lot of money, who they could sell, means that they are fine financially. There are loads of companies out there today in positions of net debt. Most FTSE 100 companies have debt as a vital part of their balance sheet. You would be saying to them, “Oh, you haven’t got much money in your account, you’re in a net debt position”, when the value, when you look at all the assets too, means that it is in the FTSE 100 and is a very successful company. That is an example of why the whole area of us as politicians trying to get involved in setting criteria worries me. We will put things forward that are well intended but have unintended consequences. We will come on to this in later debates on the Bill.

I will finish. I hope that noble Lords understand that the reason why we have gone over time is that we have had a good discussion. It has been helpful in terms of the questions that have been asked. I would be pleased if the Minister could say why we would not want those measures of success as part of the criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the way in which he has introduced and moved his Amendment 5. My Amendment 6, which also carries the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, has a similar effect. It would deal with the consequences if the Bill is not amended in a way that protects against those consequences. It is another way of getting at the same point—the same danger, risk and jeopardy that English football is potentially in if this is not dealt with at a very early stage.

On this business of English football having its own autonomy and not being subject to influence or control by government, we know that there are countries where football is an important activity and where national teams take part in international competitions. But in some of those countries, the boundary between where the state ends and the Government begins is sometimes unclear. It may be contended that in these circumstances, given the undoubted influence and control over English football that will come if the Bill is enacted in its current form, there will be state intervention, for sure. Is that the Government? It will be contended that this is an independent regulator.

None the less, it is a regulator appointed by Ministers in the Government. Its powers will be defined in secondary legislation drafted by the Government and if there is mission creep and scope creep, which some of us fear is almost inevitable, that will come about because of government decisions. This is a real issue; it is not scare- mongering. UEFA has written on these concerns, so when it is argued that this cannot really matter because Germany has regulated football, the fact is that that has been done in a way that prevents those concerns.

UEFA, which matters for these purposes, is not content at this stage that this jeopardy does not exist, so it has to be dealt with. The sooner that the Minister can give us some comfort that she understands how serious this is and the political danger the Government would be in if they—by lack of proper care and attention to these risks—allowed this malign effect to come about. It is very important to indicate at the earliest possible stage, which is really tonight, in this debate, that a provision which deals with this risk will be incorporated into the Bill by way of government amendment. I think that would be a great comfort to all of us.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My understanding of the exchange of correspondence was that UEFA’s primary concern was that the scope of the legislation in the Bill may go beyond financial concerns. It was entirely happy with the regulator being concerned about the finances of football, and rightly so. I do not quite see the fear that lies behind this set of amendments. Although the noble Lord is right that we need early clarification, the regulator’s purposes are clear: they are about ensuring sustainability and success, and all the rest of it, of our brilliant game. I think UEFA was just seeking clarification that it was tightly constrained around the notion of football finances.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit of a Brighton supporter myself. Tottenham is my first love; Horsham is my second; Brighton comes a very close third. I hope the letter from UEFA will be published so that we can see in exact detail what is said and therefore satisfy ourselves that the concerns will be dealt with comprehensively and finally so that there is no lingering anxiety.

I totally understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I wish I could be as happy as he is that there is no risk of subsequent mission creep, which is exactly the concern that UEFA raised. Some of us have raised that, in the Bill as currently drafted, there is scope for precisely the kind of mission and scope creep that UEFA seems to have identified. That is why it is so important at this stage that it should be dealt with and for it to be finally laid to rest that this concern need not be a concern.

My noble friend Lord Goodman spoke about the political risk for the Government if they come to be the people who have enacted a Bill which inflicts savage damage on English people’s expectations that their clubs will be able to participate in the Champions League, the Europa League and even the Europa Conference League, which West Ham so spectacularly won. It has to be dealt with quickly, cleanly and effectively, so that we no longer need to have sleepless nights over this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a point about Clause 11. I have read it and I have also read the previous Clause 11. As far as I can see, they are absolutely identical. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, can help us, because he would have been in the DCMS at the time. Was it the case then that Ministers sought assurances from UEFA and FIFA that there was nothing in the Bill’s powers that would have offended them? If that is the case, and if Clause 11 is so important in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, this argument is probably a bit of a non-argument in the end, because we have had that clarification and assurance through the exchange of letters that took place in September this year.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think this is important. The last two contributions have just reminded me. I do not care what was in the previous Government’s Bill, which, to be honest, I would have stood up and argued against at that time as well.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I entirely accept that the noble Baroness would have done that, but I was more concerned about the argument coming from the Official Opposition.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I agree, but I was going to appeal to us myself to try to tackle the Bill—which is so important in many ways—with at least a little of the spirit of what is in the best interests of football, rather than what is in the best interests of the political footballs of political parties. That is just an appeal—it might not work—because Henry VIII powers, for example, are anti-democratic and illiberal whoever uses them. I do not therefore want not to be able to criticise them in case somebody thinks that I am on the side of the Tories or that I am anti-Labour. That is not the point, surely.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

11: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) meets environmental sustainability requirements set out in subsection (3A).”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 11 and 15 relate to sustainability—not the notion of sustainability that we have been addressing to date when considering this Bill but environmental sustainability.

We seek here to get something on the record about how we feel the regulator should approach this issue. Every sector, every industry, should consider environmental sustainability and football should not be an exception. The Government, quite rightly, have commitments to achieve net zero on carbon emissions. It is impossible to divorce environmental issues from issues of financial sustainability and there are numerous ways in which one could substantiate that. It would be negligent to exclude environmental sustainability from the regulator’s remit. It is a moot question whether this needs to be in the Bill, but it should certainly be part of the regulator’s thinking. Existing regulation in the world of football has failed to change sufficiently the culture of professional and semi-professional clubs.

With limited financial and staffing resources, nearly every club outside the Premier League has failed to make any notable progress on environmental considerations. There are some clubs, the first among them being Forest Green Rovers, which, notoriously, have a very good reputation in promoting sustainability. Others include Swansea City and Norwich City—which has recently been in the Premier League. It is the Premier League clubs—16 of them—that have, to their great credit, led the way in the football pyramid. We feel that it is necessary to encourage other clubs to do the same.

Obviously, Premier League clubs have more resources than clubs lower down the pyramid, but they should not continue to be an outlier in promoting more sustainable environmental practices. To noble Lords who might question whether football should have a role in this, I simply say that the Financial Conduct Authority has regulatory principles which include minimising environmental impacts. There is an environmental policy statement and an environmental management statement, which complies with ISO 14001. It covers issues such as energy, emissions, water usage, minimising waste, recycling, paper use, methods of business travel, digital services and ICT. Football clubs and how they manage the resources that they have at their disposal have an impact on our nation’s desire to head towards net zero by 2050, and that is what the amendment speaks to.

I hope that clubs adopt environmental good practices as Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion do, such as including free travel in their ticket pricing to encourage more people to get on to public transport. Clubs such as Tottenham, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Chelsea have similar strategies. This should be common practice across the football industry. Whether it is in the Bill or part of the regulator’s remit, the environment is simply too important for us to leave to chance. There is a role for football to play in leading the way, as it does in many other fields of social interaction, such as promoting good race relations, tackling misogyny and dealing with other social issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my 10 amendments in this group on environmental sustainability. I want to support almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just said. If you are talking about sustainability, which is what we have been talking about for two days on this Bill, you cannot avoid environmental sustainability, because it will have an impact on the financial well-being of football, and every other business. At the moment, most clubs do not think very hard about this. Forest Green Rovers are fantastic; Liverpool are doing their bit; but, by and large, there are little tweaks that clubs are doing, which makes them feel good—or perhaps they cannot imagine doing anything more, I am not sure.

We know the climate is changing; we know that the weather is changing; we know there are more floods and more droughts; so it is very short-sighted not to include environmental sustainability when you are worried about the future of clubs and their financial sustainability. Football is at risk from climate change, as are many other sports. Flooded pitches lead to cancelled games, lost revenues and disappointed fans, and droughts demand expensive irrigation. As Carlisle United discovered, a flood can lead to the kind of jump in insurance premiums that could put you out of business. So fans need the confidence that these growing risks are being prepared for and that they are not going to have a detrimental impact on clubs’ finances. The Minister kindly gave me a meeting on this, although we did not quite agree, so does she agree that climate change will have direct impacts on the financial sustainability of football and, if so, how is that recognised in the Bill? At the moment, of course, it is not.

My Amendment 103 requires the football regulator to include an assessment of football’s resilience against climate change in its “state of the game report” because, if the report does not consider environmental sustainability, it can give only an incomplete picture of the state of the game. Amendments 127, 131, 154 and 166 introduce climate and environment management plans as a mandatory licence condition for clubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it should be mandatory across all businesses, and these environment management plans would set out the clubs’ environmental impact and what is being done to mitigate it. Above all, they would also require clubs to identify the impacts that climate change is having and will have on the club and make plans to manage those risks.

Football, of course, also contributes to climate change and environmental damage; hundreds of thousands of single-use plastic cups and utensils are used every single matchday; fertilisers, herbicides and millions of litres of water are used to keep the pitch green; and cities and towns are choked up with traffic on match days. The definition of sustainability in the Bill, as it stands, allows all this to continue unabated. It would even allow clubs to damage the environment even more, as long as they keep on serving fans and making a contribution to the community.

