Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blunkett]

54: Clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) to ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively.”

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I rise to move Amendment 54 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to speak to the associated Amendment 159, which relates to Schedule 5 and the role of the regulator in relation to the code of practice.

I hope we will not spend an hour on this group. Having sat through parts of the first two days in Committee, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I heard on the previous groups, including on the definition of football, what we mean by competition and even what fairness is. Well, I know that fairness is not the argument about whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pays his due share towards a piglet pie at Brighton’s football ground.

What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a Bill of this sort, but I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three Committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this Committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.

The Premier League, with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support, needs to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this Committee is benefiting it. I think not—sometimes overdoing it can be really detrimental.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have no idea whether there is filibustering going on, nor whether everybody on this side of the Committee who I have not spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there is a kind of gaslighting going on. I take the Bill seriously. I have read as much as I can. Nobody in the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should the noble Lord want to know, nor written my speeches or talked to me.

It is just not fair. There is a lot in the Bill to get one’s head around and to try to speak to. If there is repetition going on in this debate, it is people on the other side constantly saying that anyone scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is certainly not true of a wide range of us.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that if you do not have the hat on, you are not wearing it. It is not an individual I am talking about.

I would like artificial intelligence or GPT to do a word count of exactly what the Benches opposite have said over and over again over the last three days in Committee. I started to do that again this afternoon. There were the same phrases, the same arguments and the same resentment all over again about the idea that we should regulate.

Bear in mind, this whole issue came out of the report of a former Conservative Sport Minister. It was subject to a White Paper by the previous Conservative Government in February 2023, and legislation was then drawn up by the Conservative Government. After all that further scrutiny and debate outside, we are now debating it under a Labour Government—ho, ho, ho.

Let us be clear: get this wrong and it will not be the Premier League that loses out; it will be a pyramid, which by its very nature is built from the bottom. Without the rest of the EFL and beyond, we would not have a Premier League. You could ring-fence the 20 clubs, which is what some of them would like; I am sure it would be fantastic for the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to know that West Ham would never be relegated. I would love Sheffield Wednesday to never be relegated ever again. In fact, I ought to declare a reverse interest: my family and I sponsor a member of the Sheffield Wednesday squad, Callum Paterson. My only resentment is that the manager does not put him on the field often enough. There we are, Saturday after Saturday—and, these days, Sunday after Sunday—seeing competition working and seeing the struggle that is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

I would be happy to meet my noble friends to discuss these matters further. I hope they are reassured by the reasons that I have set out and will not press their amendments.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope to be able to converse with her before Report, purely on the grounds that if you do not have a governing body that consists not only of non-execs, which I note my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendment alluded to as well, but also officers who are the executive directors of a board then it is difficult to progress. There has been unanimity today from all sides of the Chamber in relation to the direction of travel.

We are now two and a half hours or more in, so I will have to follow my own strictures in being very brief. I make it clear that I accept that scrutiny is crucial.

On diversity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is a real difference between woke gesturism and downright silliness and a genuine commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. We must be able to make that distinction, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did so very well. I have to say to him that I had aspirations when I was very young to be the first blind football manager, but it was pointed out to me that I might be better being a referee so that when people shouted, “Get a guide dog!”, I could say, “I’ve got one already”.

It is nice that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raised the issue of Michail Antonio, and I am pleased that I had alignment with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this. Michail Antonio once scored a crucial goal with a dislocated collarbone, and we will never forget that. I wish him well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.