Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I feel somewhat of an interloper in this debate. I have learned an enormous amount listening to some very knowledgeable people about football and its structures. As I think many noble Lords are aware, I am committed, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to the game of rugby. However, I am an interloper not only because of that—a strong interest in another sport—but also because, unlike all the noble Lords who have been declaring their support for one team or another, I wear with pride my referee’s tie. I seem to be the only person who has an ability to be impartial in relation to elements of this debate.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is unfortunately not here at this moment, I should add that my brother and his wife are season ticket holders at Leeds. I am old enough that in the days when I did have a team to support it was Headington United—now Oxford United —formerly at the Manor Ground that the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, referred to in her opening comments.

My concerns are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, suggested, that there are no problems and therefore we should not do anything; he called into question whether this was the right route to follow. However, I am concerned, for example, by the opening statement in the notes of the overview of the Bill, which describes a

“regulatory regime, with the primary aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of English football”.

There is no reference there to its success, about which we have heard over and again from contributors on all sides. Surely that must be an objective of this legislation. If it is not, one has to ask why.

I will not replicate the comments made by many noble Lords—my noble friends Lady Brady, Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lord Goodman—in relation to questions that need to be put to the regulatory process. I have asked colleagues in meetings where I have been over last few days, in which a mixture of different industries were represented, to identify a successful regulator. With only one exception, I had nobody say, “Oh yes, we’re well regulated”. The exception was the MHRA, which has a very special role in regulation. A lot of people here this evening have referred to clubs’ financial problems. Did the road and rail regulator intervene in the failures of the rail companies? Did Ofwat intervene in Thames Water’s failings? We have to be incredibly careful about this regulator, because otherwise what should be in that first paragraph—success in English football—will disappear. I say “success” despite comments from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, about World Cup victories; I wish England had had far more over the decades. I am referring specifically to the clubs, which are the subject of this Bill and the regulation associated with it.

I echo the comments made by a number of my colleagues, particularly on this side but also on the other side, but I will raise two other things. One was raised by my noble friend Lady Evans earlier. I am disappointed that we do not know what the cost of the regulation will be. That is a burden that will be carried by all the clubs covered by this legislation. Do not believe that they will be imposed just on the Premier League; they will be imposed on all the clubs covered. We need to know urgently what the burden will be— I deliberately use the word “burden” because this is not just financial; it is interventionist—as a result of the cost on all the clubs covered.

I certainly echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others, on the need to cover women’s football as much as men’s football, because it will happen at some stage of another.

Having agreed with most of my colleagues, and a number of noble Lords on the other side, on different elements of their contributions, I conclude with the form of arbitration, which has been much commented on. I spent many years in industry, negotiating on behalf of management with trade unions. I do not foresee the problem of swing arbitration to the extent that a number of noble Lords identified today. In many cases, it can work incredibly well and is an alternative solution to battling it out in a stalemate that one sees so often.

With those few comments, I echo the view expressed by a number of noble Lords—that if we are to have a regulator, the regulation should be of an extremely light touch. I would not dissent from the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Goodman that we should have a sunset clause or some form of review clause to see how well it is working after a number of years.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

This is an important set of amendments. It is important that we spend time working through what is involved—the tone and the colour that will be imported into this incredible success story for England. We must set out at the beginning, very clearly, that the purpose is not just to keep everything going as it is but to promote growth and success and to build on what we already have.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I start my comments in relation to my amendment and the others in this group, I want to thank the Minister for her kind comments at the end of Second Reading, when she said she hoped she would not need to call on my refereeing skills too often. I appreciated the thought, but when she made that comment she was probably unaware that, when I qualified as a rugby referee, the laws said that the decision of the referee was correct and final. Given that breadth of my ruling, I am quite willing to use it on any number of occasions.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, drew attention to our failures at national level, but, of course, this legislation relates specifically to the league clubs. In proposing amendments to the Bill in a number of places, I am not saying that everything that exists within the leagues is perfect—it is not; what I am asking in my amendments and in my probable support for others is whether this Bill needs substantial change.

I have tabled an amendment to insert “success”. I said at Second Reading that I was disappointed that there was no reference to success at any point within the Bill. My noble friend Lord Maude just referred to project creep. Clause 1 says that the purpose of the Bill is to

“promote the sustainability of English football”,

but the Explanatory Notes refer to

“the primary aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience”.

Somebody has immediately written in another element of what the regulator’s responsibility would be. There inevitably will be creep, and it is therefore important that we include some other terminology to which any regulator needs to operate.

The world of sport is changing and changing fast. We cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said, work on the basis that one is going to have an English Football League and a Premier League, and that is fine, and it will achieve what it achieves now without any change. We see the NFL hosting matches in this country. Why is it doing that? It is because it wants to extend its footprint and income on a worldwide basis; it wants to challenge other sports. Equally, American college football has reorganised recently. If we look at tennis, cycling and every single major sport, we see that they are reorganising because they are trying to extend their footprints to a worldwide base. The IPL is a classic example of how a sport has been changed. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said about how, with the way this Bill is phrased, football will be surrounded in aspic, it will carry on, and we will protect everything; there will be no change. What will happen then is that other sports take over on a worldwide basis in terms of viewership, income, finance and therefore attention around the world.

My amendment would insert “success” in the first clause and in one or two other places. I looked at the impact assessment—I intend to return on a number of occasions to that, because to be blunt, it is not an impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested, the figures are interesting; I would be generous to say that I think they are interesting. My understanding is that some of the clubs that were asked to give an indication as to the costs that would be involved said they did not know. I would like the Minister to indicate what detailed figures were identified by the clubs that were consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments, not least because, as I have been here rather a long time, I know what is happening when speakers use the words “word search” and “dictionary definition”. It is not exactly intended to accelerate the passage of a Bill. I will be brief even if others, perhaps, were not. I remind Members opposite that this Bill came out of an inquiry from a Conservative former Sports Minister and was a Conservative piece of legislation introduced in the other House, so it is not exactly rushed. In terms of sustainability, there are a heck of a lot of clubs that would settle for any guarantee that they had a future and that the future was more secure for them.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but she just made reference to comments I made in relation to word search. I believed that doing the word search emphasised the point I was trying to make in relation to the amendment that I had tabled and the comments that other people had made as well.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

That is how the noble Lord saw it, and I will say it how I saw it. What I was going to say in relation to the last contribution was that, yes, we all want the football leagues—the Premier League and everybody—to flourish and be more successful, but football will be a success only if the whole pyramid can flourish and be sustainable.

I want to say a word about Amendment 10, which is just one practical suggestion that could be considered to help clubs manage their own financial stability. One of problems we have seen in football over recent years is a degree of optimism on the part of football management about what it can achieve by minimal investment. Amendment 10, which my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have tabled, suggests that regulated clubs under the Bill should meet a financial commitment to have resources for at least six months. Many businesses are under very similar obligations. Charities have to have some financial security, so it would be worth considering whether we should actually make that kind of obligation something that the regulator should look at because, unless we get the overall funding of football clubs more sustainable, the whole pyramid will not be sustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I am going to come on to that in a minute. Only two clubs have won the Championship more than twice. Three clubs have won it once. If you ask people how many times Liverpool has won the Premier League they will probably say four or five. No, it has won it once, the same as Leicester City and Blackburn Rovers. Of course there is jeopardy; many clubs can be very competitive within a game, but winning the league is something different.

I know that noble Lords have talked about selling television rights and said that it is a very attractive league across the world, and I accept that. However, we have to tone it down a bit on the competitiveness of the Premier League, because there are not really all that many clubs that can aspire to become its champions. That is not to disparage it, but it is just a fact of the past 32 years.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Will the noble Lord accept that since 2000 the four major leagues in Europe—Spain, Italy, Germany and England—have effectively produced the same number of different champions in each case, either six or seven?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Yes, I can accept those figures. I accept the noble Lord’s general premise, although I am not sure about Spain. I do not think that more than two clubs have won La Liga; actually, the two Madrid clubs and Barcelona have won it.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about comparing England with France and Germany. I am not sure that is a fair comparison because in Germany the clubs are fan- owned. No club can have more than 49% ownership—51% is owned by the members of those clubs. There is not a direct comparison there. Yet Germany has been disproportionately successful in European competitions over that same period.

I want to move on to something else that my noble friend Lord Mann talked about— the opposition of many on the Opposition Benches. Unless I misinterpreted my namesake, my noble friend Lord Watson seemed to say that he was not in favour of the regulator having the powers that the Bill suggests. On the question of the role of the state, I thought that my noble friend Lord Mann was going to say that the Taylor report, which followed the terrible events of Hillsborough, was driven by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Quite right—I do not think anybody would object to that. There are cases where state intervention is appropriate and the only answer. If it had just been decided that we would hope all clubs produced all-seater stadiums for safety reasons, we would still be waiting for some of them.

That is one of the issues that we will probably come to later. The other one is the question of who is a fan. It is not for today, but it is very important to define what a fan is. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about Peterborough and how Posh fans are spread right across the fen-lands and beyond. If you are defining a fan, it really has to be a season ticket holder, because otherwise you cannot pin them down. Manchester United and all the big clubs have fans across the world. You could not possibly consult them. I am sensitive that noble Lords will not necessarily agree with that. What about somebody who cannot afford a season ticket or who is not physically able to go to a match? I accept that, so we have to try to pin that down, and it will be one of the most difficult aspects of the Bill, because if we are going to take the views of fans into account, we have to have a means of corralling them and then taking those opinions. At this stage, I do not see how we can do that beyond season tickets.

My noble friend Lady Taylor talked about the sustainability and the success of English football, not just the Premier League but right down the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked of Stockport County. They sunk right down to level 6 in the National League North after going through some very traumatic periods, but have been able to come back up to level 3. My noble friend Lord Mann talked about AFC Wimbledon; in nine years they came from, basically, parks football to being back in in the Football League. It is natural that we tend to concentrate on the Premier League, but there has to be some understanding that the clubs below them are important. I am being opportunistic, but the Labour Government have talked about fixing the foundations. In any sense, when you look to go forward, you must have strong foundations. The foundations of English football are right down at the grass roots. I am not talking about the amateur level.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 226 and 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, focus on the sale or use of a home ground as collateral, or a home ground relocation. For these, the regulator would be expected to consider the impact of a proposed sale or relocation on the financial sustainability of the club, through the lens of its general duties. These amendments may risk a more short-termist approach to sustainability by inadvertently pushing the regulator to look at short-term success over the long-term successes of the club. I hope the noble Lord is persuaded that this is not an approach we want to risk. For these reasons, and for the reasons I set out in relation to this and other amendments in this group, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

May I just seek clarification? She has covered a very wide-ranging debate as quickly and reasonably as possible, and I have no criticism of the manner in which she has done that. The key debate has been around the word “sustainability”. I think that, earlier in her reply, she said that it was defined at some point. The powers to operate are in Clause 1 and there is no definition in Clause 2. If she has given clarification at some point, I will check it in Hansard, but I am seeking clarification as to whether there is, within the Bill, “sustainability”. For that purpose, the powers identified in Clause 1 do not define it, and looking under key definitions in Clause 2, it does not appear to be there, either.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention, and other noble Lords’ attention, to the first line on page 2. Even if it does not have the word “definition”, it is quite clearly a definition. It says:

“For the purposes of this section, English football is sustainable if it … continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs, and … continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I have a couple of questions for the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but first, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said that the amendments provide clear metrics. I do not think they do; they are very subjective, particularly Amendment 12. What is

“globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”?