It really is an own goal for the planet, but football clubs actually caring about the planet do not have to cost the earth. Forest Green Rovers, who have been described as the greenest football club in the world, are focused on sustainability across their business. Solar panels provide about 20% of the club’s electricity needs; the club organises coaches to away games, not planes; they have cut out single-use plastics in favour of reusable or refillable options; the pitch is organic and harvests rainwater for irrigation. This is a club that is at the top of their table, fit for the future and a role model that other clubs could aspire to. Liverpool, who are, regrettably, also at the top of their table, have their Red Way initiative, which is about environmental sustainability.

My amendments will lay the groundwork for greener pitches and truly sustainable sport, embedding environmentalism throughout the football regulator’s remit. Amendment 55 adds climate and environment to the football regulator’s objectives. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the football regulator must be focused on the financial sustainability of clubs. The Bill already lists safeguarding the heritage of English football as an objective, so why not safeguard the environment as well? Amendments 60 and 66 require the football regulator to act in accordance with the net-zero targets in the Climate Change Act and secure the long-term environmental sustainability of football.

If the football regulator cannot set sport on an environmentally sustainable footing, football’s long-term viability is at risk. Amendment 144 would have clubs consult their fans about climate and environmental issues facing the club. Sustainable football should not just be a luxury enjoyed only by vegans and eco-entrepreneurs. While Forest Green Rovers are showing what is possible, this Bill is an opportunity to embed best practice throughout the sport. I really hope that the Government can move on this issue.

--- 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 Jones of Moulsecoomb, for raising the very serious issue of environmental sustainability and how it relates to the regulator. These are issues of considerable concern, not least with the shocking storms we have seen recently and the change to weather patterns over the past few years. The impact of the climate emergency on all aspects of our lives is very real.

In response to these amendments, I would like to make clear that the Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. As a huge part of our national life, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition. The Government expect authorities across this sport and across all sports to be working together to advance environmental sustainability.

A point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that we have to be able to justify the view we take now to future generations. This is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made an interesting point on placing this requirement within the Bill. However, while I entirely support her views, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, highlighted, this Bill is acting only where industry has shown it is not capable of resolving matters itself and statutory regulation is the most effective way of tackling any market failures.

I would, however, be happy to discuss further with the noble Baroness how we can use good examples of football clubs already acting on the climate change emergency and spread best practice. What I would stress, when noble Lords are discussing something so important both nationally and internationally, is that noble Lords are still debating the very purpose of the Bill. The areas specified in the purpose of the Bill are based only on issues that English football has clearly shown itself to be unable to self-regulate and to risk clubs being lost to their fans and local communities.

By contrast, football has already demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment: for example, the Premier League’s new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league. I welcomed the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Bassam described some interesting measures when describing the work of Forest Green Rovers, but this is clearly only a starting point on which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their own environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.

We must also be wary of scope creep and unintended consequences. The addition proposed in Amendments 11 and 15, in the names of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, would potentially add burden and cost to the regulator, as well as potentially limiting its ability to carry out its main objectives. Therefore, while I acknowledge the importance of this issue, as I have set out, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of this Bill.

I look forward to further discussions on how we can best promote environmental sustainability within the game. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it has been of great value to have this discussion and debate on the notion of environmental sustainability in the football industry, which is a very responsible industry actually. I take heart from the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, gave of the Premier League’s initiatives and those from the noble Lord Parkinson.

It seems to me that this is an important issue for football. All the other regulators seem to have an environmental purpose as well. I have looked at the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom and even the Pensions Regulator, which you might think is a million miles away from being a regulator interested in sustainability. They all have environmental statements and purposes as part of their work.

I think the football business is making progress in this space. I want to see it making more progress, perhaps with a more level playing field. It seems unfair that some clubs leap ahead and leave others behind. Forest Green Rovers, although a small club and in the fifth tier of football, has led the way for some years and I think it only right that we encourage other clubs to do the same, whether that is through the regulator or by applying environmental legislation more generally.

I look forward to the invitation to have some more discussion on this point but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 covers the issue of the scope of the Bill, and particularly women’s football. The Clause 2 stand part debate will focus specifically on the concerns that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised for the consideration of your Lordships.

As regards the women’s game, I seek clarification from the Minister. There is, as noble Lords know, a delegated power in the Bill that allows, at any time in the future, the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the Bill and include women’s football. At present, women’s football is not covered, mainly because of the future of women’s football review, which recommended that women’s football be given a chance to self-regulate. However, it noted that the market shares some similar problems with the men’s game, and, given that the policy intent was that the regulator should not regulate women’s clubs—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I am mindful of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not here. She and I, and others, have an amendment specifically addressing the issue of the place of women’s football. Would the noble Lord withdraw his amendment this evening so that the noble Baroness could at least be here to take part in that debate? I know it is very close to her heart and I am trying to save us from having two debates.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I appreciate that. I will considerably curtail, so I do not need to come back to repeat what I have just said, and simply put a number of very brief questions. Unfortunately, that was not of my doing, as the noble Lord knows, and the powers that be will no doubt look rather more closely at future amendments to make sure that there is no overlap.

I simply ask the Minister one question: what specifically would need to happen for the women’s game to be added into the proposed regulatory framework? I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others, to explore in more detail questions surrounding the ownership of clubs, which regard both women’s and men’s participation as equally important, and therefore the fitness of directors tests, et cetera. To assist the process of speeding up matters in your Lordships’ Committee this evening, I will not ask any further questions on that but will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to consider that in greater detail.

I turn to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is absolutely relevant to Clause 2—unless the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has identified a further group of amendments that we can tie this in to. Clause 2 is really important, because it gives the Secretary of State significant powers through secondary legislation. As the Minister knows, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is a highly respected Committee in this House, and we have a senior member of that committee present this evening. I declare an interest, having served on that committee.

There was real concern that the meaning of English football as defined in Clause 2 was left unclear in the Bill. We covered that briefly at an earlier stage but, to cut to the point, their comment was:

“The policy intent has always been that”


the clubs in scope of the regulator’s remit

“should currently be the top five leagues of the men’s English football pyramid only”.

Given that, it is somewhat concerning that there is so much scope given to change that in secondary legislation, without the opportunity we would have of considering the benefits, or otherwise, of any significant changes to the Bill, which would be really significant. Therefore, it was not surprising that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:

“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.


That is a fairly powerful point for that committee to make in the context of this Bill—indeed, of any Bill brought before your Lordships’ House.

The committee continued:

“The current system of leagues works well. If it were enshrined in primary legislation, it could still work well and, if it ceased to do so, the primary legislation could be amended. Primary legislation is constantly being amended”


to be

“fit for purpose”.

So I very much hope that the Minister will take careful note of the advice offered by that committee. It is very rare that we would ignore that committee or reject the most important recommendation that it has made. It makes a very strong point there. This is an enabling Bill. Clause 2 gives wide-ranging remits to consider the inclusion of women’s football to the Secretary of State—not, by the way, to the regulator. Equally, it is clearly a Bill about the men’s game, which brings forward clear primary legislation on the role of the regulator in the context of the men’s game.

That being the case, I see no reason why this legislation should not be very clear about its purpose and not leave it open to secondary legislation, which gets far less attention in your Lordships’ House. We know that from both sides of the House, whoever has been in Government: it is easy to slip through secondary legislation. We cannot deal with it clause by clause; we either accept it or reject it and we do not have a Committee stage on it.

The two powers vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 2 are of such importance that I very much hope that the Minister will take away the points I have just raised and give further consideration to putting the Bill’s intent clearly within it, rather than leaving it to future secondary legislation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment about the inclusion of the National Leagues North and South. I accept that my amendment is defective; I think the Committee on Statutory Instruments has declared it as such. However, I will use this opportunity to raise the question of where down the pyramid the regulatory process should stop.

Some of the teams in the National League North and National League South are quite substantial. Scunthorpe United is quite a big club and has a turnover somewhere in the region of £5 million to £6 million a year. Torquay United has a turnover of probably £2 million or £3 million a year. Even Maidstone, another former league club, has a turnover of between £2 million and £3 million a year. These are small but substantial businesses. They probably employ no more than 10 or a dozen staff—Scunthorpe probably employs more than that, looking at its accounts—but we expect other parts of the business world to be regulated by health and safety or environmental legislation, by financial conduct rules and regulations, and so on.

It is not smart to leave those two leagues out of consideration, because one of the things we should worry about is predatory ownership. We have seen some of that in the past, to the detriment of clubs in the lower leagues. The Bill is about making sure that the clubs in the lower leagues are properly protected. We have heard a lot from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches about the Premier League and how they believe that the regulatory regime may be damaging to the Premier League, but it is the plight of clubs lower down the pyramid that has sparked the most concern over the years and has been the motor for both major political parties to seek a football regulator.

I make that point because at some stage, we will need to have the National League North and National League South clubs in the regulatory framework. It seems odd to regulate one of the National League’s divisions, but not the other two. I wonder about the cliff-edge effect of having clubs coming up from both those leagues into a system of regulation. That does not necessarily seem to be the right way to do things; it would be better if they were all captured by the same framework.

The Minister made the point at Second Reading that regulation would be appropriate at each level of the pyramid—that has to be right—and that teams in the National League do not require the same degree of regulation as teams in the upper leagues. That is a sensible and proportionate way of looking at things. These clubs are already used to regulation; they are regulated by other regulators.

There is a case that we need at an early stage in the life of the regulator—I accept it may not be now—to have a report, or perhaps a section in the “state of the game” report, that looks at this issue. There may well be some unintended consequences and some cliff-edge issues, and if we do not get regulation right for these clubs, which could be vulnerable to predatory takeovers, some of them may well suffer as a consequence. None of us in the Committee wants to see that happen—I certainly do not, based on my experience as a Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club fan in the 1990s, when we were nearly destroyed by a predatory takeover. We very nearly went out of the league and out of business, and it took us a decade to recover our position.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham in their references to the Delegated Legislation Committee.

