Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

35: Clause 21, page 14, line 6, at end insert “, and
(ii) if the club has a women’s team, ensure the club will meet, or will continue to meet, any licensing criteria applicable to the women’s team and its relevant competitions.”

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I propose Amendment 35 in the name in the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as a former director of Everton Football Club. I am now chair of its memorabilia trust and a small shareholder.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, apologises to the House that she cannot be here to move her amendment, as she is chairing a three-day social care conference. The dates and timings of commitments can present difficulties with the scheduling of legislation. If she were here, she would have reflected that the women’s game has come a long way and now has a recognised pathway for women and girls to progress beyond recreational football enjoyment to elite participation. The pathway now crosses national structures to successful European clubs, where there will be more opportunities to progress for less football-friendly nations.

The success of the Lionesses in recent years has been a great, positive beacon in the sport, encouraged by the FA’s strategies Inspiring Positive Change and Reaching Higher. There has been a 56% increase in women and girls playing football and a 14% increase in schools offering equal access in sport and PE for girls. There is so much more that is needed in schools to improve female health and well-being through sport.

This Bill has been a long time coming to fruition. I have not spoken much on the Bill as I am in total agreement with this improved version that will tackle, from a fan’s perspective, all the shortcomings in the top leagues, rather than leaving problems exposed, as would have occurred in the previous Conservative Government’s legislation.

This amendment is simple. It is correct that there are powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expand the remit of the IFR into the women’s game. Right now, the focus needs to be on embedding the IFR into the men’s game appropriately. However, the women’s game remains vulnerable. Kaz Carney’s report, Raising the Bar, achieved an agreement that the women’s game would like to develop on its own terms separate from the men’s, but that it needs protection. Separate, yes, as audiences differ, and it is more diverse and family-focused, with a different culture and even refreshments at games, but it needs protections, as women’s football needs so much investment in standards and facilities.

This season, for the first time in the WSL, all the teams are teams with a men’s Premier League club providing that investment. Kaz Carney’s report understood that if the top clubs do not believe in women’s football, it will not thrive. However, dependence on the men’s team is fundamentally problematic. When Reading was in financial trouble, it made a decision to cut support for the women’s team and disbanded it, leaving all its female players without their club. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, provides the example of Thornaby FC, which also disbanded the women’s team, which was saved after a public outcry, with an indignant Lily, then aged seven, declaring:

“If girls want to play football, you can’t just not let them”.


I applaud the restructure of the FA-controlled competitions into two top divisions, with a separate league structure under the leadership of Nikki Doucet. The Premier League has come forward with a £20 million interest-free loan to nurture this development. With the simple Amendment 35, women’s football development, while dependent on funding from the men’s game, will be independent in its operations and protected from the vagaries of the men’s game. Whether it develops along US lines, where there are independent funders and stand-alone teams, is to be seen, but the point is that women’s football can develop how it wishes to.

Can my noble friend the Minister give assurances that women’s football will be protected in this legislation? Can she confirm that the women’s football game will be assessed in all “state of the game” reports so that the Secretary of State may be advised whether problems are emerging that could require the scope of the IFR to be expanded? Is my noble friend the Minister able to give any indication of what conditions or circumstances might give rise to such considerations? How can this come about so that, should there arise concerns and problems in the development of and outcomes in women’s football, there would be a recourse of referral to the IFR? I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their hard work on this issue and for highlighting its importance. I have just one question that I would like to put to the Minister. In looking at the regulator’s remit, it is vital that care should be taken that there are no unintended consequences for the women’s game, such as clubs disinvesting in their women’s teams as a method of meeting sustainability obligations when alternative measures are available. I should be very grateful when she comes to summing up if the Minister could answer that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling amendments, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester for moving, in her unavoidable absence, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I welcome in particular the opportunity to discuss the women’s game and to set out the Government’s position on it, not least in relation to this Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was keen to have a debate on the women’s game and frustrated that we did not have one at earlier stages, so I am sorry that she could not join us. However, I hope that I can give all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the women’s game the assurance that the Government really do want to see women’s football in this country thrive.

Recent years have seen incredible growth in the sport, catalysed by the amazing success of our Lionesses. I know that all noble Lords are hugely proud of their achievements. We understand why there is an interest in ensuring that women’s football is accorded some of the same protections that the Bill would deliver for the men’s game. As someone who was not allowed to play football at school, I am delighted that my nieces take it absolutely for granted that they are, so this is an area that I personally want to see grow and thrive.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester spoke passionately in favour of the women’s game. We agree with the independent review of women’s football that he noted, and which was expertly chaired by Karen Carney. As my noble friend stated, that review recommended that the women’s game should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and govern itself. So, while there are some shared features, the problems facing women’s football and men’s football are not the same. The Government are in regular contact with the Women’s Professional Leagues Ltd. We are confident that it will be able to implement the structures, processes and regulations to drive the sport forward. Where appropriate, this can involve taking learnings from the men’s game and the regulator.

I reassure my noble friend that, as with all regulation, the scope of the regulator will be kept under review. As it is not intended in the first instance for the regulator to cover the women’s game, the “state of the game” report will consider only matters in scope of the regulator. However, if appropriate in the future and following proper consultation, the regulator’s remit could be extended to include women’s competitions via secondary legislation.