Regarding the phrase

“continues to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”,

what is “significant”? I do not think it is helpful to include words like that.

For what it is worth—my noble friend the Minister probably will not like this—I think paragraphs (e) and (f) of Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, make sense, because we can clearly see what they mean. I would say the same of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 7 is rather rambling and unclear and is not suitable for inclusion the Bill. We need something clear that can be measured, rather than words like “substantial”, which could mean anything or nothing.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.

The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.

Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.

In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.

I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.

When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.


In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.

I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.

If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I totally agree with what has just been said about segmenting the fan base. I do not support a team that has the wide support that Liverpool has, but I was once at a football match in Buenos Aires where I was asked by local people which team I supported. When I mentioned Bolton Wanderers, just about everybody around me said instantly “Nat Lofthouse”, so these things travel. I accept that, but when we are talking about this Bill and about consulting fans on ticket pricing, the club’s heritage or moving grounds, then it is the locality that is in question, and we should not lose sight of that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I shall first pick up the comment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Cheslea. Whether it was an intervention on an intervention, I intervened from a sedentary position, and he heard my comments in relation to friendlies. I was not denying what he was saying; I was expressing support to the extent that pre-season friendlies take place to a substantial amount already and they achieve, to use the word currently in the Bill, an element of sustainability because they provide income from matches all around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, commented earlier on. If ever there was an indication of the strength of support for a football club in another part of the world, all anybody has to do is type in “Liverpool” and “Melbourne cricket ground” to watch a full 100,000-plus Liverpool supporters singing their anthem at the start of a match. That is the extent of the support that our clubs have around the world, and it provides substantial income to the club. There are not many as large as Liverpool, but there is support right around the world.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, the complexity of this debate—it is structurally complex as well as dealing with complex issues—illustrates how important it is that we explore these issues, because in every debate that we have another layer of the multifaceted success that is current English football becomes exposed and illuminated.

My noble friends’ amendments suggest that the regulator should be required to consider future fans as well as current fans and to take into account all fans not just fans in the locality. The truth is that, 20 years ago, there would not have been support across the world, particularly for the major clubs. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, this is not limited to the top level of clubs. This is a moving scene. Globalisation, for all its critics, has not come to an end; this is more of a global village than it was. Top-level football in England is much more international than it was in terms of the background of footballers who play here, and that is unlikely to become less so. As more and more of the world’s population have access to a variety of television channels, there will be more. We can only expect the degree of global interest and support for English football clubs to grow. This is a moving scene, and we should be clear that if we are going to have this regulator, the regulator should think in those terms and to be aware of it.

Of course, there will continue to be an incredibly important local fan base for every club. I was a Tottenham supporter when I lived in Oxfordshire, when I lived in Warwickshire, when I lived in London and now when I live in Sussex. My son, who is also a Tottenham supporter, feels it so strongly that he bought a house five minutes away from the marvellous Tottenham stadium, so he has now become a local supporter having been a distant supporter. This will continue to be the way in which support for football clubs develops, and it is important. My noble friend does us all a service by raising the point and developing the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with here and that we might, if we do not get this right, be putting in jeopardy.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak primarily to Amendment 17A in my name. Before I do so, I want to reflect on some of the contributions that we have heard, largely on the last group of amendments but spilling over into this one. I am a bit concerned that, while the Bill is about the regulator of English football, several noble Lords have said that it would be appropriate to extend it beyond the confines of England.

I understand the economic arguments for that. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who asked: are we really saying that we do not want English football equivalents of American football teams coming here? I saw American baseball at the London Stadium this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I do not care about their leagues. I do not care what effect it has on their leagues or their fans; it is up to them.

I do care about the effect of sending games abroad, as other noble Lords have said, and playing competitive matches: not touring matches, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, but competitive matches in other countries. That would be, to put it mildly, a very slippery slope and it would impact on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said in the last debate about comparing other sports. There is a very worrying trend of other sports—such as the grand prix that took place at the weekend—being funded to outrageous extents by foreign, often repressive and undemocratic Governments, to ensure that sports go to their countries. I do not want to see that sort of magnet placed in the way of football clubs in this country.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Can I clarify what the noble Lord has just said? He described the sporting events in the Middle East over the weekend—which were cricket, rugby and motor-racing—as “worrying”. Receiving literally millions of pounds of income for a football club or other sport in this country—is that really worrying?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

It is absolutely worrying. These countries have the right to do what they like with their money, but we have a right to say, “I don’t really wish to engage with that”, because we become tainted if we do that to an unlimited extent. That is a slightly different argument from that of playing competitive matches in other countries. That surely is something that we all agree would be bad for the future of English football. There are plenty of ways of bringing money in from all sources—if clubs want to do that, it is up to them—but playing matches outwith this country is surely not where we want to go.

That impacts on the whole question of fans and my amendment, which is: what is a fan? I do not know whether my amendment is the way we should define it, but I think it is the narrowest definition of a fan that I have heard so far in relation to this Bill. How do you define the Liverpool fan in San Diego? What does she or she have to say about what is happening in the Premier League? They may watch it on television and that is fine. They may express a very definite preference for one club, and they are entitled to do so. But they do not have a vested interest in the club in the way that someone who pays their money to go and see a match does.

I will repeat the point that I made last week. Some people are unable to afford the price of tickets, particularly in the Premier League—although I have to say in all honesty that I bought a theatre ticket last week, which cannot really be equated with the cost of a Premier League football ticket. But the other question is whether some people are physically unable to go. It may be somebody who has been going since they were 10 years old; they reach the age of 70 and find they are no longer able to go. I would sympathise with that.

However, we have been talking in the Bill about the regulator ensuring consultation with fans. You cannot consult somebody if you do not know where he or she lives. There has to be a list somewhere of the people you are going to consult. You cannot just open it up online and say, “Anybody with an interest, let us have your view by email”. That is not consulting—or at least consulting properly. So people who have bought into the club by having a season ticket: that is a reasonable way of saying, “These are the only fans we can genuinely define”. You can put them in a box and say, when it comes to consultation, “That’s the group of people because they have put their names in”.

They do not go to every match, of course. I often laugh when I read the football results and they show the attendance. I do not mean any disrespect to Arsenal, but I will use them as an example. They are going rather well at the moment, but they were not going well five years ago in the latter days of the Arsène Wenger period. You would see a match the Emirates Stadium and it was perfectly clear that there were almost as many empty seats as filled seats, yet the next day the papers would say the attendance was 100 short of capacity. That means the club is saying, “Ah, now, but we’ve sold those seats. Season ticket holders have bought them but they’re not very happy at the moment so they haven’t come”. My argument is, “Okay, that’s fine, but the key to the attendance is the word ‘attend’. If people don’t go, there’s not an attendance”. Still, the point is that these people have made a financial commitment to the club, and that is a basis on which to go forward.

That is why I disagree with the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 17 from the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, which refers to those

“who have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.

That is so vague; we have to have some way of pinning it down. If there is a better way of doing that than through season ticket holders, I am open to that suggestion and I will consider it. But, until then, I believe that is the only basis on which we can do it. I also want to see it in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

My main point is that we cannot just talk glibly about corporate responsibility, equality and representation without recognising that there are difficult issues that need to be tackled. Passing amendments or mentioning these issues without confronting the difficulties that are at the heart of football, which I do not expect a regulator to sort out, would be irresponsible.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I shall return to the spirit of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other amendments in this group. As my noble friend Lady Brady has said, the Premiership funds, in one form or another, enormous amounts of good work, but, as I have discussed with both my noble friend and representatives of the Premiership, it totally fails to identify the work that it does.

Until the Premiership sets about aggregating, in one form or another, all the contributions that different foundations make—whether in relation to football training, the disabled, the young or whatever it may happen to be—it will continue, quite rightly, to face the pressures that the amendments I have referred to attempt to address. Until the message is got across about the sums of money that my noble friend Lady Brady identified, certain attitudes will not change within the football world more broadly. The social work that is undertaken is so substantial, as my noble friend has said, that it will help to change other attitudes and enable progress to be made in all sorts of different ways that the amendments attempt to tackle.

So I do not necessarily support the amendments being accepted into the Bill, but I strongly support the message that is included in them. I ask the Premiership to get its act together in some form or another and convey the good work that my noble friend has just identified so that people understand that it is attempting to change attitudes, and in that way it will actually change attitudes.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in what she and the previous speaker have said and in all the work that she does. It is all there in the Deloitte report on the Premier League. The Premier League has missed a trick; the pages of the report show where the money goes and how it is spent, and it is all very laudable. Premier League football clubs, independent of the Premier League, do great schemes as well. Manchester City’s City in the Community started in 2003 with no funding from the football club, apart from one officer and that was Alex Williams, an England goalkeeper, who has just retired after doing 20 years at City in the Community. That is an example of the social responsibility of football clubs.

The reasoning behind these amendments, even though they may be just probing amendments, is that those things that can be given can be taken away. If football clubs in the Premier League fall on hard times and things have to stop being done, they may stop doing the things they do not have to do, and that effect will invariably come down to the poorest parts of the pyramid.

All we are trying to say with these amendments is: let us acknowledge the social responsibility that the Premier League has and the Premier League football clubs deliver but let us give the regulator the ability to ensure that that carries on. My noble friend is not being prescriptive and saying, “You should all pay that much”, but he wants to ensure that, to avoid unintended consequences, football clubs do not suffer in the event that some Premier League clubs or the Premier League itself cannot deliver those benefits in future years. I have no reason to think that will happen, because the Premier League is getting bigger and going global and more money is coming in, but that is the point of the fan-led review. How many football clubs did the review show were one match away from disaster? That why we are looking for a regulator. Sometimes the unintended consequences are too dire, especially for smaller clubs.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the eloquent case that he made for it. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

As we go further into this Bill and debate it further, it becomes clearer that this was a Bill conceived in a fit of absence of mind; it has come about almost by accident. There were some concerns about Bury Football Club going into administration. There were concerns about the European Super League being proposed—an idea that was almost literally dead on arrival not because of a regulator or primarily because of political intervention but because of a fan revolt. The system as it was worked. It was the deep commitment of fans to the current arrangement, the current competitive leagues and all of that. Their anger and dismay at this were reflected in the British clubs which had committed to it, including my own. They abandoned it as if it was suddenly realised that this thing that they were holding was red hot and that the sooner they got rid of it the better. This was working. Yet there was a casual threat made by the then Prime Minister, reacting—as a populist will often do—to popular anger with a threat to introduce legislation. It is more and more evident as we go further that the Bill we are now considering at length, with its deficiencies and its threats, is the result of that.