I hesitate to disagree with anything my noble friend Lord Moynihan says in any way, but he described me as a senior member of the committee, and I am afraid that this is not accurate. I am, in fact, the most junior member of the committee, having arrived only very recently, but certainly in time to consider this Bill. When I joined the committee, I found that it was very worked up about the rise in secondary legislation, as it set out in its key document, Democracy Denied?, published in 2021—I will come to the significance of that date in a moment. It criticised the use of Henry VIII powers, disguised legislation and skeleton legislation, saying:

“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy, and this report will, we hope, be a prompt to strengthen Parliament in the coming years”.


I find myself in an awkward position here with my own Front Bench, because in 2021 a Conservative Government were in office. The committee clearly feels that this tendency for skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and so on has carried on from 2021 to the present.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan will remember that at Second Reading, he drew attention, as I did, to Clause 92(3), which states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend …the definition of ‘football season’”


and

“the definition of ‘serious criminal conduct’”.

Such is the exquisite moderation of the committee that we did not follow that matter up in the report, but we did concentrate on the issue, raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, of the leagues not named in the Bill. He has read out the relevant sections of the report, and I have no intention of reading them out again.

However, I reinforce the closing point made by my noble friend Lord Markham and put it to the Minister in the form of a question. Can she confirm or deny that if the leagues in the pyramid were to be named in the Bill, the Bill would therefore become hybrid? She is nodding, and she will doubtless amplify on that nod when she responds to the debate, but that is a very important point. If that is the case, did the Government refer to that in their discussions with the committee clerks when they were drawing up the report?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

To follow that point directly, I raised the original question of hybridity following an intervention by my noble friend Lord Markham, at which the Minister nodded. The Minister has since written to us, and I am grateful for her letter setting the situation out. I want to respond to what has been said in the following way. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is in his place, has at various times produced a copy of the Bill as it was under the last Conservative Government and pointed out, as the noble Baroness just said, that the two Bills are, in certain respects, almost identical.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The Bills are 95% identical. That is why we are somewhat surprised that noble Lords opposite are so opposed to its content. There is only one fundamental policy difference in it.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening, because it buttresses the point I want to make. The Minister made it very clear on Monday that she was not aware of the hybridity issue that would arise were the leagues to be named in the Bill until that afternoon. It is evident, therefore, that someone in the department, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench, was aware of the hybridity issue under the last Government and under this one. I raise this as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee; when we received the view of the Government about why the leagues were not named in the Bill, the hybridity issue was not mentioned. It seems to me intuitively quite wrong that so important and real an issue should not have been named when the communication was made between the Government and the committee.

I am told that, procedurally, the people who speak on the Government’s behalf to those who brief us on the committee about the Bill are not obliged to tell the committee about the hybridity issue. If there is something as important as the hybridity issue, should the committee not be made aware of it somehow? I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite for raising the point about the Bill being much the same under the two Governments, as it is germane to the point I want to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to hear that from the Minister; it does not give us much more than we had in the debate on Monday. I thank her for restating it, but I do not think it has engaged with the point that my amendment seeks to provide, which is allowing that flexibility to answer all the policy questions that she has set out, but also giving the clarity in law to the leagues that will be regulated by the Bill. As far I can see, the only material difference between accepting my Amendment 19 and proceeding in the way she wants to is that it would allow those leagues to petition Parliament and make their voices heard more clearly. That would be a good way of hearing from those who will be affected by this law.

I was struck by the sage advice from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who is acting as referee on this matter. This is something we will have to return to, and I am grateful to the clerks who alerted me to it. We will have to think about the question of hybridity and the right of football clubs and leagues to make their views known on this legislation, as the Minister and I have both just come to understand. The Committee has, through the course of this and Monday night’s debate, been able to begin considering it, and we should continue to consider it between—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

If the noble Lord insisted on this being included in the Bill, what would his response then be to further proceedings on the Bill?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am interested in making sure that the Bill passes. I have been very clear from Second Reading onwards that we want to see it pass, that we want a regulator to be set up and that we want football to be protected and well governed. However, we want it to be done in a way that is not unduly burdensome, is proportionate and genuinely protects what is a hugely enjoyed pastime, a vital export and a group of hugely successful businesses for this country.

Thanks to the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 and my Amendment 19, we are given the opportunity to pause and consider whether we can have deeper and more fruitful conversations with those leagues and clubs to make sure that we get this legislation right. That is a question worth pondering with greater patience than I think we have seen from the Government Benches so far. I will certainly continue to consider it, and I hope that other noble Lords will do so too. For today, and in the interest of making further progress with our Committee deliberations, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I enter this debate from a slightly different angle—and I make no apology for that. My concern is linked more to what I might describe as preventing another Wimbledon, or to “Wimbledon-proofing” the legislation. That is what the amendments that we have in this group attempt to assert.

This is important, because Wimbledon was a warning shot across football when it happened—when Wimbledon Football Club was transported 61 miles away from its home community to Milton Keynes. Only one other club has had to move further than that, and that was Brighton & Hove Albion when we were shunted inexplicably—well, rather explicably, in the end—to Gillingham to play our home games. I know that I could go on about that for a long time, but I want to prevent that sort of thing happening in future. As part of the determination of suitability, we are trying to get a commitment—and perhaps the Minister can help us—that issues related to where the home ground is will be an important part of the test as to whether a person is a fit and proper person to become an owner of a regulated club. That is what our Amendment 182 seeks to clarify.

Fans need that long-term security. They need to understand that the people who take ownership of a much-loved community asset are there for the longer term and have a longer-term interest in the community and its football club. We need that because the majority of clubs most likely to be affected by this legislation are those smaller clubs with which there is a great affinity and community bond. I hope that the Minister can assure us that one of the relevant considerations when looking at a new owner will be their commitment to ensuring that the ground stays pretty much where it is and that fans are consulted about any changes to be made to it.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I read with interest the noble Lord’s Amendment 182. The wording says of the commitment to the home ground

“with said commitment to be codified in such form as the IFR may determine”.

Does he agree that it could undermine any existing contractual relationship and bring uncertainty into the business activities of that club, were this amendment to be adopted?

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

We are talking here about a fundamentally different thing: the football pyramid and its sustainability. That is what this Bill is about. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was entirely fair. Is it fair that the top 20 Premier League members and the top five clubs in the Championship get 92% of the television revenues generated, when it is the whole of the football world, in a sense, that helps generate those revenues? I do not think it is fair, and I want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Markham, comment on its fairness or otherwise.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable? Is it fair that Verstappen has won the championship four or five times in a row and is earning far more than everyone else? That is about sporting competitiveness—or competitiveness in anything. It is not the role of a regulator to start to redistribute income; I believe fervently that we will then get the law of unintended consequences.

My noble friend Lady Brady talked about parachute payments. This weekend was a perfect example of why the Premier League is the most popular league in the world. Crystal Palace held Man City to a draw. Can you believe that Crystal Palace—fourth from the bottom, right on the edge of being relegated—would have invested that much in players if they knew that, if they got relegated, they would lose all that money and face almost financial ruin in the Championship without it? I do not think so. I think a regulator would have said, “Oh, Palace, it’s not very sustainable having all that money when you could go down”. That would fundamentally alter the competitiveness of those games. That is the value of the Premier League. People will tune in, because they know that it will not be a walkover between Palace and City in this example; they know that it will be a competitive game.

Countries all over the world are prepared to pay more money than anyone else to see these games because they are competitive. Take the Bundesliga or the Italian or Spanish leagues: there are two or three top clubs and then a lot of also-rans, so it is not competitive in the same way. That is the danger we face here. By allowing regulators to redistribute income, on the basis that it is not fair that the top clubs are getting more, you will alter the whole competitiveness of the structure. Again, we say that it is not fair, but is it fair that the Championship is the sixth wealthiest in the world, while the Premier League is the wealthiest? Why is that? First, it gets a lot of payments down from the Premier League as part of voluntary arrangements. Secondly, it is because of how the whole of football has been set up for clubs to be promoted: money is being invested to give them a chance.

We have all said many times that this is our number one industry worldwide—there is no doubt whatever about that. We then have the second tier, which is number six worldwide. There is nothing else like that, and I believe we are at risk of putting that whole system under threat if we meddle in these ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 157. I declare an interest as a Premier League season ticket holder. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present during previous debates on the Bill, but I have endeavoured to keep up with its progress.

This part of our discussion seems to overlay lots of different and very complex issues, piling them all into one or two amendments. As I speak to Amendment 157, I will try to focus on governance and having independent, non-executive directors on boards, which is absolutely essential when looking at this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has pointed out, there is this idea of football clubs being not just a business or a commercial entity, as other commercial entities are. They are also considered to be community assets, so there is a wide range of stakeholders involved in the promotion, adoration, despair and all the other emotions that go with being a football fan. As has been rightly pointed out, it almost defines something about England.

It is therefore important to try to ensure, as far as possible without being too prescriptive, that we have independent non-executive directors on boards because of the accountability. At the moment, I think many fans feel that there is no accountability. I take on board a lot of the points made about how progressive and determined clubs are to counter the horrible things that happen online and elsewhere, but clubs have also not been terribly successful in changing the faces that sit around those boardroom tables. If we look at reviews such as Sir John Parker’s review of ethnic diversity on boards, there has been some improvement in some sectors. I would gladly be persuaded by those who know better if it is the case that diversity has been increased around those tables.

