Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to reassure the noble Baroness, who was unfortunately not able to attend the FA meeting yesterday, that the FA was very explicit—and it was asked very directly—that it is content with this Bill. It assured those of us who were present at that meeting yesterday that it has assurances that UEFA is not at all concerned with this Bill and is happy with it as it stands. Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was at that meeting, so he can confirm that that is what was said.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, is true—UEFA would say that, wouldn’t they?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.

This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.

I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 28, which refer to the owners’ and directors’ test, which goes far beyond the regulatory requirements in sport—in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League. It would require an additional test to be made to determine a potential owner of a football club, and that additional test is one of influence. My amendment seeks to leave out reference to the “influence” a person can have over the activities of a club in being considered for a licence to operate as a professional football club in England, to create clarity in the Bill.

In trying to understand what “influence” means, we are immediately referred to paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, where, in keeping with the financial regulation, we are once again somewhat left in the dark:

“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence or control for the purposes of this Schedule”—


in other words, for the purposes of the test. As such, as we scrutinise the Bill before us, we have no certainty as to the meaning of “significant influence”, yet its impact on the Premier League and on EFL clubs could prove far-reaching.

In Committee, I took the example of Newcastle to seek clarity from the Government by working through a specific case. Newcastle is majority-owned and financially controlled by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, the PIF. The PIF became the majority shareholder and de facto owner of the club, with 80% of the shares acquired, in October 2021. The chair of the PIF is the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of Saudi Arabia’s King. MBS, as he is known, runs the Saudi Government.

For once, there is a clear distinction between this Bill and the one inherited from the last Conservative Government. In the Conservative Bill, there was a protection against the Government-appointed regulator investigating whether MBS, the Crown Prince and chair of the PIF, was a fit and proper person to exercise control over Newcastle through the chairmanship of the PIF. This Government then deleted the very protection which the previous Conservative Government put in the Bill that required the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. This removal was a direct consequence of UEFA’s insistence to the Prime Minister that such protection politicises sport.

Sadly, I assure the House that, for anyone who has read this Bill, the answer to Newcastle fans is that, unlike under the Premier League or UEFA rules, the Crown Prince is open to investigation by the regulator, and the Minister was clear on that question. That is exactly what the Government intend the regulator to do, because they have removed the one protection it had. The regulator in the Bill has full rights to use his or her many powers to investigate and opine over the suitability, or otherwise, of any owner who exercises a degree of influence over any club, including Newcastle United. That is just one example. Such detailed and intrusive due diligence risks being replicated across the Premier League unless the Bill is amended as I propose.

The Secretary of State will write the guidance that determines what significant influence or control means, yet there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone on drafting that guidance. We can speculate what the definition might be by looking at other legislation where the same phrase is used, but there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will follow the same approach on this Bill as has been taken for other legislation. So, it is not worth relying on the Companies Act guidance, because there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to follow that guidance. The Premier League rulebook requirements about acquisition of control are significantly narrower in scope than this Bill. In fact, I could find no example of any legislation regarding any sport anywhere in the world that is so intrusive as to have the phrase “significant influence over”, as a criterion for ownership.

Without any doubt, the Crown Prince is an owner in the context of the Bill, an owner who exercises influence over the activities of the club as defined in proposed statute and regulation. I understand that, since December, it has been made clear to the Government that any proposal to put the Crown Prince through the detailed due diligence would be resisted. After all, it does not exist in any other sport worldwide, so it would be the first time any country had legislated to that extent for the ownership of a professional club. It would potentially lead to the PIF revising its proposals for a substantial investment in the Newcastle area, or so that is said in the world of sport. I hope that the Minister can dispel that rumour and confirm that nothing of the sort has been said to anyone in Number 10 or DCMS. It would also help the House to know, if the Saudi Crown Prince is to be excluded, whether all state entities are to be excluded from the influence test.

This is the most far-reaching direct political intervention in the running of any sport in the history of this country —a country which once gave the world rules and regulations for sport to be universal, autonomous and self-regulating, in the context of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a historic irony that it should now be our Government to be the first Government to take control of sport. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be. The influence test only creates uncertainty, militates against growth and has the potential to be deeply damaging to English football without generating any benefit. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.

My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.

Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.

From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.

How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.

Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.

As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.

Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.

The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.

My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.

Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.

I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions

“a higher degree of influence”,

and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.

In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to

“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,

but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from

“a higher degree of influence”

or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.