I want to consider, for a moment, the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson made about overregulation. I have been involved, at various stages of my long and chequered career, in trying to counter overregulation. The first time was nearly 40 years ago when I was Margaret Thatcher’s Minister for Deregulation. Later, I chaired a deregulation task force at the request of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, the then Deputy Prime Minister. I then chaired periodically the coalition Government’s better regulation Cabinet Committee, or whatever we called it. I have been involved in this a lot and spent a lot of time looking at the effects of overregulation, who the beneficiaries are and which organisations suffer because of it.

One of the conclusions that I reached very early on was that it is not the big businesses that suffer most but the smaller ones. A bit of a theme in how we have been debating this Bill is the sense that “All of the resentment and all of the difficulty with this is coming from the Premier League”, and that somehow we are trying to defend it. I have to tell your Lordships that the clubs that will feel the least of the burden of overregulation, the compliance costs, are the big clubs, because they are big machines. They are serious businesses. They have the personnel and infrastructure and can draw on resources to deal with the unexpected effects of regulation. They will have a machine that will accommodate it. It will be uncomfortable and unnecessary and it will have costs, but they will not be threatened by it. The clubs that will really feel the burden are the small clubs. They do not have these big machines and are not equipped with armies of lawyers and accountants and the rest of the panoply of resource that is required to deal with this totally new form of regulation that is suddenly being thrust upon them.

This is something we need to think about very carefully indeed. One might not want there to be bad effects, but so many of the debates we have had on this Bill have been about the threat of unintended consequences.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. He has made an important point in relation to small companies, and is it not confirmed by an article in this morning’s Times, which says that the Financial Conduct Authority’s “over-regulation … harms small companies”? That is exactly the point he is making: it is small companies that are affected, rather than large ones.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing your Lordships’ attention to that. It is absolutely the case. When Governments consult with a sector, the people they consult with tend to be the big ones. I spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to work out how to deal with it in previous contexts. If you run a small company, business or operation—a small football club—you are far more concerned with getting on with whatever the next thing is on your agenda. You have got relatively few people around to do the work. Big companies have a machine that is set up to deal with all this, so the point that my noble friend makes is entirely right.

The point behind this amendment is incredibly important, and my noble friend has done a great service in raising it in the vivid way that he has. We have to consider this, because once you create an independent regulator, you have created something that is supposedly independent, and it is much harder to come back. Later in these debates, we will come to my noble friend Lord Goodman’s proposed sunset clause. That would be some kind of constraint because the threat or certainty of there being a proper, serious review after a given length of time will focus the minds of the regulator. But without that, without the kind of amendment that my noble friend has tabled, I think we stand in great danger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 16, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. The amendment would require the regulator to take into account the economic risks of overregulation and report against this risk. I am sure this is an approach that will interest all parts of the Committee, especially, as my noble friend Lord Jackson reminded us, as the Prime Minister himself recently made such a high priority of reducing the impact of regulatory burden on British investment and growth.

We should consider the Prime Minister’s words carefully. He spoke of breaking free from the trap of excessive regulation, of removing needless barriers to investment, and of ensuring that regulators take growth far more seriously. Yet, here we are again, at risk of creating a new regulator without proper safeguards against exactly these risks. Indeed, the Department for Business and Trade this year published a report on smarter regulation, which described the problem in stark terms:

“Good regulation allows our markets and societies to function. However, there is strong evidence that points to our regulatory culture acting as a drag on our ability to generate economic activity, innovation and to attract investment. The regulatory environment is often confusing and sometimes features of it appear to exist for the benefit of the regulators, rather than the industries who they regulate, consumers or Britain as a whole”.


We must take care to guard against our regulatory culture having a similarly damaging impact on British football.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Premier League represents one of Britain’s most successful exports, contributing £8.2 billion annually to our economy and more than £4 billion to the Exchequer, while supporting more than 90,000 jobs. Already, we are seeing concerning signs in the Bill: undefined ownership tests: parallel regulatory requirements; unproven intervention powers; and sweeping powers to redistribute Premier League revenue. Each adds complexity and risks that could deter the very investment that we need.

The Premier League competes globally for capital, for talent and for attention. Excessive regulation could quickly diminish its appeal to serious investors, with knock-on impacts for the pyramid which relies on the Premier League. As the chief executive of the Premier League has said in relation to this Bill, we must not wound the goose that lays English football’s golden egg. It is that egg that supports so much of the good work that we discussed earlier and the football pyramid as a whole.

The Prime Minister pledged to “march through the institutions”, ensuring regulators take growth seriously. Yet this Bill creates a regulator with no equal duty to consider success, economic impact or growth alongside the very vague notions of soundness and resilience, which, as I said earlier in this Committee, have no clear end state. We can have both effective regulation and economic dynamism, but only if we build in appropriate safeguards from the start. Without them, we risk creating exactly the kind of bureaucratic barriers to investment that the Prime Minister has correctly identified as holding Britain back.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. I will concentrate particularly on both the impact assessment and what my noble friend Lord Maude was referring to: the impact on small businesses. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, when I made my comments at Second Reading, I emphasised that my concerns are not that there are no problems; the question is how we actually tackle the problems that exist in the industry while not damaging the success.

I have made a number of references to the impact assessment, and I quoted from it earlier today. On page 8, paragraph 17, it states:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.

I am concerned after reading the impact assessment that, as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Maude identified, the impact is not on the big companies. Anybody who has sat on the side of an industry, as I did when changes were made to licensing law, for example, knows that it is not the big companies that are affected by such changes. They have the resources. It is the small companies that are confused, concerned and lost. They do not have a specialist to deal with the minutiae of a clause. I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time, and it was an enormous task to guide smaller companies through the issues they faced. For me, the impact assessment dramatically underestimates the impact that small companies face in these circumstances.

I will come back to other elements later, but I am particularly concerned—and am referring to page 53 onwards—about the identified benefits that are supposed to accrue to the industry. The costs are dealt with, but I must admit that I am not convinced. On the indirect benefits, paragraph 225 comes up with a wonderful sentence:

“These indirect benefits are extremely difficult to quantify, given the range of variables that will affect the profitability of individual football clubs. Therefore, these are not quantified in the appraisal”.


Paragraph 227 says:

“These benefits are extremely difficult and speculative to quantify and therefore are not quantified in the appraisal”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will no doubt be relieved that I have not entered into any word counts on this occasion.

On accruing benefits for the community, paragraph 233, on page 54, states:

“The model states that the results of this contingent valuation survey of football users and non-users shows that people positively value the club they support/their local club and would be willing to pay an annual subscription to support it”.


I find myself at a loss to believe that my noble friend went round the streets of Wycombe or any other community and asked, “Would you be willing to pay X sum to support the club?” The suggestion that large parts of any population are

“willing to pay … to support”

their local club is really stretching credibility far.

This comment was made as a result of some work undertaken by Ipsos, an organisation for which I have high regard and with which I deal on polling. But the next paragraph, 235, refers to the following:

“DCMS guidance states that a lower bound”—


I am not sure whether the authors intend “bound” or “band”—

“95% confidence interval of willingness to pay (WTP)”.

That is rather like talking about turnout at a general election by asking people whether they are going to vote. I checked with a pollster this morning, and the mean answer given is 80%. The turnout at the last election was 60%, so there was an error of a quarter or a third, depending on whether you go upwards or downwards. To suggest that you can quantify the willingness of a community and people in the street to pay to support their local club stretches the bounds of credibility.

But on page 56 we have a breakdown, in detail, of the willingness of each region of the country to pay a sum to support its local club. There has been infinite reference to the fact that the support for clubs crosses from one place to another. Therefore, if you are contributing in the north-east or in London you may not be willing to pay to support a specific club. It is not surprising that London is identified as the place where people are most willing to supply most money, but it does not say whether the sums involved include a season ticket. Many of the people who answered the question will have thought, “Well, I actually pay in the form of a season ticket already and therefore I am contributing”.

What is depressing about the impact assessment is that it goes into such detail in relation to the benefits that will be gained from this legislation, but there is no attempt to identify what the clubs will have to pay. I am not talking here about the Premier League clubs; I am talking about the small clubs. In her response to the points that I and others raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the costs would be proportionate. But no figures are given. I find it barely credible that such detail can be provided to identify how much people from each different area of the country are willing to pay, but there is no calculation of the cost for a small club.

That is where the important issue—the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson—arises. People can concentrate on Premier League clubs, but we are talking here about regulating over 100 clubs. People do not realise that the impact will be on the small clubs. The Government need to be honest before this legislation passes, and to identify the probable burden for each of the small clubs, because without that information it is not appropriate to pass into law a football regulation Bill.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jackson and to speak further to the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward about large clubs, small clubs and financial burdens.

We are presumably all agreed that large clubs are better able to bear the cost of regulation than smaller ones. My noble friend Lord Hayward referred a moment ago to 100 clubs, but if some noble Lords have their way, it will be more than 100 clubs. We have already heard today, as we will hear as the Bill develops, proposals to tack on to the Bill corporate social responsibility, net-zero obligations and so on. There are amendments tabled to tack on to the Bill specifically the National League North and National League South. I am sure that the Minister would resist any such amendments, in the same way that the Government will resist most of the amendments that come forward. But as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out at Second Reading—if he did not, I am sure other noble Lords did—the Bill is shy about saying which leagues will be covered by the regulator.

The Government have made it very clear that it will be the pyramid—the top five leagues—but the point is that at any future date the Government might change or, heaven help us, the Minister might move on and be replaced by someone else. At that point, the Government could bring forward by regulation changes to the scope covered by the regulator in order to bring in the National Leagues North and South, or other leagues. Even more small clubs would then be covered by the regulator and have to bear the costs. My noble friend’s amendment is a wise, precautionary one, not only in dealing with the measures the Government are proposing to bring within the scope of the Bill, but as a hedge against other leagues being brought within the scope of the regulator in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a particular concern. I am not suggesting by any means that people will not need time to get used to and understand the burdens or costs on smaller clubs but, as I felt I had outlined, I hope that, with enough clarity, the licence conditions—that includes the costs placed on clubs— will vary depending on their unique circumstances. I am sure we will have further opportunities to discuss that as we go forward. Hopefully we can give your Lordships’ Committee and the clubs some reassurance on that point.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

To follow up on the Minister’s comments and the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, given the detail that is included in the impact assessment on every other category of cost and benefit, and even though I find some of the calculations dubious, to say the least, at the next sitting of this Committee can we have a clearer indication of the likely proportionate costs which will fall on clubs at different levels in the pyramid, rather than some broad, general observation that it will be proportionate?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

No, it cannot.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I could make a comment. The Minister has been very helpful in offering meetings to discuss a whole range of issues that arise, which we greatly appreciate, and to write beforehand. On one thing which she touched on—I will obviously have to read Hansard very carefully to check, because she moved on fairly quickly—was why companies legislation was not acceptable for the Bill. I just register that I would like when we meet to discuss this more fully. She referred to Companies Act legislation being very lengthy, but I am not clear on why, if it is acceptable in general Companies Act legislation, it is not acceptable here. We can discuss that, but I just wanted to register it at this point so that when we meet, it is a subject for conversation.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to go into more detail on that point when I meet the noble Lord and I will ask my officials to contact him to set up a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about a conflict of interest. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington: making small or one-off contributions because you have been asked to, given that you hold that particular role, is very different from having a specific and clear role in the media. There would be a conflict of interest if you held both positions and were contributing on a regular basis. I cannot see that it would be perceived by the average fan as acceptable to have someone who held both positions.