That is just one part of it. To me, this feels like a move for basic good practice. We have the Nolan principles and we have guidance from the Institute of Directors. All those kinds of guidelines need transparency and people to speak up for them who do not have an interest in a particular way on those boards.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not had the chance yet to speak to my amendments but I am grateful to other noble Lords for participating in the debate and making their comments and views well known. I am slightly disturbed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has rather overinterpreted my Amendment 156. I was not aware that I was in favour of imposing quotas, but it is an interesting point.

Amendment 156 is there simply to raise the issue of ensuring that in corporate governance, football clubs are obliged to improve the diversity within the club, not just among season ticket holders but among staff and senior managers. We have made great progress through football and its barrier-breaking approach to the world of sport over the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember some pretty unpleasant scenes at football grounds when I first started watching football seriously. Gladly, those have become much less frequent but there is a real and genuine issue about representation, particularly of black players then not getting opportunities in off-field representation at all levels of management.

I have received a useful briefing today from the Black Footballers Partnership, which points out exactly that. Only two of the current 92 league managers are black, despite black footballers making up 43% of the players. The Black Footballers Partnership data shows that despite achieving 14% of all FIFA pro licences and one in four of UEFA licences, black players secure only 4% of the coaching and other managerial roles. There is clearly something not right there.

It is important that clubs are obliged to think through some of these issues. Quotas may or may not be the way to do it but we have opportunity here for football to think about improving the levels of diversity, not just in football management but in all management positions and other roles within the clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, clubs have led the way and have played a really startling and dynamic role over time.

With this amendment—and I am grateful to those who have signed it and spoken to it—I am trying to get football to begin thinking more widely about diversity in its broadest sense so that in the future it is just part and parcel of how it should be. I guess the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, would think that this is regulation creep, but I do not see it that way; I see it as setting standards for the future. Football has a proud reputation, and it is one it should build on.

In this amendment, we are seeking to encourage football to build on its reputation, because that is what needs to be done to make the world of football more inclusive and better reflect the society in which it is located. If we can do that, I think the values of football—competition and solidarity—will be much better represented. It would add to the fairness and equity that is there within a very competitive game.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, posits diversity as something you cannot possibly be against. Of course, we are all against prejudice—I hope—and that seems very commonsensical. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point that he tabled this amendment so we could have a proper discussion about diversity.

The problem for me is that diversity, in the context of governance of organisations, is already established across a wide range of organisations. I am afraid it has not been for the good of those organisations. I will address the problems of diversity as a bureaucratic intervention, especially in the hands of a regulator, and why I think it will not be good for football. That does not mean I am implicitly on the side of people who are racists or not interested in equal rights or fairness.

It is important that we have some perspective here. We might note that there are 64 different nationalities represented in the Premier League, as well as a myriad of religious denominations. For players in all the different football teams across the league, that is surely proof of meritocracy—rather than box-ticking diversity schemes—that provides the riches of talents, that is colour-blind and that is not interested in people based on their characteristics.

I also think we have huge diversity in fanbase, and it has not needed a regulator to organise schemes to ensure that English football is loved by hundreds of millions of people of all shapes and sizes, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds across the globe. Meanwhile, female fans, players and popular momentum are propelling women’s football into the limelight. Therefore, I do not think that football is an example of a pale, male, stale institution that is waiting for a regulator to sort it out.

Both the amendments I am concerned about, Amendments 156 and 249, mention the clubs’ employees and monitoring and reporting on staff diversity. But I think we need to take heed of some of the negative lessons from other workplaces, particularly the public sector. Whatever the intention, too often an over-preoccupation with diversity is less likely to create more fairness for staff but does create an explosion of jobs for human resources—HR—apparatchiks, who manage the diversity and inclusion schemes that we set up.

It is worth noting that Britain has one of the largest HR sectors in the world. It is one area of growth that somebody somewhere might be proud of, although I am rather in despair at it. According to the British Labour Force Survey, there was an 83% increase in HR jobs between 2011 and 2023. As journalist Lucy Barton pointed out, that means that HR workers currently outnumber NHS doctors three to one. Let that sink in. A lot of this growth is due to job creation in relation to EDI demands. I do not think we should go ahead with these amendments on diversity and inclusion but, if we do, I propose some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The salaries needed for the hours and hours of paperwork that the regulator will be checking that the clubs do could be incredibly financially burdensome—even crippling—on many clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.

One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.

In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord not think it is rather odd that in a sport where something like 43% or 44% of the players are black, very few of those players make it through into management positions in those same professional leagues? Does he not think there is something slightly amiss there?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

The figure that is out of whack with the population is the number of players, not the number of managers, which is exactly in line with the population as a whole. The noble Lord may have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with that because it is plainly meritocratic. Clubs are interested in winning, so they pay people who are going to produce the results that they want on the pitch. If their fans are not happy with it, they stay away. That is how the system works and why, frankly, I think the whole Bill is wrong. I realise I have lost that argument, but we are not some insecure South American junta that has to tell private clubs what to do and appoint commissars over sport.

I do not want to be accused of filibustering this one, and I have gone just over three minutes, so I will finish by saying that if we are to have this wretched regulator, let us at least make it as proportionate and as in line with the rest of our law as possible, on which note I will support the rest of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, because it seems quite sensible to bring any regulator into line with the usual standards of corporate governance.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions and explain what happens in the cat-and-mouse scenario that I have set out. I look forward to hearing noble Lords speak to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 128, which gets to the nub of what the licensing regime should be looking at. It would require a personal statement to identify a club’s ultimate owner and that owner’s source of funds. It is really quite an important amendment because clubs, and fans in particular, have the right to know where the club’s money is coming from.

This is prompted by things that have happened to clubs in the past, when it has been quite clear to the outside world that clubs do not have the means—because their owners have failed to provide any detail or background on their own finances, despite having given assurances—to identify where their funding is coming from. I cite the case of Dr Tony Xia, who became the owner of Aston Villa back in 2016. He was approved as an owner by the football authorities, yet it later turned out that he had neither the money nor the resources. The club ended up just a week away from being unable to meet its tax liabilities.

Following the 2021-22 season, a survey of 92 clubs looking at data on wages and cash reserves revealed that many clubs, up to a senior level, were very close to not having the reserves that would ensure that they could meet their liabilities, pay wages and so on. Some clubs are very good at this—West Ham United is one of them and, apparently, Plymouth Argyle was one of the most financially secure that season, along with AFC Wimbledon and Tottenham Hotspur.

If we are seeking transparency through the licensing regime, it is clear that we will need to understand who the owner is, where their funding is coming from and how much that will kick in to ensure the safety and security of clubs for the benefit of their fans.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, it appears that any DLC imposed upon this urgency-type exception in Clause 23(6)(b) is not time limited. In other words, the IFR could decide that it needs to urgently attach a DLC but the DLC could then endure for a longer period, even though the relevant league might be happy to replace it with a commitment. In that context, my Amendments 174A and 174B give the league concerned the opportunity to offer a commitment, even in instances where the IFR decides it needs to introduce an emergency discretionary licence condition. If this commitment is accepted, this will make the emergency discretionary licence condition temporary. I very much hope that the Minister will accept these amendments.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I listened carefully to the noble Lord and, bizarrely, in preparing for the Bill, I looked at the accounts of a number of the small league clubs the noble Lord seeks to protect with this. They all have to have properly audited accounts. The clubs I looked at—they are in the National League, the National League South and the National League North—have turnovers that vary between roughly £10 million a year and £400,000 to £500,000. They are properly set-up companies that have to file reports with Companies House, et cetera, and they all go through an audit process. It seems to me that, in any event, they will supply to their auditors many of the things the noble Lord seeks and asks for. If they did not, they would not be complying with a proper audit.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has made some important points and, of course, everything I have said is based on the fact that those clubs will be following that. They are basic conditions that any organisation, not least a football club, should follow. All my amendments—I have studied them carefully—seek to make it easier to ensure that the clubs follow those procedures and that the uncertainties and vagaries in the current drafting of the Bill are clarified, making it easier and more efficient for clubs to meet their obligations as companies and football clubs in the professional leagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to comment on this part of the Bill. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the clause stand part notice of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and to develop some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brady.

I begin with Amendment 128 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I feel that there is no balance in it; that it creates an imbalance in terms of its impact on smaller clubs. While I have problems with the whole clause, I think this is the most difficult and onerous part, in its capacity for gold-plating and regulatory overreach. I also think it cuts across existing primary legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act. What we are potentially seeing in these very loosely worded and wide-ranging powers—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord really saying that it is onerous for the regulator to know from a club who the owner of that club is, what the source of the funds might be or that the owner has funds that enable them to properly operate a football club?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs.

I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation.

I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for.

On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change.

I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”.


Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7):

“A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”.


The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems.

The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that many of us who are concerned about football could talk all night about football agents and the concerns that many people have about them.

I want to talk about another amendment in this group. The Marshalled List says that this grouping is miscellaneous. The combination of topics that we are discussing in this section is rather strange. I want to say a word about Amendment 150 in my name, which concerns the concept and practicality of assets of community value. We would like to make this a condition of the licensing system. It is really important that fans have the reassurance that their ground is not going to be sold underneath them and all the assets of the club traded by someone who does not have the footballing interests of the club at heart. I am always surprised that more clubs’ grounds and assets of this kind are not deemed to be assets of community value. That would be part of the protection of clubs’ heritage but also—perhaps as importantly—significant in protecting clubs from rogue owners.