To expand slightly on why we are not at this point intending to regulate the women’s game, it is by its own admission at a different stage from the men’s game. It is still in a start-up phase, needing significant investment and growth to achieve its potential. The men’s game, by virtue of being a more mature commercial product, has no issue with growth or investment. Its issue is that it spends unsustainably, accumulates debt and cannot keep the massive revenues that it raises within the game. Therefore, neither the Government nor the women’s football industry believes that statutory regulation is the correct approach to helping women’s football at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alluded to issues that might be prevented. I will refer to the specific example of Reading Football Club. I do not want to assume that the noble Lord was referring to it as an example of where the regulator might have helped. Currently, the women’s game is not intended to fall within the regulator’s initial scope, so the regulator could not have directly prevented funding to Reading Football Club Women being cut. However, importantly, it would have been able to address financial problems at the men’s club, which may have averted the issue. So it is an indirect benefit, potentially. It would also have had access to information that it could have shared, only in certain specific circumstances, with the authorities in the women’s game. This might have allowed them to identify and react earlier to an issue and protect the women’s team. So we are confident that the authorities responsible for governing the women’s game will be able to implement the appropriate protections to prevent a future similar scenario to that which happened in Reading.

Amendment 36 would allow the regulator to stop a club accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I know that protecting football from wider harms is important to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as it is for us all. I agree with the intent and thank him for his engagement on this. However, it is not for a football regulator to judge what is harmful to the interests of this country; indeed, this is what the UK’s financial sanctions regime is for. If there is an oligarch or bad actor with connections to a hostile state acting against UK interests, they can be sanctioned. That would automatically stop a club receiving funding from the party in question. Sanctions can be imposed for a whole range of reasons, including in the interests of national security.

Beyond this, the Bill already provides protections against wider harms. The owners’ and directors’ test, for example, will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including sanctions, and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers. In conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, this will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his Amendments 38 to 41 and his continued engagement on the Bill. I have written to the noble Lord on some of the points he raised on discretionary licence conditions and the commitments in lieu process, and I am happy to lay a copy of this letter in the House Library for other Members of your Lordships’ House to access as well. As I outlined in that letter, we feel that it is appropriate for competition organisers to have a formal opportunity to intervene on a financial issue if they could achieve the same goal in a more effective and less burdensome way. This commitments in lieu process encodes the light-touch and collaborative approach that we have discussed at great length in your Lordships’ House.

The Bill as drafted allows clubs ample opportunity to make representations about proposed financial discretionary licence conditions. As part of ongoing supervision by the regulator, clubs will be made aware of what potential action the regulator may take to improve the clubs’ standards. However, if a competition organiser proposes a commitment that the regulator believes would solve the issue in a quicker, more effective or more proportionate manner than the regulator’s proposed licence condition, the club should not be able to veto this.

I turn to Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. We understand the intention of this amendment, and we agree that the regulator should avoid any burdens or disruptions that may be associated with mid-season licensing of clubs, including the risk, albeit remote, that licences are refused mid-season. As currently envisaged, once the regulator is set up, it will make rules around how and when clubs need to submit their applications. The noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the entirety of Part 3 being commenced until the period between seasons. For example, if the regulator were ready to start preparing clubs for licensing in September in a given year, it would have to wait until the following May before it could do so. We want clubs to be able to prepare their application and engage with the licensing process early to avoid a rush and high burdens in the relatively short window between seasons. This amendment would prevent that.

By contrast, if commenced properly, there will be a substantial onboarding time for clubs, and the regulator will not have to process 116 applications in a short space of time. The noble Lord’s intention of avoiding mid-season disruption can be achieved through a careful commencement of Part 3. We intend to delay commencing the Clause 15(1) requirement on clubs to have a licence until all clubs have had the necessary opportunity to obtain one.

On Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand that the noble Lord’s view is that the Secretary of State guidance on significant influence and control is integral in providing certainty for the industry, and that it must be produced in a timely manner. That is why, last week on Report, I committed

“that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control”.—[Official Report, 11/3/25; cols. 626-27.]

I would like to reiterate this commitment and reassure the noble Lord that it would be superfluous in this instance to make this amendment. Additionally, I remind the noble Lord that the House made its view on the definition very clear when it voted against Amendment 7. I hope he will agree that it would be an inefficient use of the House’s time to discuss this issue any further and will take reassurance from the commitment I have already made.

I turn finally to government Amendment 37. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns regarding consultation requirements and discretionary licence conditions. We are making a change to the consultation requirement that the regulator must satisfy before submitting a request to the Secretary of State, to amend the scope of discretionary licence conditions. We were confident that the previous drafting would have captured clubs and competition organisers, but we have listened to concerns across the House about this not being stated explicitly. Therefore, we have brought forward this amendment to put this beyond all doubt and address those concerns. As a result of this amendment, the regulator will now be required in legislation to consult all regulated clubs and each specified competition organiser in this process.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this little debate on this group of amendments. Although I would have welcomed a little further development from my noble friend, I certainly understand her response. I also understand the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I respond merely that if a men’s club does not believe in women’s football, it certainly should not invest in it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.