My noble friend Lord Parkinson has included in his amendment the word “currently”. I assume that he would accept someone giving up one role specifically to take up another—I think that is what he is referring to—but I certainly take the view that any substantial media interest would be utterly unacceptable for someone in these circumstances. Millions of football fans would take the view that they were pro a particular point of view at any given point.

I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, on salaries, particularly because it is always dangerous to put a salary in legislation. What happens if you have inflation? First, you have to change the primary legislation, and there is no indication of inflation adjustment in the amendment.

Those are small observations, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the direction of my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment—that there should not be a prima facie case of conflict of interest in these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

That would be one of the key areas on which a parliamentary committee would seek to interrogate the new independent football regulator.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Since my noble friend is referring to a letter that was addressed to me, I assure him that in the debate on another amendment I shall return in far greater detail to this letter, not least because the first heading of the letter refers to “Exact cost”. I never asked for exact costs. I preferred to use the word “probably”.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Your Lordships and I can rely on my noble friend’s forensic interrogation of the letter and the Bill generally. I know that we will come back to this issue.

I mentioned proportionality and a final example is the framework document, which has a strange description on page 2 of the letter. It says:

“DCMS as the sponsor department will agree a ‘framework document’ with the Regulator”.


It will be up to a parliamentary committee to look at what the point of that framework document is and whether its delivery by the regulator is efficacious. We need to know about the accounting officer. We need to know about the role of the National Audit Office and how it will intervene and work with the department, the regulator itself and any parliamentary committee. The levy, the proportionality and the cost are all areas where Parliament has a very important role to play.

I think we have reached the turning point in trusting regulators to discharge their duties without appropriate and close examination by legislators. That is our job and the job of those elected in the other place. Because the weather has changed for regulators, we no longer implicitly trust them to be full of experts and to do their job effectively. As my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said, “In God we trust, everyone else bring data”. I am not just looking at the right reverend Prelate when I say that. The serious point is that we need to see that the regulator is doing its job. We cannot rely on just undertakings and assurances. We need the proper statutory function of a committee to oversee the work of the regulator. On that basis, I warmly support my noble friend’s excellent amendment.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the difference between “may” and “must”—or may and shall—is a pretty old parliamentary debate, but the noble Baroness has something here. I read through the amendments and thought, “It’s pretty clear. How could they stay if they’d done these things?” It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. I know that “may” probably means “must” in certain circumstances, but if we could just have it clarified, we might get through this very quickly. It is very worth while having it clarified in this case.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are making, but I am always hesitant to say that something “must” happen. I speak here as someone who spent many years as a personnel/human resources director, acting as the final stage of appeal in disciplinary matters. As the noble Lord implied, I know that there is a debate in legal fields, because nowadays lawyers generally do not like being bound by something that tells them that they “must” act in a certain way.

It does not seem to be appropriate to insert “must”. The noble Baroness said that there would be a presumption—and I think so too. As the noble Lord said, these are very serious offences, but until one is confronted by a set of circumstances, I hesitate to bind anybody to a certain decision. There may be special circumstances where one is found guilty of only one of the categories and circumstances, so I am not convinced that “must” should be inserted in place of “may”.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I want partly to echo what my noble friend Lord Hayward said. Given that the individuals concerned will be non-executive directors of a de facto non-departmental public body, they would be covered by the existing code of conduct for non-departmental public bodies, which I think dates from June 2019. It may have been updated by the previous Government; I do not think that the current Government have looked at it. Equally, they are governed by the Nolan principles, with which we are all very familiar—I am as familiar as anyone else, having been a special adviser and currently being a non-executive director of two non-departmental public bodies.

My point is about the restrictive nature of this wording. This is quite an unusual situation, where the individuals responsible for bringing disciplinary issues to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the independent football regulator will have no leeway whatever under this legislation. If it passes the threshold of criminal activity in civil law, legal representatives—the judiciary, magistrates and others—would have no leeway on this. Therefore, you would circumscribe the existing internal procedures.

Those of us who have a role in non-departmental public bodies know that there is a proper process. You would have a verbal warning. I also have a master’s degree in human resource management and have been an HR manager in my time—there are almost as many of us in this place as there are lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the provisions that she thinks adequately cover this point. However, if discretion still exists on issues such as being guilty of serious misconduct, then I have a concern. I am not sure that there should be discretion in a case of a serious misconduct. Maybe the point she raised about conflicts of interest and that conflicting with other parts of the Bill covers it, but I have this fear that, if there is discretion, the chief executive of the independent football regulator might be put under pressure by others. That can be a serious concern in any organisation. In a sense, I think these amendments would protect people from having to use discretion. If somebody was found guilty of serious misconduct, that would elevate the issue again.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I am particularly interested in what the noble Baroness just said about the pressure being imposed on a chief executive. If, having looked at a case in detail and correctly in terms of procedure and the like, he then gives way to pressure from elsewhere —it may well be political pressure of one form or another—would you not call into question whether you have the right chief executive in the first place?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Yes. That is why we need to protect the chief executive or anybody else by not giving them this kind of discretion, which might leave them open to any kind of pressure. I am not sure it would be political pressure; it is quite likely to be internal political pressure with a small “p”, rather than political in the way that we discuss things. I ask my noble friend to consider this a bit further because, given the categorisation, there is a potential problem. I know she has taken an interest in this so, on that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments, which are also in my name. As in previous groups, he set out some of our concerns, particularly where there are media interests involved—by media interests we are speaking very much about involvement with media rights and, as we discussed earlier, inside information and conflicts.

Amendment 49 is all about the transparency of the process. The real value of an expert panel is that there are a lot of complicated issues. If anything, the last three days have shown us that this is a highly complex area and that we would be asking the expert panel to opine on a large range of issues. The strength of that panel will be its breadth.

One area of particular concern to me is the example I gave before about clubs which are in what you might call the start-up phase—for example, Brighton, as they were a few years ago, when they invested heavily in players as part of a well-reasoned plan to get promoted. I am concerned that a regulator, with its sustainability hat on, might say that that is not very sustainable.

However, I would expect and hope that the expert panel had a range of views. While some may be more of the button-down accountant-type who would have concerns about that, I would hope that others would be of a more entrepreneurial nature and would understand what these aspiring clubs were trying to do, and so give that balanced view. To me, that is exactly what a good expert panel should be doing. On transparency, being able to hear those minority views and take them into consideration overall is an important dimension to all of this.

We have plenty of good examples of this. In the Monetary Policy Committee you have so-called hawks and doves, and a lot of information is often gained by not just the majority view in the vote but the dissenting voices. You see similar things in Supreme Court rulings, where you have minority opinions. It is about trying to bring that sort of richness to this, so that we have a range of expert views, which we will all benefit from. That was very much the thinking behind Amendment 49. I look forward to the Minister’s views.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will make one or two comments in relation to this group of amendments. First, Amendment 42 seeks to set an upper limit. I strongly support that, whatever the number happens to be. Many years ago—not that many—I drafted the changes in legislation in relation to parliamentary boundaries for the Commons. Over the years, we had seen a steady drifting up, with ever-more Members of Parliament, as the Boundary Commission decided to duck a decision here or a decision there. Ultimately, we set a figure for the total number of Members of Parliament. I will not go into detail as to whether I think the figure is right now, but I had watched it drift ever upwards.

The debate about this House has included very heavily the question of the numbers that there should be in it. I am a strong believer that there should be a limit, and that the limit should be very substantially below where it is now. The numbers have just drifted up and up, because some people have appointed too many people into this House. I am therefore in favour of having a limit on the panel, because I can see the risks of not having one. I do not mind whether it is 20, or whatever it may happen to be, but I am in favour of some upper limit on any public panel in these circumstances.

I am not going to comment on the next two amendments, on the basis that I have done so already in previous conversations, but I will refer to Amendment 49. I agree strongly with the principles outlined in it. We are talking about a public body here. We are saying that the football clubs, which are regulated and licensed, must be open to comment from their fans. If the football clubs must be open to comment and scrutiny from their fans then surely the regulator and the expert panels must also be open to that same public scrutiny. It is not acceptable for people who are on that sort of panel to hide behind an overall decision. It would therefore be important to go down this sort of route.

I made an intervention on the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I do not think I misinterpreted what she said earlier—I apologise if I did, because she is not here at the moment. When I asked her about strong or weak chief executives, she expressed concern that the wrong chief executive might be in the position. If there is, and he is leading a weak panel, then people could hide behind it. I am strongly in favour of a public display of decision-making in that process.

I would not necessarily agree that the amendment has perfect wording. For example, in proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(d), whether or not you have “the reasons why” is another matter. However, one category that is not in here is the question of timescale, which has come up in other elements of our discussion. It must be right that, throughout the process of regulation, there should be timescales imposed. It is all too easy for people to drift on decisions, whatever they happen to be, and put them back and back.

We are talking here, as we have identified, about a very competitive industry, competing not only in the football world but in other worlds as well. To maintain the position of our competitive pre-eminence within that field, we need to ensure throughout that regulators abide by timescales. I therefore suggest that, on Report, not only in this amendment but elsewhere, there should be timescales involved, as well as the other classifications that are identified.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, has the Minister given any thought to scrutiny or oversight of the financial ramifications we are being invited to support tonight by means of the DCMS Select Committee, the Treasury Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? Given the very wide powers in this part of the Bill, there needs to be appropriate scrutiny of the dispensing of very significant amounts of public money. We are told that, at the top end, the worst-case scenario could be £140 million over the course of a Parliament. We need to get the wording right and protect taxpayers’ interests.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will correct my noble friend on one point in his introductory speech. He talked about the cost burden falling on the taxpayer. This is a Bill where the burden does not fall on the taxpayer; it falls on the football clubs. At each step, however many there may be, depending on debates on hybridity and the rest, we must remember who will finish up paying for this. It is a group of football clubs, their fans, their staff and their players.

I raised the question in Committee:

“The Government need to be honest before this legislation passes, and to identify the probable burden for each of the small clubs”.—[Official Report, 2/12/24; col. 996.]


The Minister committed to write to me in response, and she has done so. Earlier, I intervened on my noble friend Lord Jackson and cited a particular instance, the head bullet point in the Minister’s response whose heading is:

“Exact cost of the Regulator”.


I did not ask for the exact cost; I asked for a probable cost. With respect to my noble friend Lady Brady, my target throughout this has been the small clubs—the Wycombes, the Wigans and those sorts of clubs. They are not as well resourced as those in the Premier League and do not have international competitions that they may or may not be in. It is crucial that the small clubs have some idea of what they are going to be asked for.

According to the letter, the impact assessment, to which I have referred previously,

“provides a reasonable estimate of these costs”.