I have a particular interest in this because of what happened to Bolton Wanderers a few years ago. Thankfully, because of the actions of the fans and the supporters’ trust, the stadium, the pitch, the circulation area, the seats, the stands, the Premier Suite, our car park and the fan zone were protected when the local authority accepted that they should be assets of community value. It meant that those assets were protected. It was particularly important at the time because we had gone through the experience of having an owner whose main concern was not the footballing future of Bolton Wanderers but the assets. A rogue owner of that kind can do immense damage, so this protection is extremely important. I urge that consideration be given to making it a condition of the licensing that football assets are designated as assets of community value.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to two groups of amendments within this group. Amendment 167 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor is about the removal of rogue owners. In a sense, this amendment poses the question: what is the point of a regulator that identifies bad practice and rogue owners but does not have clear powers and mechanisms to replace them? Our amendment seeks to incorporate within articles of association provisions that would oblige owners to give up their shares and make sure that those shares were given over to a new beneficial owner, subject, of course, to the usual checks.

Our argument is that the Bill must adequately address enforcement of the fit and proper owner test to enable the regulator to force an owner to sell their shares or force a director to resign from the board. In doing that, the regulator would be able to ensure that clubs have sufficient reserves to meet ongoing operational costs if an owner is disqualified.

At some point, it might be advantageous to consider having a central sinking fund in place to help cover interim costs. In the licence criteria, the regulator might also want to insist that clubs include in their articles of association a mechanism for the resignation of a director in those circumstances. That is important because we do not want situations such as Aston Villa found in 2016. In the mid-1990s Brighton & Hove Albion had owners not only who were deeply unpopular but who were not there because they had the best interests of that club at heart. More accurately, they were asset-strippers who eventually, without providing an alternative, sold the ground to a series of companies that set up a retail park. One of the saddest moments of my life was going to the last game there. We all knew what was going to happen to that site. It was going to end up as a Toys “R” Us. I have nothing against Toys “R” Us, but there were plenty of other sites in Brighton where it could have happily located.

I turn to Amendments 205, 208, 210 and 259, which are about protecting domestic competitions. Currently, the Bill does not require clubs to prioritise domestic over European or worldwide competitions. We feel that clubs should be property consulted before changes are made to competitions. The Bill should ensure that the regulator can designate European or worldwide competitions as restricted and not to be prioritised above domestic competitions. This would prevent clubs establishing a new entity to inherit the existing club’s identity and players—for example, the Man Cities of this world leaving the Premier League and calling themselves City Blues for the purposes of entering a restricted competition.

This is important because the ecosystem of competitions has been under pressure in the last few years. For instance, earlier this year moves were made to prevent replays in FA Cup matches. I think it would be fair to summarise that that was against the will of most clubs and largely for the convenience of the bigger clubs playing in European competitions. There is nothing wrong with them playing in Europe; it is very welcome and important for the success of our Premier League. We want to make sure that this carries on being the case, but the abolition of FA Cup replays went against the vast majority of clubs’ interests and has undermined the beauty of the competition in the sense that, periodically, replays provided much-needed funds for clubs in the lower leagues. It has also restricted the opportunity for lower-league supporters to see the bigger clubs when they enter the competition. It is important that the regulator has an interest in this and that we provide clubs with the certainty and security that they will be consulted about competition changes.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. It is relevant to Amendment 93 which, your Lordships may recall, requires the new regulator to regulate football agents. My motivation for that amendment was to try to keep transfer fees within football. As I mentioned, it is very important that the grass-roots clubs that develop the players of the future get their fair share.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, setting out all financial arrangements with external agents and other intermediaries involved in contracts, recruitment or both is an interesting one. My only question is: how will this work in practice? How will the regulator deal with highly confidential multi-million-pound transfers? The noble Lord mentions it being private and confidential and therefore not public, but potential leaks could affect these deals. What would the regulator do? How would he operate? How would he stop or block those transfers? The Premier League still has the best players. We still want to attract the best players. It is vital that we get this right to avoid the trap of unintended consequences. It is so important to protect the international reputation of the Premier League.

My amendment was tabled to ensure that no matter where the transfer comes from, that money stays within football. However, we would have to be careful about how that happened in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

Moving on to Amendment 242 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the Bill requires clubs to consult their fans on any proposed relocation of their home ground. This guarantees that fans can have their views heard prior to the regulator making a decision. The regulator is also required to determine the impact of a relocation on club heritage. In the majority of cases, we would expect that the regulator would consider the views of fans of the club as the main stakeholders when it comes to club heritage. The amendment also references the duty on clubs to not change the crest, home shirt colours or name without approval. As the Bill stands, for the crest and home shirt colours, it is required that the majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales must support any change. Although the Government understand that the intention of this amendment is to further entrench these duties, this legislation has been designed so that these duties apply across the clubs and can be strongly enforced by the regulator if necessary. Amending articles of association can be resource intensive and requires shareholder agreement. Therefore, the Government do not see this as a necessary step to require all clubs to take.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may ask the Minister to give way very briefly, I raised the issue of the abolition of FA Cup replays in the context of consultation. Had that been in the future, would there have been an obligation on the FA to consult which the regulator could have enforced? The shape of that competition is very germane and important to football fans across England and Wales, and it seems to me that it is a significant issue that ought at least to be part of the regulator’s consideration.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an interesting point. The issue of the FA Cup replays would rightly be outside the scope of this regulator. The sporting calendar and the rules of specific competitions are matters for the football authorities to manage in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders. I am not sure whether that reassures my noble friend, but we can maybe have a longer discussion about it at another point.

On Amendment 242A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—apologies if I am going over paragraphs that I have already covered—the intention behind this amendment is to make sure that clubs are not overburdened with requirements to notify the regulator of every event that ever happens. We do not want this either, nor is it in the regulator’s interest to receive a flood of unnecessary information. As the clause sets out, the notification requirement relates to material changes in circumstances. It will be up to the regulator to set out what it considers to be material in guidance, which we expect it will produce on this. The regulator will already have burdens in mind when setting its guidance and enforcing this duty on clubs, given public law principles and its regulatory principles. We want the regulator to receive the information and updates it needs to regulate effectively. By raising the bar for when clubs are required to notify the regulator of changes, the proposed amendment risks doing just that.

Amendment 248, from my noble friend Lord Mann, would introduce a new requirement for regulated clubs to register with the regulator all player contracts, transfer fees and other fees annually for the previous 12 months. I reassure my noble friend that, where this information is relevant for the regulator to understand a club’s finances, it can already obtain it. All clubs will be required to submit financial plans which detail, among other things, their revenues and expenses. These plans should capture details about player contracts and transactions where this information is relevant to the regulator understanding a club’s finances. Furthermore, the regulator has extensive information-gathering powers. Should it need greater oversight of the detail set out in this amendment, the regulator can already request this information, and it would not have to wait 12 months to get it. Therefore, I am confident that the Bill already delivers the intent of the amendment.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendments 248A and 258A respectively, which focus on ticket prices. I understand that the noble Baroness intends to address the recent rise in clubs removing concession pricing on tickets and other such changes that have left some fans priced out of match attendance, and she highlighted concerns raised by fans from Reading. Fans are justifiably concerned, and I am exceptionally sympathetic to that. I am equally grateful for the attention by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to ticketing and the issue of resale. These are huge issues that matter to fans, which is exactly why the Government have made it explicit that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This also includes engagement on other operational issues, which is intended to capture many of the issues the noble Lord has made in his amendment. It is also important to note that any unauthorised resale of tickets for designated football matches is already addressed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Many clubs take this exceptionally seriously and work with police and relevant authorities on it. However, the regulator should not be seen as a vehicle to fix all of football’s woes, especially those that are well within the gifts of clubs, leagues and the FA to address. On the noble Baroness’s amendment in particular, it would also not be appropriate for the Government to dictate prices or concession categories, and there is limited precedent for such an interventionist approach on commercial decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

137: Schedule 4, page 96, line 13, at end insert “, and
(d) the home ground threshold requirement (see paragraph 6).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it a threshold requirement (which a club must comply with to obtain a full licence) to meet certain requirements (as inserted by amendment 147) relating to the club’s home ground.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I can deal with this group of amendments fairly quickly. It is again a disparate group, but the main theme is fan consultation and the requirements on a club. The amendments seek to alter the fan engagement threshold requirement by requiring a club to have structures and processes for effective engagement with their fans.

It is vital that there are proper requirements to ensure that a club applying for a licence, for instance, has a suitable home ground for a minimum period of 20 years. This would help prevent owners using much-adored home grounds as bargaining chips and collateral to strengthen their financial muscle against the wishes of fans. The clauses that we seek to insert would incentivise clubs to protect their home grounds as part of their heritage and their history.

Amendment 142 concerns ticket prices. This is important because we are in a situation where clubs pretty much have a free hand in raising ticket prices. Let us take the recent example of Manchester United, which has, in effect, doubled the price of some tickets and removed discretionary or reduced ticket prices for younger supporters—my noble friend Lord Shamash could say more about that than me. The amendment would insert ticketing prices as a relevant matter for consideration in the process of regulation.

That is the spirit and intent of the amendments. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that fans will be properly engaged in clubs’ consideration of these issues, that there will be proper processes and ways of ensuring that their voices are heard and that issues such as ticket pricing in particular, and playing in prohibited competitions and so on, will be something the IFR can look at, comment on and, in some situations, determine.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in response to these important amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions for consulting fans. We should pay tribute to noble Lords who have long championed the role of supporters in football, particularly those who have been involved in supporter trusts and similar bodies for many years. Their passion and their advocacy are no doubt one of the reasons that fan voices are becoming even more central to the governance of our national game.