If it is “a reasonable estimate”, it will probably be possible to work out reasonably what the costs to the small clubs are. The Minister has used the word “proportionate” on different occasions. The calculation could be done only on revenue, turnover or staff. It is improbable that it will be staff; it will therefore be revenue or turnover. If you have a fixed number of clubs and already know the revenue and turnover of each of them, you can work out what the costs will probably be. I will continue to press throughout Committee and Report until we get an indication of what the costs are. It is not as if they are not available.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is not here. On this occasion, I have done not a word count but a page count. The impact assessment is 76 pages long and, on a conservative assessment, 29 pages provide projections of costs and benefits. I could have extended it more substantially than 29 pages, but on a small conservative estimate there are whole pages of graphs with options and alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred just now to £140 million. That is not the top option but the “reasonable estimate”, to use the words of the Minister. It could be much higher.

If there is an analysis of potential costs on 29 pages of the impact assessment, it is a very short step to do a calculation of the impact on each club. When I say it is a short step, it is in the impact assessment itself, but I am asking for the costs to the clubs. Page 58 starts progress down that route. It says:

“Costs to the National League (organising body)”.


In other words, it has already gone part of the way there. On the next page, we read:

“Costs to National League clubs”,


and there are several paragraphs thereafter. So, the Government have already gone down the route of looking at the potential costs not only to the National League but to National League clubs.

If the previous Government felt that it was possible to ask an opinion poll company, Ipsos MORI, which I cited the other day, to do research on potential regional benefits and contributions that people might perceive from having a regulator, it should be possible for this Government to do research on what people might pay—to come back to my point about the revenue and turnover of these clubs, all they have to do is turn to Deloitte. Is that a company that we have never heard of? No. Deloitte is cited in the impact assessment on different pages. It talks about Deloitte’s research into football clubs on the back page:

“Deloitte analysis of club finances”.


That is all that has to be done.

The Government are so keen to display their research in terms of finances and costs that they have not only produced an impact assessment but “impact assessment key points”. What is the first title? “Cost methodology”. We are talking about something which the Government have gone a long way down already in the necessary assessments.

I will not challenge the figures—I may do so on another occasion. Taking the figures that are available, it is a very short step for the Government to say, “This is what it will cost for clubs of these sizes to operate and pay for the levy”. But I would add one important caveat, and it may be one of the two reasons why the Government do not want to identify the sums involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his intervention. He seemed to think I was talking about Premier League clubs. I was not. I was saying that the Minister had said that she did not want to specify in the Bill which clubs were going to be regulated, so the club does not know whether it will be regulated, and it certainly does not know how much it will cost it. The noble Lord might shake his head, but that is a fairly obvious point. We do not know who will pay. We also do not know what it will cost. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, talked about an estimate of £10 million—I beg your pardon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Markham.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

If I might clarify for my noble friend: the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, referred to £10 million; I was quoting from the impact assessment, which says that £140 million over 10 years is the mid-point the Government are operating to.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon for not attributing the £10 million figure to her. The fact is that we know that is ludicrous, because the cost of other regulators is way more than that.

I will make some headway. What will it cost overall? We do not know what the overall cost will be or what it will cost individual clubs. To talk a little bit more about that, imagine you are a local entrepreneur. There is a club in a little bit of trouble. They come to you and say, “You always wanted to own a football club. Why don’t you take over our club and then you can have one of those back-to-back league promotion successes that you’ve dreamed about and you’ll be famous in your community?”. You say, “Well, I’ve got a few bob. I don’t know how much, but yeah, okay, I’ll consider it”. It is one of those clubs that a noble Lord opposite talked about on Monday. I think the numbers cited were a turnover of £2 million and seven employees. You are invited to take over this club and bung in some of your money. You may not have a lot, but you may think you have enough. Then you say, “What’s going to happen?” My concern is that when you are told there is going to be a regulator that will tell you who to have on your board and all that, you will say, “Forget about that; as an entrepreneur, I don’t play that particular game”. But let us say you swallow that. Then you say, “How much is this regulator going to cost me?” The answer: “Dunno mate”. You ask, “Well, what could it be?” The answer: “Dunno”. So you turn your back and go off to sponsor the local cricket club or something like that. It does not work if you are not absolutely clear about what the cost will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Markham, for these amendments. Before I go through them and respond to the debate, I stress that I will make sure that all letters that have been sent to Members in the course of the Bill so far are placed in the Library as soon as possible, if that has not already taken place.

Ensuring that there are appropriate financial processes and limits in place for the regulator is extremely important, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail. Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would entirely remove the ability of the Secretary of State to provide the regulator with financial assistance where appropriate. The Government acknowledge that the intent behind this amendment is to ensure that the regulator provides value for money for football fans, Parliament and the wider football industry. The regulator will be levy funded, and its regulatory principles include using its resources in the most efficient, expedient and economic way—this is what we expect.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked about costs to smaller clubs. It will be for the regulator to determine the methodology for the levy. However, the Bill requires it to take into consideration the financial resources of a club and the league a club plays in when determining how to distribute the levy charge across clubs. This should ensure a proportionate levy, where no club, big or small, will be asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. I appreciate, however, that the noble Lord has not yet been satisfied by my response to this, and I look forward to discussing it with him in further detail when we meet.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the offer to meet. Can I clarify that her implication is that all clubs in a division will be charged the same fee? I am not absolutely clear from what she said whether there will be a varied fee for different clubs in the same division, and this is not clear in the impact assessment either.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is for each league a club plays in, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, made clear, there would be differences between the resources available to each club within a league. It is intended to make sure that each club has a proportionate levy placed on it, as well as taking into account which league a club might be playing in. So it is intended to be proportionate overall but also proportionate to the resources of an individual club.

The regulator’s budgets will be approved annually, and it will produce an annual report that will be laid before Parliament. However, on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, exceptional and unforeseen adverse events may mean that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the regulator. Paragraph 36 of Schedule 2 allows for this when considered appropriate. It also allows for the Secretary of State to cover any shortfall during the period between establishing the regulator and the levy being fully in effect—that was noted during the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked how much the independent football regulator will cost and questioned whether the taxpayer would have to pay. To answer his question fully, I stress again that the regulator will be levy funded. However, there will be a period before clubs are licensed, and before the levy can be charged, when the Secretary of State will provide funding. These initial costs can all be recouped by the Exchequer once the regulator’s levy is up and running. We cannot know the exact cost of the regulator until the legislation has been passed and the organisational design has been finalised by the chair and the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, noted that some of the additional potential purposes that noble Lords have discussed in relation to the regulator could scale up or scale down some of those costs, so it is not possible to have an exact figure at this stage.

On a power allowing the Secretary of State to cover any shortfall, there is an equivalent power for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to, for example, the Small Business Commissioner in the Enterprise Act 2016. Entirely removing the ability of the Secretary of State to provide this financial assistance could mean that the regulator is unable to continue to operate and fulfil its objectives, which would have significant knock-on impacts on the game.

On Amendment 171, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, it is important that clubs have appropriate non-financial resources in place. This will ensure that clubs are able to make good decisions about running the club, as well as meet relevant rules and regulations and report their finances accurately. The regulator will be able to attach discretionary licence conditions relating to non-financial resources in three areas: risk management, financial reporting and internal controls—and only in these three business-critical areas.

The term “internal controls” is explained in the Explanatory Notes. It refers to the system of policies and processes that a club has that allow it to operate in an effective, orderly and efficient manner. This includes controls to ensure complete, accurate reporting, compliance with rules and regulations, and financial management.

To confirm the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on the matter of not duplicating with regard to audit, we would assume that existing audits would be used as part of this process.

These are all areas crucial to ensuring financial sustainability, and that is exactly why the regulator needs to be able to attach discretionary licence conditions relating to these areas to ensure that clubs do in fact have appropriate non-financial resources. It would not be appropriate to limit the regulator unnecessarily here to internal financial controls only. The regulator can attach licence conditions only if they advance one or more of its operational objectives. I reassure noble Lords that the regulator will not have free rein here; financial sustainability will still be at the heart of any licence conditions.

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for his Amendment 253. The Government completely agree that the regulator should not be able to borrow money. That is why it is already prevented from doing so in paragraph 35(2) of Schedule 2. There is no need for this restriction to be duplicated elsewhere in the Bill. Additionally, the regulator would currently use penalty receipts to fund litigation costs. The noble Lord’s amendment would prevent this. It would mean that litigation costs would have to be passed on to all clubs through the levy, as opposed—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Sorry, I was just waiting for the Minister to conclude her paragraph. Can I just ask her to clarify the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann? He said—I am paraphrasing and am happy if he corrects my phraseology—quite clearly to the Committee that figures have been given to clubs as to what they were likely to pay. Is that correct, or is the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, correct, having been present at all the meetings with the Ministers, that no figures have been given to any clubs?

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

Figures have been given by the Premier League to clubs and clubs have been happy to cite those figures.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

To respond to that point, my understanding of what my noble friend Lord Mann said was that it related to the Premier League giving information to the clubs, rather than explicit information being given by the Government.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

In which case, can the noble Lord, Lord Mann, provide the Committee with the details of the figures and the dates when they were provided?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure whether it is my responsibility as a Minister to ensure that that happens.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

51: Clause 6, page 5, line 9, leave out “protect and promote” and insert “monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 51 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He has asked me to move it because he is, unfortunately, unavailable on this occasion. Perhaps I might observe that, out of the 300-plus amendments, some 120-plus of them come from the Government’s own Back Benches.

This amendment deals with an area which I have touched on on a number of occasions during debate on the Bill’s clauses and subsections: the financial impact that it will have on the different leagues. They are not named in the Bill, but we all know which ones we are talking about.

I am particularly interested to be talking to Amendment 51 on the basis of the Prime Minister’s own Damascene conversion—if I can refer to Syria as being the place in the public eye at the moment—to avoiding, where possible, impositions on the private sector by regulation. He commented on that in his speech last Thursday. It would appear that he is now of the view that regulation should be kept to a minimum, or that the Civil Service—I specifically exclude the civil servants advising the Minister, who have been very helpful throughout—is providing a “tepid bath” of steady decline. I think those were the Prime Minister’s words. Other Ministers have then been sent out to clarify on the matter, one of whom today described it as an attempt to take the approach of a start-up. Well, my noble friend Lord Markham has identified how to aim to start up and the funding needed when one actually takes that approach, which may not be conducive to the overall approach outlined in the Bill for football regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding is that the amendment would prevent money going from club to club. The model is around distribution between leagues or competitions, as the noble Lord suggests. There is already a situation in which the Premier League recognises that some financial redistribution is needed. I refer the noble Lord to previous discussions about why the regulator and financial redistribution of some type are required within the football pyramid.

Amendments 126 and 130 relate to the regulator being able to state in its rules any further information that is required to accompany the application for a provisional licence or the strategic business plan. The regulator will be independent, and it will be the expert. We need to give it the flexibility to implement its regime as it considers appropriate. This includes being able to request additional information in a club’s application if necessary to satisfy itself that the club will meet the test for a provisional operating licence. This will be set out up front in the rules, so clubs will always know in advance what is required of them when submitting an application or a strategic business plan. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope they will not press them.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I find the Minister’s answer interesting, but I will start by making a comment in relation to my noble friend—I do address him as my noble friend—Lord Addington’s remarks regarding regulation. The concerns we have on these Benches are in relation not to regulation per se but to regulatory creep and regulatory definition. The first few clauses in the Bill in one form or another either cover inadequately or do not cover the question of regulation.