I support the intent behind these amendments. Fans are the lifeblood of football. They invest not just their money and time but their hearts and identities into their clubs. Ensuring that their voices are properly heard, and heard with respect, is not just a moral imperative but essential for the long-term sustainability and integrity of football. The Premier League clubs recognise this too. In recent years, they have made significant progress in embedding fan engagement into their governance structures. Through its fan engagement standard—the first of any league to introduce such a standard—clubs are held to account for how they involve their supporters in decisions that matter to them. Fan advisory boards are now mandatory at every Premier League club and provide supporters with direct access to senior executives, enabling meaningful input on issues such as ticketing, matchday operations, club identity and community programmes. These initiatives represent a significant cultural shift. They create a platform for genuine dialogue between clubs and their supporters, ensuring that fans’ perspectives are considered at the highest levels of decision-making.

While I support the principles underpinning many of these amendments, I also feel it is important to raise a note of caution. Specifically, I want to raise the risks of the IFR being overly prescriptive when it comes to fan engagement and consultation. Clubs are not one-size-fits-all entities; each has its own unique character, fanbase and operating environment. For example, the dynamics of a global club with millions of international fans will differ significantly from those of smaller community clubs, many of whose supporters live within a few miles of the ground. Let us take, for instance, the idea proposed in some amendments that clubs must prove that a majority of their fans support certain decisions. While the intent is admirable and builds on the FA’s and many clubs’ approach to heritage assets already, we must acknowledge the practical difficulties of legally mandating such approaches.

How does a club definitively determine what constitutes a majority? Should a global fanbase have the same weight as local season ticket holders? What happens when opinions are divided? Would the IFR reverse a decision if, down the track, it was found that the wrong methodology had been used? These are complex questions without any easy answers. We should be careful not to create a compliance culture that detracts from the spirit of good engagement. It is really good to make this aspirational on both sides. For fan engagement to work well, the club has to feel confident, be open and get out of its comfort zone; the fans must enter into the debate in a constructive and open-minded spirit too. The difficulty will come if the IFR is drawn into micromanaging fan consultation and adjudicating on individual decisions, therefore inadvertently feeding an adversarial approach between fans, groups and clubs.

Now that might sometimes be appropriate, but I strongly believe the IFR will often be best to focus on ensuring that principles are upheld, leaving the specifics to clubs and their supporters. I also want to make the point that many of these new structures and processes for engaging fans, such as the fan engagement standard and fan advisory boards, are still new; they need time to bed in.

There are some brilliant examples of good practice already; for example, clubs bringing fan advisory board members into their clubs and having them spend time with football, commercial and operational teams so that they can understand the realities of life inside the club. But it is too early to say what the best approaches or designs of these processes will be. We should encourage more thoughtful approaches that allow these structures to mature and evolve, with periodic reviews to assess their effectiveness. A rush to codify overly detailed requirements risks stifling this organic progress and creating unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

I finish with the question of whether Clause 49 stand part of the Bill. A club’s name, home shirt colours and crests are intrinsic parts of its heritage, intertwined with decades of club support history. The decision to materially change any one of them is therefore one that requires considered thought and consultation. This clause requires a club to establish that a majority of domestic supporters approve any material changes to its badge or predominant home shirts. This means that the changes can still be made, but only if and once the fans have voiced their support. This clause requires clubs to get FA approval prior to changing the name that the club’s team plays under. The view of supporters is a significant factor in the FA’s decision-making. However, the FA may need to balance wider considerations with regard to name changes—for instance, whether there will be any adverse effects on other clubs throughout the pyramid. This clause serves one of the key objectives of the regulator—protecting the heritage of English football—and it has almost universal support. I hope noble Lords will, for the reasons I have set out, not press their amendments and agree that Clause 49 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think this has been one of the better debates on the football regulator. It is about one of its core purposes and, as the Minister has just said, it all flows from the fan-led review and putting fans at the heart of our football business.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for her contribution. I well understand the mix of commercial pressures and the way in which that can collide with what might be seen on the face of it as being fan interests. It is a difficult balance that one has to try to secure in this legislation. I think the legislation does that, but who or what is a fan or a supporter is a difficult question, and they may not be the same thing all the way through. The noble Baroness raised the question of who it is relevant to consult over some of the issues. I think we are heading in the right direction with further clarity. I hope that the regulator can try to work its way through some very difficult issues here.

I am very happy with the responses that the Minister has given, and I think other noble Lords will share that sentiment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 137 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

178: Clause 26, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
(c) respects and promotes the protection of human rights and prevents modern slavery (as set out in section (Human rights and modern slavery considerations)).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an individual to respect and promote the protection of human rights and prevent modern slavery in order to meet the individual ownership fitness criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, our Benches at the back here have three amendments in this group. They cover modern slavery, human rights and slave ownership. The purpose behind the amendments is to flesh out from my noble friend the Minister how the independent football regulator may approach some of these issues.

As we have heard on a number of occasions during debates on the Bill, football clubs are more than just businesses. They are community institutions; they have values, and they have provided some of the best examples of taking on social issues over the last few decades. We are trying to establish whether there should be a test that mandates having robust human rights due diligence and the ways in which owners can be held to account and prevent harm. State ownership and those two issues are inevitably bound up. We will recall from the ownership debates that circulated around Newcastle United when it was taken over some years ago the considerable concern expressed.

In updating the individual ownership fitness criteria to include reference to human rights and modern slavery, we have taken account of Amnesty International’s proposed amendments to the previous Premier League test. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which the UK was the first country in the world officially to implement through a national action plan, requires all states and businesses to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses where they occur.

It is our contention in putting these amendments forward that we need to have a view on state ownership but also on the role that the IFR may play in trying to establish thresholds and principles around such issues as modern slavery and human rights, because these things are important. They are important to football fans; they are important to the moral and guiding principles behind our businesses, and, more generally, we should use the opportunity of having a regulator for football that has a view on these issues when it comes to judging the merits—or otherwise—of those who seek to own important institutions such as football clubs. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the amendment means well. It is laudable that we encourage football clubs and the football community to take seriously these important issues around human rights and modern slavery. My concern is about the wording, because I believe that the inclusion of such an amendment in the Bill in respect of the appropriateness of an owner will give rise to unnecessary litigation. Let us remember that the amendment does not distinguish between an individual and a football club. If it were to do so, it would be more sustainable in terms of developing policies around human rights and combating modern slavery. However, it does not do that. It is nebulous in its wording, and I think the drafting would cause grave difficulty because it references individuals—the owner, in essence—meaning that there will be problems down the line in how the amendment is interpreted.

It is a value judgment as to whether an individual respects human rights. What does that actually mean in primary legislation? How do you measure it? What is its objectivity? What does success look like in terms of respect? The wording is very loose and would be very difficult—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Our wording mirrors the wording in Clause 28, which says:

“A person may not become an owner of a particular regulated club unless”,


so I do not think that the wording is the point here.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I am reading the amendment that he has tabled. The third word is “promotes”. What does that mean in terms of an objective criterion for how an individual would promote human rights, and for how he or she would protect the human rights of those involved in football and the club that they were involved with? The amendment is an example of potential regulatory overreach. Seeking to enforce it would be a straightforward prima facie case of ultra vires actions, because it would be unenforceable.

Having said that, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s Amendment 200 on state ownership of football clubs. We will have a good debate on that. However, on Amendment 178, the noble Lord is gilding the lily. Although he has good intentions, it is not a workable amendment. It would damage the interests of football clubs and be difficult for the regulator properly to enforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will of course happily withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I have a few points to make in response. Generally, this has been a useful and valuable debate. We have had reassuring clarity from the Minister on the issues of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked a practical question about how this would work. There is already an issue, in a sense, for the regulator to deal with. Under Clause 28(2)(a)(iv), the regulator will have to look for—and will certainly want to know—the source of funding. I can only assume that that is because we do not want the funding of our football clubs to be in any way under suspicion and/or linked to criminal activity, particularly human rights abuses and modern slavery. In Clause 28(2)(b), there is a fairly wide power for the independent football regulator to require information. Clearly, there are practical questions in carrying out inquiries and investigations into the source of funding that owners will offer up, but this is just one of those issues that will undoubtedly be tested over time.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that putting amendments forward like this is tantamount to regulatory overreach. If we were not concerned about issues such as modern slavery and human rights abuses, we would be selling the world of football short.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Surely the noble Lord will concede something. Proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 185, which he signed, mentions

“whether A has been complicit in … non-crime hate incidents”.

We are talking about the ownership of a football club. What does complicit in a non-crime hate incident even mean in the context of a strategy to deal with human rights and potentially preventing someone, via primary legislation, owning a football club?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I would hope that we would be concerned by things like hate incidents—those are important considerations. I certainly do not want my football club to be associated in any way with that, and I know the club itself does not. I am sure that goes for most clubs up and down the country.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady, Butler-Sloss, and the Lib Dem Front Bench for their support. I take most of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as being broadly positive, in terms of what we were trying to achieve with this little group. The issues are important, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I have no great desire to become massively unpopular with Newcastle United fans. I am probably a bit unpopular because Brighton seem to beat them regularly anyway.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

But clearly, we should we look at these issues. State ownership is an issue we should keep under careful consideration. The Minister has said that all forms of ownership will be scrutinised in a similarly robust way, and we should be satisfied with that. So, having heard what was said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 178 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam, some of whose amendments I have signed. I also want to pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has just made. He mentioned Coventry, who moved to Northampton, which is about 35 miles away and obviously not at all convenient for fans. My noble friend Lord Bassam’s club, Brighton, moved to Gillingham, which is, what, 70 miles away?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Seventy-two.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Some 72 miles and a few chains, I am sure.

Even a club such as Bristol Rovers, who were obliged to move to Bath, which is only about 15 miles away, had to play there for 10 years until their new stadium was built—and even then, I think they ended up sharing with a rugby club.

Amendments 227 and 233 are really “the AFC Wimbledon amendments”, because they refer to that club in which I have an interest, which I have stated on a number of occasions in consideration of this Bill. On the figure of five miles, it may not surprise noble Lords to know that, when Wimbledon FC were obliged to move because their ground had been sold from underneath them, they went to Crystal Palace, which is about six and a half miles away. It still was not convenient for a lot of the fans.

It has been said that, when Wimbledon moved to Crystal Palace, the crowds increased. Factually, that is correct—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, nodding—but they increased because there was a far greater ability for visiting fans to go to Crystal Palace. It was not at all unusual for Wimbledon FC to play home games where their own fans were very much in the minority. So that was not a benefit—okay, in financial terms for the club it was, but it is not a system that anybody would advocate.

My final point is to reinforce Amendment 234, about taking reasonable steps to ensure that the club’s fans do not consider arrangements for any change to be unsatisfactory. That should be a very basic consideration. I think it is in the Bill, but it is helpful to have that stated quite clearly and I hope that my noble friend will take that on board and, if she is not able to accept it today, which I would not expect, that we might come back to this to get something more solid on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I urge the Minister to give this some more thought, because it is a pertinent and powerful core issue, and we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for raising it. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, fans worry about these things; they do not want to see “home” meaning something completely different. That is why we should have something in the Bill on this topic.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, very much. My two teams are Liverpool and Tonbridge Angels of the National League South. One is an internationally competitive team—and the other is Tonbridge Angels; but place is crucial to both teams. If you are a fan of Liverpool from Los Angeles or Singapore, the place of Anfield and the locality and the community relationship are absolutely part of what it is you support. Home and away fixtures are a routine part of how the Premier League competition is conducted. That is why this is essential, not just to large clubs but to small clubs across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

250: Clause 53, page 42, line 22, at end insert—
(f) the amount which the IFR estimates is necessary to fund appropriately for that period the Central Fund established pursuant to Section (Central Fund).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds another factor which must be considered (namely the amount required to fund the Central Fund - see amendment 254) when determining the amount of the levy.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, we can probably dispose of this one relatively quickly. All that we seek is some reassurance, on the record, that the levy raised by the IFR will not overburden smaller clubs. We are trying to get some assurance that the levy will be relative to the income of the clubs and that any other levy that the IFR might want to raise for a central fund of any sort would also closely reflect the ability of the clubs concerned to fund that. It has to be relative to their income, strength and viability. That is the purpose of the amendments in this group, and I am keen to get that on the record.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have some concerns about what the noble Lord advocates in this amendment. He advocates setting up a central fund in one of his other amendments, and the purpose of that is not clear, unless it is to provide a mechanism, in effect, for redistributing the levy funding the operation of the regulator, presumably from bigger and better-off clubs to smaller clubs. That will dilute the incentive that should exist for the regulator to constrain its size, cost and degree of interventionism because of the effect on smaller clubs.

This comes back to the sense that the rich, big or better-off clubs are somehow there to be plucked in terms of the redistribution of funds down through the pyramid—already, 16% of the revenues of the Premier League goes down into clubs through the pyramid. My concern throughout the consideration of the Bill has been that, if the regulator is set up in too large a manner and exercises its powers as regulators have an inbuilt tendency to do—they increase their scope and degree of intervention—that will have a cost.

A primary aim of the Bill and of setting up the regulator is to “improve” the distribution of money down through the pyramid, but the more the regulator does, the larger it is and the greater the extent of its activity, the less there is to distribute. If it is not strictly controlled, it will become self-defeating. If the purpose of the central fund that the noble Lord advocates is, in effect, to increase that degree of redistribution from bigger clubs to smaller clubs, as it seems to be, the effect would be to exacerbate the concerns that a number of us will have about the direction of travel and the inevitable tendency for a regulator of this kind to increase its scope, size, interventionism and, inevitably, cost.

I have given notice of my desire to oppose that Clause 53 stands part of the Bill, on the basis that the power to impose a levy will damage football. If the Government are so concerned to have this regulator, they should raise the money for it themselves and not have the regulator able, in a very uncontrolled way, to impose a levy—potentially very large amounts of money, as the impact assessment makes clear—on the very activity of the sport that we love, inflicting damage on it that would run counter to the intention of the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to put the noble Lord’s mind at rest. Most regulators are financed by the industries that they regulate, and the noble Lord knows that; he knows a lot about regulation. Given that there may be, from time to time, a need to strengthen the capacity of clubs lower down in the pyramid to operate, comply with regulations and all the rest of it, it is not unreasonable for the IFR to have the ability and capacity to exercise a levy.

The Premier League is generating considerably large sums of money and, although the distribution down the pyramid looks extremely generous in raw number terms, it is worth being reminded that some 92% of the revenue generated ends up being maintained by the Premier League and those five clubs in the Championship that receive parachute payments and the rest. There is a lot of money here, and we need to make sure that the regulator has the capacity to intervene in a way that is entirely fair. Later amendments deal with some of this issue, but we should have that at the front of our minds when we consider this.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I was going to come on to that. I anticipated that if the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was here, he would ask me that question. If I can carry on through my speech, with the noble Baroness’s permission, I will address that later in my remarks.

We think it only fair that industry should cover the cost, as opposed to taxpayers. Football is a wealthy industry, and the cost of regulation would represent just a tiny fraction of its annual revenue of over £6 billion. However, this legislation puts robust checks and balances on the regulator. It will be limited to raising funds to meet a set of tightly defined costs that are necessary for regulatory activity only. The regulator will not have a blank cheque; it will be subject to numerous safeguards, including annual auditing by the National Audit Office, and its annual accounts will be laid before Parliament. This will provide the necessary transparency and scrutiny to deliver value for money.

Clause 53 also requires the regulator to have regard to a club’s individual financial position and the league it plays in when setting the levy charges that a club must pay. This should ensure a proportionate approach where no club, big or small, is asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. As noble Lords are aware, the regulator will be the one that decides on the methodology and, ultimately, the cost of the levy.

I understand, however, that there is a clear desire, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and other Members of your Lordships’ Committee, to have a much better understanding of how the costs may be borne at different levels of the game. I will endeavour to provide more clarity on this issue. Therefore, after further discussions with the shadow regulator, I will write to noble Lords to provide further clarity on costs ahead of Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses and would be happy to meet noble Lords or take any questions.

This is a complex issue and we cannot fetter the discretion of the regulator. The letter, when it comes, cannot therefore be considered a definite estimation of costs. It will merely be illustrative, in an attempt to be helpful to this Committee and provide your Lordships’ House—and the clubs that will be regulated—with some clarity and reassurance before we get to Report.

For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press them.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment and grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she has given about the levy. I just say to colleagues on the Opposition Benches: it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about the regulation of only 116 different football entities. This is a small regulator, at the end of the day, so we should not be overly worried about its eventual costs. I think the costs will be, in relative terms, small—nothing at all by comparison with the FCA. Some of the clubs regulated, such as Gateshead, employ only three staff. If you are an Ebbsfleet staffer, you are one of just six, whereas Arsenal employs more than 500 full-time backroom staff. That is why we need to be certain that the levy raised is proportionate to the size of the club. Proportionality should be at the core of the regulator’s consideration when setting its levy. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 250 withdrawn.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

260: Clause 56, page 45, line 25, leave out “a specified competition organiser to apply to the IFR for”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is one of a series of amendments which mean that it is not only a specified competition organiser which can trigger the mediation process regarding the distribution of revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments in a very large group—enormous, in fact—but they all have at their core an impact on the way in which the independent football regulator could make financial distribution decisions.

I will run through some of the more important ones briefly. Amendment 260 would mean that it is not only a specified competition organiser that can trigger the mediation process. Amendment 261 would provide for competition organisers to obtain consent before determining the distribution of revenue and would require the IFR to be satisfied that the distribution proposals comply with its general principles which are contained in Section 62(2).

Amendment 267 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult people who represent the views of regulated clubs and the views of fans of regulated clubs before making regulations which specify the source or description of relevant revenue. Amendment 268 would amend the definition of distribution agreement. Amendment 269 is also part of this series and would mean that it is not only a specified competition organiser which can trigger the mediation process regarding the distribution of revenue.

Amendment 276 seeks to provide that a competition organiser can apply to the IFR to trigger the resolution process if there has been a change to rather than any reduction in the revenue received by a competition organiser. Amendment 284 would require any notification that a competition organiser gives to trigger the resolution process regarding distribution revenues. Amendment 293 would insert an amendment to trigger the resolution process. Amendment 318 would narrow the circumstances in which the independent football regulator may revoke a distribution order where the competition organisers have agreed a distribution agreement to circumstances where that distribution order complies with Section 62(1)(a) or (b) or Section 62(4)(a) on the principles in general set out in that section.

Why are these amendments necessary? It is principally because we require a degree of flexibility for the regulator. We want to ensure that the regulator can trigger a mediation process and impose its own deal if the parties fail to reach agreement by mediation. Currently, it seems to me that the regulator will be presented with a binary choice, and neither of those choices might be perfect.