My first amendments related to sustainability and the breadth of that comment. The Minister has just made her observations in relation to “targeted”, “prioritised” and “proportionate”. We are trying to establish precisely what the regulator can operate to, more clearly than we have in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear, and the net result is, as we know and as has been observed by any number of Members across this House, that we watch regulators use regulatory creep one after another after another.

The Minister used the words “proportionate” and “targeted”. Is the regulator going to have exactly the same interpretation of “proportionate” or “targeted” as the Minister? No. By definition there are no minds alike, and therefore they will be different. In this set of amendments we are trying to find out precisely how the regulator should operate. Without that clarity, the Bill gives the regulator what I regard, and I think many people on this side of the Committee particularly regard, as undue breadth of self-interpretation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Premier League and the payments that are made. I agree with parts of the comments that he made, but we have here a unique operation whereby the Premier League makes payments to other clubs in other divisions and to those facing threats of relegation so that the whole system does not fail.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, identified the banking crisis. Under those circumstances, Governments worldwide intervened in all sorts of ways in all sorts of businesses. That is not comparable with trying to regulate a sport, and a highly successful sport as it is. What is significant and interesting is that although the Premier League passes money downwards, the Championship does not. It receives money and could easily pass money down, but fails to do so. Therefore, one is looking at a complicated position in terms of regulation and the impact it will have, in a way that has been eloquently identified in a number of contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, from her understanding, unique in this Chamber, of the operation of both the Championship and the Premier League.

I will continue to seek clarity, as I am sure others will, on what is intended behind the work of the regulator. That is what we are here to do, and we should do it step by step as we look at each clause and subsection. Having made those comments and noted what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.

Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.

So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.

I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would

“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”.

I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.

We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.

So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that some of the comments that have been made have obliged me to do so.

However, before I come on to the amendments and the comments made in the speeches, I would just like all your Lordships to look around you. We are talking about equality, inclusion and diversity. What proportion of this Chamber is disabled, non-white, gay or lesbian? The answer is: very, very few. It is a compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she is a great example of what women can achieve at the top of the football tree, and that we have a female Minister responding. But I stand here, as I said in my first speech to this Chamber, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club. It celebrated its 29th anniversary only just under two months ago and will celebrate, I expect, its 30th anniversary next 1 November.

I find it utterly unacceptable to suggest, as has been suggested, that we should not tackle the question of trans individuals in society. I am proud that I did a podcast the other week with a member of my club, who himself has undergone the process of moving from female to male. He is proud of having done it. There are issues that we have to address in society, as well as issues that we have to address in sport. I believe that on occasion it is appropriate to put things into legislation as an “encouragement” to people to behave in a certain way. It is all very well saying, “Well, we have the right policies and we’ll do it all right”, but I come back to this point: look at this Chamber.

I have not taken any guidance, as Lord Blunkett suggested, from the Premier League, and in fact, on a previous occasion in Committee, I made the point that actually the Premiers League, for all its right efforts, was not messaging correctly. I believe that that is the case here. In rugby we have had openly gay World Cup final referees and a captain of the Welsh rugby team, but we have no openly gay, top-level professional players at the moment, as far as I am aware. But football is behind the times despite the best encouragements from individuals, and it is therefore well worth while asking the question of the Minister and of the regulator, “How are you actually going to tackle these issues?”—because issues they remain.

I will conclude on the observation in relation to Rainbow Laces. Rainbow Laces has been adopted by sport throughout as a means of messaging to people as to how they should behave to other minority groups. They must continue to do so. It is not a political gesture; it is a gesture on behalf of society as a whole to other parts of society. I believe we have achieved so much, but we could achieve so much more.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the noble Lord and I can have a fruitful conversation outside this debate. For today’s purposes, does he understand that in a discussion about inclusion and diversity, women are concerned about women’s rights and women’s equality? Among women footballers and the parents of young girls they are encouraging to get involved in women’s football and training and so on, there is great discomfort, as the tennis guru Judy Murray said at the weekend. Will he acknowledge that this has nothing to do with individuals? It is to do with the political approach. At the moment, women do not feel included or represented in football because this issue is put to one side, and therefore everyone talking about EDI and all the rest of it is just a slap in the face.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and the Minister for replying. Before I come to address what has been said, I thank my noble friends for their contributions and especially my noble friend Lady Brady for her point that there are concerns about UEFA competitions as well that we are seeking to address in this.

Although I did not hear anyone say that these were not desirable objectives, I heard two reasons not to introduce them. First, the Minister said that we are already successful on investment and the Bill will not deter it. I am afraid that is where there is a fundamental disagreement, because the Bill introduces new aspects to this. It gives the regulator responsibility to make sure clubs are sustainable and says that the regulator can look at this through things such as the parachute payments and the solidarity payments. That fundamentally changes the investment proposition in clubs. The letter from the Brentford chair makes the point, as have others, that clubs would be much less likely to invest in new players and in resources if they did not have the safety net of parachute payments if they were to go down. That will directly affect investment in clubs via the change in the laws that we are talking about and the responsibilities of the regulator to look only at sustainability. It is the same for solidarity payments. We are changing the playing field and moving the goalposts, so we cannot expect everything to go on as normal. That will inevitably affect the investment proposition, so it will impact the amount of money we see going into the game.

That comes on to the second point that was raised about why we should not introduce these amendments: that we are somehow trying to expand the regulator’s duties, which goes counter to everything we have said so far about it being light touch. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that the regulator will have more than one objective when it looks at the measures it can take. If it has only one objective, about sustainability, we hope it will interpret it broadly, but I could make all clubs sustainable tomorrow by saying that all the Premier League money should be distributed. That would do it. It would give everyone loads of money, it is completely sustainable and the regulator could say, “That’s fantastic, job done”. But we know it would fundamentally harm the whole structure and the whole environment.

I do not think for one moment that a regulator would be as unwise as that, but the main point of what we are trying to do is to set out what we believe are the right objectives. As I mentioned, the Government have done that with the Bank of England and given it growth objectives alongside inflation objectives. They have done it with Ofwat and with Ofgem. They have given all of them their regulatory requirements and a growth objective. We are trying to make sure that the regulator is wise in any measures it puts in place by always having other objectives that are for the good of the game. That is not increasing its reach; it is just making sure that it has more than one objective. I hope this is something we will be able to talk about further.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Was my noble friend as surprised as I was by the Minister’s use of the phrase that the Bill should be clear and concise? Is not the problem we have been trying to tackle precisely that there is a complete lack of clarity in a Bill that is anything but concise?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, and I thank my noble friend for exactly that point. It is about the clarity of the objective. The most important thing we can all do as legislators is set down what we think the regulator should do. That is why we spent three days trying to work out exactly what we want. It is fundamental to everything we are trying to do. That is why it is taking time. I hear reasons such as, “It’s not necessary”, but why not make it an objective? If the regulator is going to do it anyway then fair enough, but why not be sure that it will take growth and success as its key North Star in all this? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government’s own view is that the women’s game should have the opportunity to grow and self-regulate, not least by remaining autonomous, free and unburdened by regulation. They understand that, for the women’s game to professionalise and grow, it needs to invest ahead of revenues and take calculated risks. If we believe that commercial freedom and investment are the keys to the success of the women’s game, I have to ask: why are we so quick to strip those principles away from the men’s game? Why do the Government appear so resistant to reasonable amendments that will provide checks, balances and guard-rails as we take this leap into the unknown?

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from a comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on the contribution made by the men’s game and men’s clubs to the women’s team in the same club.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I worked with others to ensure that the women’s rugby tournament was brought to this country next year. We are pleased to say that we were successful in doing that, but it needed assistance from the Government and it received a grant.

The Minister has, on a number of occasions, referred to the levy being proportionate, and I have been critical of her on this. It is important that an indication is given as to whether money paid by a football club—let us take West Ham as an example—to support the women’s club will be taken into consideration by the regulator when assessing what payment should be made overall to the levy. There would be a serious danger that, if that money is included in the regulator’s assessment of what is proportionate, football clubs will, quite naturally, reduce the amount of money that they give to the women’s game.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for moving his Amendment 65, which probes an important area and a potentially concerning consequence. I am grateful for the example that he raised of Solihull Moors and look forward to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will give. However, even if she gives those reassurances, the noble Lord’s amendment is modest and I wonder whether there is a case—belt and braces—for us to make an amendment saying that the regulator should work in a way that does not have an adverse impact on women’s football. That feels sensible, even if the Minister does not share the concern about the specific instance that her noble friend has raised.

Like others who have spoken, we on these Benches are full of praise and excitement for the role that women’s football and women’s sport more generally play in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke powerfully about the inspiration that it is to many young women and girls, the transformative impacts that it has on their health and so much more. I am pleased that we have come such a long way from the days of old, when women were banned from playing professional football—a ban that was lifted only in 1971, but the effect of which can still be seen and has reverberated through the development of the women’s game for generations.

The FA took on the administration of women’s football only 30 years ago, in 1994, and the Women’s Super League became a fully professional league only in 2018. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, recent years have seen some striking, powerful and inspirational examples of the growth in the women’s game and, hearteningly, in the interest and appreciation that it is getting right across society. Correspondingly, there has been an enormous increase in the attention that it has garnered, with 77,000 fans attending the women’s FA Cup final last year. I know that all noble Lords fondly remember the astounding victory achieved by the Lionesses in the 2022 European Championship.

However, there is a concern, as has been expressed in this debate, that regulating women’s football now might not be the right moment in the development of the women’s game and women’s clubs. The Raising the Bar report, led by Karen Carney, stated:

“Given its stage of development, continued growth of matchday, broadcast and sponsorship revenue—with a view for the women’s game to become independently sustainable—is the right way to incentivise continued long term investment by clubs”.


Women’s football is obviously, and regrettably, not at the same stage of development as the men’s game—the men’s game had such a significant head start in terms of the professional apparatus around it—and the relative losses incurred by clubs are not in the same ballpark. Thus issues with financial stability are not comparable. There is recognition of that, although there was some surprise and, at Second Reading, a number of noble Lords from across the House rightly mentioned the women’s game as an area for us to be mindful of, so it was helpful to have had this debate.

Another issue is the level of investment that women’s football requires. As my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, for women’s teams to come closer to the men’s game, significant financial investment will be needed. We are therefore right to question whether that is best served by and encouraged through this regulatory regime. However, I note the paradoxes that my noble friend highlighted in making that point and applying it to the women’s game, while conceding the argument in relation to the men’s game. I therefore understand why, at present, women’s football might not be included in the scope of this new regulatory regime.

However, it is useful to have had this debate and it would be useful to understand the Government’s intent here. Perhaps the Minister can explain the means by which the women’s game might be brought closer to the men’s game and how, if that happens and it falls into some of the same mistakes that we have seen in the men’s game, the women’s game might be captured by this regulatory regime. On the flipside, if the men’s regime learns from the women’s game and is able to regulate itself better, would that mean that there will be a lightening of the regulatory burden or are we past the point of no return for the men’s game? It would be interesting to hear that.

Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I slightly regret the wording of giving the women’s game a “chance” to regulate itself, but I am sure from looking at the Government’s accompanying notes that it is not meant pejoratively.

Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, sits slightly uneasily with the others because it is not just about the women’s game, but she explained why she has tabled that amendment and why she hopes to hear a bit from her noble friend the Minister. What she is seeking here is a welcome addition; it is only right that the regulator should be required to give assistance to clubs that are seeking licences. One of the themes that has been drawn out by many noble Lords in our scrutiny so far is the issue of how clubs will be able to adjust to these new licensing requirements. If the regulator does not implement this scheme in the correct manner, clubs will suffer, so it is only right that it should provide assistance to clubs to allow them effectively and efficiently to understand the new requirements that the Bill and its regulatory regime bring about. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to her noble friend on that and the other amendments in this group.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

68: Clause 7, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) The IFR must publish an annual statement to report on how it has considered, measured and performed in relation to its general duties under 7(2).”

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Maude, I rise to move Amendment 68. I intend to speak more fully later, but I welcome the group as it stands because the amendments in it cover the issues that will arise soon after the completion of this legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of this group of amendments, particularly my Amendment 328 in which, in short, I seek to assess the impact of the Bill and the independent football regulator on the Premier League.

When I spoke at Second Reading, I highlighted my view from the perspective of a fan of football because football is so much more—it is more than a business; it is a love, a passion, for billions around the world. In Committee, there has been much debate about the potential impact on the game, which is so loved and successful, from the implementation of an independent regulator which may inadvertently temper both the game’s passion and its commercial success. I now put on my business head and shall explore how the regulator means to measure its impact on the clubs it will regulate.

First, what data will the regulator require to report on its effectiveness and on how it is impacting football, particularly the Premier League? Secondly, how will the regulator report to the Secretary of State on how this global industry is operating in many different environments? When we start to explore that question, a further question should come to our minds: are we actually talking about football or something different?

My love for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club remains undiminished despite the testing of my resolve almost every weekend—and last weekend was no exception. However, I ask noble Lords to look further than what occurs on the pitch. My club, like many, has and will continue to invest heavily not just in players but in infrastructure. I must congratulate our chairman Daniel Levy on building a truly world-class stadium in Tottenham, but please note that I did not say “football stadium”, for the Tottenham Hotspur stadium is much more. It has been built to exacting specifications so that it can also host American National Football League games with an entirely separate pitch built underneath the football pitch—a real feat of engineering—and completely different changing rooms have been incorporated into the stadium to meet the exacting requirements of the NFL squad sizes and their expansive kits. More than 120,000 spectators watched NLF games at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium during 2019, 2022 and 2023, and thousands more will this year, which means that already 12 of the NFL’s 32 American teams have played in the new stadium.

But this is not all. We have also welcomed Beyoncé, Guns N’ Roses, Lady Gaga and many other world-class stars. World title boxing fights have been hosted, and we have F1 DRIVE London, the official Formula 1 karting experience. When I walk up towards this gigantic modern-day Colosseum that sits on White Hart Lane, I see the Premier League logo proudly attached to the facade but, alongside it, the Formula 1 and NFL logos—probably with space for a few more. The club quite rightly states on its website:

“Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has become a new sports and entertainment destination for London, bringing a boost of circa £344m to the local economy every year”.

Tottenham is widely regarded as a well-run football club, with owners firmly focused on delivering a sustainable business operation and quality entertainment—I will not talk about trophies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 120 and following on from the point that my noble friend Lady Brady made, I hope to put some meat on the bones of what we would be asking the regulator to produce in its annual report.

Right now, all that the Bill says is that we are asking it to produce a summary of the activities undertaken during the year and for any other information that the Secretary of State sees fit. The whole purpose of our debates over the last few days is to make sure the regulator is fit for purpose in its objectives and that its performance is then measured against those objectives. My amendment—non-controversial, I hope—is about trying to hold the regulator to account. It seeks to add that the regulator should look at and report on clubs’ compliance against directed action, regulator finances, enforcement action, their performance against their own objectives, how much time it has taken to grant licences to clubs and any salaries above £100,000. It is quite a simple list that seeks to hold the regulator to account and get clarity on what its performance has been for the year, so it can then improve performance going forward.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, and the other contributions. The transitory nature of sport is such that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, stood up to speak, West Ham were leading 2-0, but by the time she sat down they were leading 1-0—VAR had intervened. I pay credit to the noble Baroness for being here and paying such attention to the detail of the Bill, given the interest she declared, and which we are all aware of, in relation to West Ham.

The series of amendments here all deal with the reporting duty after the Bill has been passed and at the point of implementation. As others have indicated, it is key that there is a clear understanding, not only for the regulator or government but for the fans, who are key to the Bill—the whole idea of the Bill is about involving the fans—that the regulator is obliged to explain to the fans precisely why he has done things and that he recognises the impact of his actions on fans, clubs and players. At all levels, it is necessary that we have that information and understanding—and rapidly.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is proposing to speak to her amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I suggest that noble Lords might discuss this at further length with the shadow regulator. As noble Lords will be aware, they have made themselves available and I am sure that, as the Bill progresses, they would be happy to have further conversations.

I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. As I touched on earlier, the annual report is a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I therefore understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers the necessary detail. It will be in the power of the Secretary of State to specify any required contents, which are not, as Amendment 120 would ask for, all listed in the Bill. This is so that a much more adaptive approach can be taken, year by year, and so as to not constrain the issues that should be covered in the report.

With regard to Amendment 121, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that the annual report will be laid before Parliament so that it can be scrutinised. If it is not, the regulator will be in breach of its statutory obligations; therefore, the intent of this amendment is already achieved.

Moving on to Amendment 122 from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I thank him for raising this issue and am sympathetic to his viewpoint. Women’s football was discussed in the previous group of amendments and, as I outlined, the Government support the recommendation of the independent review of women’s football, published in July 2023. It set out that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate, rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation. We appreciate, however, that this situation may change and that women’s football might need to be brought into scope down the line to safeguard its future.

As is clarified in the Explanatory Notes, the Secretary of State will already keep under ongoing review whether it is appropriate to amend the specified competitions. Clause 2(5) already requires the Secretary of State to carry out a formal assessment, including consultation, before doing this and to publish and lay its results before Parliament. The assessment can be triggered at any point so if any change in circumstance occurs, the Secretary of State is able to react. We therefore think that the principle of this amendment is already catered for and do not believe it is right for a clause with a specified timeline to be added to the Bill.

The Government recognise the intent behind Amendment 328 from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood. It is vital that the regulator is transparent about the burden that its regulatory activities may have on clubs and competition organisers so that it can be held accountable. From the start, we have been clear that we wish to establish a regulator for football that will take a proportionate approach to regulation. We do not wish to introduce a regulator that will impose onerous and burdensome requirements on the clubs. That is why the regulator will have a statutory requirement when exercising its functions to have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on features such as competitiveness and investability. We expect that the impact of the regulator on the market, including on regulated clubs and the leagues, will be reviewed in both the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report.

I reiterate: the Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports. We believe that this ongoing accountability is more appropriate than a one-time review by the Secretary of State six months after the Act has passed. It would not be fair or indeed helpful to evaluate the regulator’s performance or impacts after just six months of a brand new regime. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

We may not have got to a conclusion, but what about repetition? Here we go again. We have had the discussion; the Minister gave us her answer; we move on. But we have not moved on because, two days later, it is brought up again—and again and again.

This is the frustration that some people are having. I understand the need to examine and tease out but, if we do not like the teasing out, we cannot keep going back every day to keep teasing out. We will never finish; that is the problem with it. We have had an enormous debate on sustainability and on fans.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I rise to make one point of clarification. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be very pleased if the Minister indicated her support for it, because I have been having discussions about whether we should table further amendments on players in other parts of the Bill—but I will wait on the interest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, referred to players and touched on the question of staff. It is not only players who should be included; there should also be references to staff because, after all is said and done, any football club employs not only players but large numbers of staff. Both players and staff should be covered by any amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is telling that so many noble Lords from both principal sides of your Lordships’ House have tabled amendments about the regulatory principles established by the Bill, which have been gathered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has assembled an impressive coalition of support for his Amendment 78. He secured the support of my noble friend Lady Brady, his friend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the present Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock. The Minister keeps reminding us of things that were said in the last Parliament and arguing that we should be bound by them, so I hope she will demand the same consistency from her honourable friend and will pay heed to the support that Amendment 78 has secured.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right that this seems a clear and obvious lacuna in the Bill. I do not think we have had a professional footballer in your Lordships’ House. We have professional cricketers and Olympians and Paralympians, and we have noble Lords with interesting and considerable experience, but he has given voice to a group of people who have not yet been spoken up for in this Bill. Perhaps noble Lords can think of one. I cannot, so maybe it is a suggestion for his noble friend.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest, having spent much of the past three months representing Manchester City Football Club against disciplinary charges brought by the Premier League.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, who has long been a friend of mine. She has unrivalled experience of being employed by Birmingham City Football Club and, for many years, West Ham United Football Club, and has achieved great success at both those clubs. I respectfully suggest, though, that here she protests too much. Clause 11(2) contains a very important restriction on what a football governance statement may do. It

“may not contain any policies that are inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or with the IFR’s objectives”.

The second protection is in subsection (6):

“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”.


Those are very considerable protections.

We listen to concerns that companies that own football clubs need long-term planning, but surely any company is subject to changes of government policy over the years. There is no protection whatever against those and the consequences thereof. I see absolutely no reason why football clubs should be protected by more than the three-year period stated here.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I start my comments on this clause, I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss a number of issues—they did not include this clause, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss other issues with her. My concern about this clause comes from the very first words of the Bill, which say that it is to:

“Establish the Independent Football Regulator”—


an independent regulator, not one circumscribed by a government Statement as laid out in Clause 11.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who said, if I heard him correctly, that this was unique. It is not. Sadly, my mind goes back to a previous occasion when the Government wanted to circumscribe an independent regulator. I remember the debate clearly, because the late and great Lord Judge made a massive contribution to it, scything through the then Government’s arguments about why they should have a Statement in relation to an independent regulator. The independent regulator to which I refer is encompassed in the Elections Act. The previous Government said, “Ah, we’ve got an Elections Act. We don’t really like what the Electoral Commission is doing, so we’ll put in a nice little clause which requires the Government to make a Statement”, which, in effect, circumscribed the Electoral Commission. What is fascinating about that set of circumstances, which Lord Judge and I—and the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—criticised comprehensively, is that the wording in Clause 11 is remarkably similar to that in Section 16 of the Elections Act. In fact, Clause 11(5) of the Bill is almost identical, word for word, to new Section 4A(7) of PPERA inserted by that section.

I said just now that people on other Benches spoke against the Government imposing some form of Statement on the Electoral Commission as

“‘not fit for purpose and inconsistent with the … role as an independent regulator’”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1604.]

We are talking here about the same wording. Those were words from the Liberal Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Labour Front Bench, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that

“this statement is unnecessary and the Government have provided no evidence for why it is needed … There was cross-party agreement that the commission’s independence is vital”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1602.]

I could go on quoting the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, making the point that a regulator is independent if it is independent, not because it is circumscribed by a set of conditions as set out in Clause 11. I recommend anybody to look at the relevant amendments to the Elections Act 2022, where the wording is virtually identical. The Government then wanted to circumscribe the Electoral Commission. I would not be surprised if the officials discussing this Bill when it was in draft under the previous Government said, “Oh, we’ve got a good basic tenet; we’ve even got a set of words which we can lift, virtually verbatim, and it’ll circumscribe the independent regulator”.

I opposed the Government’s imposition of that statement in the Elections Act, because I believed it circumscribed what should have been an independent regulator. When the then Opposition forced a vote on it, I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is now and abstained, because I refused to support the Government imposing on an independent regulator a provision which is virtually word for word that set out in Clause 11. I therefore strongly support the amendments and oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 111, which is part of this group, and pick up some of the points that my noble friends have raised in the debate.

My Amendment 111 states that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to revise a football governance statement simply because there has been a “significant change” in government policy on football. The reasoning for this comes from much the same place as my noble friend Lady Brady’s Amendment 110: both try to prevent the possibility of frequent changes in the Government’s policies for the regulator. If the Secretary of State took up every opportunity that the Bill allows to alter the governance statement—it could be every three years, after every general election and after every change in government policy—we could see this governance statement being altered rather frequently, every few years, with effects on the stability of football.

How would clubs have the certainty they need to plan their investment? As my noble friend Lady Brady said, football clubs plan their infrastructure and stadium developments over periods of 10 to 15 years or more. The talent pipeline, which is needed to develop the players of the future, requires much more than five years of careful thought and investment. To do all this and deliver the sustainability of English football, clubs need to know what the policies of the regulator will be over the long term. They need to know what the regulator will require of them.

My noble friend Lord Hayward reflected on a broader point in his remarks. The Government have been at pains to stress the importance of the independence of this regulator. I do not doubt their intention, but how will that independence be maintained when there could be regular and changing political statements setting out the policies to which the regulator will have to adhere? We need some assurances that these governance statements will not interfere with the operational independence of the regulator. To do that, it seems much more sensible that the Secretary of State should not be able to revise these statements on a whim or because the department’s Secretaries of State are changing with the regularity that we have seen in recent years.

I hope the Minister will address the points that have been raised and look favourably on these amendments. I look forward to her reassurances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to consultation, on which several comments have been made during the discussions on this and previous groups, it is worth bearing in mind, when the Minister tells us that there will be wide consultation in whatever circumstances, what my noble friend Lady Brady said on day one of Committee. She said that the Government had consulted seven Premier League clubs, which did not include Manchester City. They consulted those seven clubs for about as long as it took Spurs to score four goals against Southampton yesterday. It was hardly serious communication and consideration. That is what worries so many of us: we are listening to a series of comments that sound reasonable in themselves—and I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said—but I would believe it if there had been a very clear indication at previous stages of the Bill that there had been consultation with the interested parties.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 124. I think it introduces a sensible and proportionate idea: that the independent football regulator should have the power to delegate certain functions to competition organisers, such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League, where it is appropriate. First, I want to consider the position of the leagues themselves, especially the Premier League and the EFL, both of which already play central roles in the regulation and operation of English football. These organisations are not merely administrative bodies; they are sophisticated, well-sourced entities with established systems for financial monitoring, licensing and governance.

For example, the Premier League currently performs all the UEFA licensing for clubs on behalf of the FA, demonstrating its capability to operate efficiently and effectively under stringent regulatory frameworks. It also has robust financial monitoring mechanisms in place, which ensure that clubs comply with obligations relating to profitability, sustainability and long-term planning. As I mentioned earlier in Committee, the Premier League also invests significant resources and time in performing its owners’ and directors’ tests to a very high standard, and intends to continue to do so.

Simply duplicating all these existing structures within the IFR would be inefficient and burdensome, as the White Paper that led to the Bill rightly acknowledged:

“The Regulator may wish to allow concurrent systems, or delegate responsibilities to industry bodies, in certain circumstances. It would manage this in a way that is coherent and simple for all involved, especially clubs”.


Unfortunately, however, no sensible delegation power currently exists in the Bill, so I commend my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson for addressing this issue and allowing for this conversation. This amendment would align perfectly with that principle expressed in the White Paper. It would be a smart, almost unarguable step to take: delegation would allow the regulator to focus its resources, especially in the early years of its life, on areas where independent oversight is essential, such as addressing market failures and managing systemic risks. At the same time, it would give the regulator the option of leaning on existing processes or information systems where they are already successfully implemented.

Delegation would also address an important practical reality. The workload facing the IFR will be immense. I am not surprised that the EFL wishes to offload some of its costs to the regulator, and that is its right. In its early years, this regulator will have to establish itself, build capacity and gain the trust of stakeholders across the ecosystem. That is a big burden. Allowing it to delegate certain functions, with appropriate safeguards, ensures that it can deliver its objectives without being overwhelmed by administrative tasks that others are well placed to manage.

However, this clearly cannot be done on blind trust. The amendment includes what seem to be important safeguards: the IFR must ensure that any competition organiser meets the same degree of stringency, aligns with its objectives, and adheres to its regulatory principles. This would seem to protect the integrity of the regulatory framework, while avoiding unnecessary duplication and, therefore, unnecessary cost.

More broadly still, this amendment raises an important question that we must address about the future role of the Football Association. While the fan-led review’s position was that the FA’s current governance arrangements make it unsuitable to house the IFR at present, it also envisaged a scenario where one day this might change. As the review noted,

“the FA might at some point be a suitable location for IREF … However, the Review has concluded that this is not appropriate at this time”.

This amendment raises the possibility of the delegation of certain functions to the FA, as part of its reform journey. If the FA continues to modernise its governance structures and demonstrate the capability to take on certain functions, it could play a much larger role in football’s regulatory framework.

Indeed, I encourage the Government to consider including the FA in the scope of this clause as such, because it should meet the same rigorous criteria that the leagues have to. Delegation to football bodies could be tied to a broad review of football governance a few years into this regime. This review could assess not only the progress of the IFR but the readiness of the FA and other football bodies to take on greater responsibilities. This will ensure that the IFR can be a dynamic institution, evolving in response to the needs of the game and empowering existing bodies to step up, where it makes sense. I believe that all stakeholders, including the most ardent supporters of the fan-led review, as well as those worried about the unintended consequences of this delegation, could support this kind of sensible amendment.

Finally, but most importantly, in a letter sent to me by the general-secretary of UEFA only last week, he said:

“UEFA appreciate the background of the Football Governance Bill discussions and proposals, and we were encouraged by the intent of the original Fan Led Review which stated that this regulatory area should be returned to The FA in time. UEFA supports The FA and UK policymakers in ensuring that this is still the case”.


The FA told me, also last week, that it has recently told DCMS that

“the FA is willing to take on delegated powers from the IFR, if there are services that the regulator believes we can operate and deliver effectively”.

I ask the Minister: is it still the case, as UEFA and the FA seem to believe, that the Government intend the future delegation of powers to be handed back to the FA at some point? If it is, surely this is an amendment that the Government could and should support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the points that have been raised, I want to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the previous group, in relation to the regulator’s guidance. I can confirm that the regulator’s guidance will be published. Clause 12(5) of the Bill states:

“The IFR must publish any guidance”.


I also want to clarify a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, because I am concerned that if I let it lie then, at a later date, somebody may suggest that it was accepted. It was that only seven clubs had been met with. I stress to your Lordships’ House that this Bill is the culmination of almost five years’ work which started in 2019. Officials have had extensive regular engagement with key stakeholders, including with the clubs which will be subject to the regulation. All clubs have had a number of formal opportunities to share their views, particularly as part of the fan-led review and the football governance White Paper. Over this five-year period, DCMS has had hundreds of meetings with clubs, leagues, fan groups and other stakeholders. No club that has requested a meeting has not had one. I hope that clarifies that point.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

While I understand the Minister citing a series of meetings that have taken place over a number of years, we are now talking about a Bill which has been introduced by this Government with changes from the previous Bill. Some of those changes have already been debated, and some have not. Surely, it behoves the Secretary of State and any Minister within a Government to have slightly more than a half-hour conversation with seven members of the Premier League when we know that they are going to be the most affected clubs in terms of cost burdens.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I may need to agree to disagree on the level and extent of the consultation. The culmination of consultations between officials and the various meetings that have taken place constitute very sound consultation. I was concerned that it might appear to your Lordships and to people externally that only seven clubs had been met during the whole course of the design of a new regulator, which I think all noble Lords would agree would be highly unusual and undesirable. I may return to that point; noble Lords may raise it again in Committee. I look forward to further discussion of what constitutes consultation.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for his Amendment 124, which creates a mechanism for the regulator to delegate its function to the competition organisers. I understand that some noble Lords believe that the regulator should act as an overseeing body, only acting through the leagues and only stepping in once the leagues have failed to address a problem or, in some instances, not wishing the regulator to exist at all. Without wanting to disappoint noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others who support this amendment, I am afraid that the model of regulation is not one that we are proposing and nor is it the model that the previous Government proposed. Notwithstanding the points that have been raised repeatedly, this is now this Government’s Bill and we are very proud to bring it before your Lordships.

The fan-led review laid bare the issues with industry self-regulation, and this is an amendment where it is important for your Lordships’ Committee to reflect on the fact that football has had ample opportunity to get this right. We are legislating only because the leagues do not have the incentives and governance structures to address these problems adequately.

I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that this amendment could be argued to represent a bear trap. I also agree with a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. As has been demonstrated, compliance with current competition organiser rules has not proved an effective way of ensuring sustainability of the game. That is precisely why a new bespoke regulator is required, with the powers, incentives and agility to act where competition organisers are unable to.

However, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the regulatory system is already designed in such a way that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are already being met. If clubs are meeting their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s existing rules—then the regulator will not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. There is also the more formal

“Commitments in lieu of … discretionary licence conditions”


mechanism, where leagues will be given an opportunity to address specific identified financial problems so that the regulator does not need to attach a licence condition.

Beyond this, however, we do not believe that the regulator should delegate functions to the leagues—there would be a significant issue of accountability. In a case where a function was delegated and serious failings happened, accountability would then be hard to ascertain. We also do not think that a power for the Secretary of State to direct the regulator would be appropriate. Not only could that constitute undue political influence on the regulator but it would also open the door to continuous lobbying by competition organisers for regulation to be delegated to them. What is more, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to give this direction and for regulation to be delegated back to the industry without any prior parliamentary scrutiny.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the FA’s willingness to take on delegated functions, my department continues to have discussions with all stakeholders, including the FA, on a range of issues. It is encouraging that there is willingness in the industry to tackle the problems of financial sustainability. However, as the fan-led review clearly showed, the industry has not proved able to take forward the reforms needed at this time due to the governance and constitutional arrangements in place, as well as lacking the expertise required to deliver the regime we have been discussing. An independent body free of industry influence is needed; now is not the time to delegate functions. However, as with all aspects of the Bill, the Government will keep under review the effectiveness of the regime to deliver regulation. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.