At the moment, the deal is primarily controlled by the Premier League. Overall, 88% of broadcast revenue goes to the Premier League and 7% of the remainder goes to clubs who get parachute payments, meaning that the remaining 5% is split between the next 138 clubs in the pyramid. I accept the case that has been powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that the Premier League is a great league, that it produces incredible and impressive revenues and that those revenues have worked to solidify the excellence of the league and improve the quality of the clubs, the entertainment on offer and the players who are available to it.

However, it seems to me that we ignore at our peril the rest of the pyramid. Currently, for every £1,000 that goes to a Premier League club, just £313 goes to a Championship club and, if you take it down to a National League South club, it gets just 14p. Yet, if you look at the attendance figures, 45% of football fans, roughly speaking, go to a Premier League match and the remaining 55% go to games in the Championship, League One, League Two, National League, National League North and National League South, so there is a case for better distribution. I am not saying what that distribution should be—that is obviously a matter for which the regulator will be responsible—but the regulator needs to be able to make that decision based on the best possible circumstances. So these amendments are designed to facilitate that and to allow the regulator to act freely, working with football industry bodies and ensuring that they have the best possible information.

That is why my amendments seek to generate some flexibility and why a distribution deal must pass parameters set by the regulator, so that the gap between the various levels of football can perhaps be narrowed. It was never intended to be as wide as it is today. Initially, the gap between the Premier League and the Championship level was a lot narrower, and then again between the Championship and Leagues One and Two. It is the important development of football TV rights that has allowed the Premier League to become as rich as it has and to pay the wages that it can pay. International comparisons put the Premier League way ahead of any similar leading leagues.

We have a strange situation where some 64 clubs in the top four divisions have gone into administration since the start of the Premier League. That is clearly an unhealthy situation and a better distribution deal that is properly regulated would begin to address some of the gaps and some of the disparities. That is the spirit behind these amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord will be well aware that the EFL has just signed a very great deal with Sky, with revenue coming in, and I do not believe that that money is distributed down the pyramid either. One hopes that the Championship and the EFL will continue to improve and get better deals. Does his amendment include the fact that perhaps that league needs to start looking to distribute and that if its income starts to increase, as we all hope it will do—we have heard that it is the sixth-richest league anyway—it is not just the Premier League that needs to be involved in this but the EFL itself? At the moment, it does not distribute any of the income from the money that it gets in from broadcasting. Perhaps it needs to look at distributing some of its income down the leagues as much as the Premier League does.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a compelling point. It is the case that the EFL is dominated by the Championship clubs. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the EFL has secured a beneficial deal. It is not for me, her or anyone else in this Committee to say what the right sum of money is. I am merely pointing out that the distribution has changed over time. The available money for distribution has grown as the game has become more successful as a product unique to England and Wales, and it is for the IFR to get the distribution right. The point that the noble Baroness makes is that we should not be arguing the case for either the EFL or the Premier League; we should be arguing the case for football, because it is all of football that we want to see benefit, so that the pyramid truly acts as a pyramid and acts well in strengthening the national game.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I want to echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. With 44 amendments in this group, it really is hard to get your head around them all. Although they are given the broad title of “Regulatory powers”, I do not think that is conducive to good debate.

We had a similar situation on Monday night with a miscellaneous group and a similarly large number of amendments. I hope all noble Lords would agree that the very point of Committee is to scrutinise and grouping so many amendments together is not conducive to that.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Many of the amendments are consequential. I have highlighted the main points for the benefit of the Committee and that was my objective so that it would get the message.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Competition and Markets Authority has used it.

The process proposed by this group of amendments, excluding Amendment 260, would allow the regulator to intervene at its discretion and would require it to take into account the potential use of any revenue distributed. It is the Government’s view that this is regulatory overreach and a fundamental change to the intent of the process as drafted.

The other amendments from my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor seek to change the structure of the backstop process from a two-party mediation and final proposal/order process to one that could apply to any number of relevant parties. I understand the overall intent of these amendments and have chosen to address them as a group to ensure that that intent is understood comprehensively, and that the Government’s position is in turn communicated coherently.

To clarify, the Premier League, the English Football League and the National League can all apply to trigger the backstop process. Any of the specified competition organisers can submit an application to trigger the process, and simultaneous instances of the backstop process could be triggered to cover the relationships between each of the leagues. The process is inherently designed as a two-party process. Fundamentally, distribution agreements are agreed between two individual leagues and the process is designed to facilitate these agreements. As the final offer process is set up and designed between two parties to facilitate a decision between two proposals on the basis of relevant principles, it would not be effective for the regulator to engage in this process with more than two parties. This is also, in part, why it would not be appropriate for the regulator to make a third offer. Without the incentive of the two-proposal process, parties are likely to stay at polarised positions, rather than find areas for compromise. However, when the two proposals submitted are the only choices, the pragmatic decision is to submit the most reasonable proposal possible. This is the incentive we wish to create.

I now turn to Amendments 292, 296 and 314, tabled by my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor of Bolton. While there is a slight difference between “special” and “compelling”, we are satisfied that the bar is set sufficiently high with the use of “special”, which is the more usual terminology in these sorts of provisions. There is likely to be no tangible difference in outcomes, and therefore these amendments would be minor, insignificant changes to the wording of the Bill. As such, the Government believe the current drafting is sufficient. This is also the case for Amendment 264. While we understand the intent behind this amendment, we are content that the current drafting in the Bill sufficiently captures all revenue relevant for consideration during the backstop process. The proposed drafting change would not capture any revenue sources not already captured by the existing wording.

I turn now to Amendments 261, 262, 276 and 315. Amendment 276 seeks to significantly broaden one of the conditions by which the backstop process could be triggered. Condition 2 is specifically designed to be triggered by a material reduction in relevant revenue, as this poses a significant threat to the financial sustainability of the pyramid. Amendment 315 would, if the distribution process was ended due to incomplete or inconsistent proposals, require the regulator to issue a distribution order based on its expert panel’s own proposal, rather than ending the process. This would prevent the regulator ending the final proposal stage without an order, even if both leagues have chosen not to submit proposals.

These amendments, and the others referenced, would increase the likelihood of an enforced rather than an agreed solution. The Government’s preference is for an industry-led solution. It is our view that the regulator should have a role in facilitating the final proposal process only where no agreement can be reached on distribution, and that the process should be the least interventionist it can be while remaining effective. This approach encourages future collaboration and prevents the leagues relying too heavily on the regulator in the future.

I turn now to Amendments 284 and 286. While I agree that the state of the game report is a usual source of information to be considered as part of the distribution agreement process, it is our position that these amendments are unnecessarily prescriptive. As it stands, the Bill does not make specific reference to the report being included as a potential question for consideration. However, the existing drafting does not in any way exclude consideration of the state of the game report, and the regulator must have regard to it as part of its general duties. I would expect the state of the game report to be considered by both the leagues applying to trigger the backstop process, and the regulator, given its relevance. However, to include this expectation beyond what is already set out in primary legislation would be inflexible.

Turning to Amendment 267, while the Government understand the broader intention to involve fans in as many areas of the Bill as possible, it would not be appropriate for the regulator to be mandated to consult a group which is neither directly financially involved nor a governing body. This is not to say that fans should not make their views known to the regulator, and there will be many instances, such as in the state of the game consultation, where we expect the regulator to be able to consider a number of perspectives. This includes the views of fans on the financial situation in English football. Furthermore, the proposed drafting requiring consultation with representatives of regulated clubs is duplicative, given that the Bill as drafted already requires the consultation of the leagues.

Finally, Amendment 319 seeks to remove the provision that explicitly outlines that leagues can come to an alternative agreement at any time in the backstop process. The ability of leagues to come to an agreement independently has been protected in the legislation itself intentionally, to highlight that an industry-led solution is both preferred and encouraged. We believe this explicit protection will encourage the leagues to reconsider at every step of the process whether regulatory intervention is necessary, ideally bringing them closer to an independent agreement that works for all of football.

I hope that my responses have reassured my noble friends and other noble Lords that the Government’s approach is appropriate and provides the necessary protections, and that my noble friends will not press their amendments.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, rumbled me early on in his comments when he worked out that these were probing amendments; that is what they were intended to be. The group is disparate—I did not author it; it was what we were handed. It has been useful because it has enabled me to hear from the Minister how she sees the regulatory arrangements working as far as distribution is concerned, and the extent of the regulator’s flexibility.

I did not make this observation in my opening remarks but I think—the Minister covered this point—that the “state of the game” report will be critical when the regulator gets to grips with the distribution. The distribution of the revenues will be most important, because that is designed to make the game sustainable, to make sure that clubs do not go into administration, that we do not have clubs paying more than they actually earn in revenues, and so that clubs do not get to the point where they cannot properly trade. That is the most important thing for me.

Although I appreciate that my amendments would appear to some to be a bit of regulatory overkill, I think the point was made that we need to make sure that the regulator can do its job properly. The Premier League should not be at all threatened by the powers that the regulator has. Given the amount of money there is in the game and the continuing success of the Premier League—and, for that matter, the Championship —the regulator should be able to get our national game to the point where it is much more financially in balance and there are not the big gaps and distortions in revenue distribution throughout the pyramid.

I thank the Minister for what she said. Obviously, I shall study it very carefully. I think it unlikely that I shall return to these issues on Report, but obviously I will look at it very carefully before we come to that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 260 withdrawn.