Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the aims of this Bill are laudable. It is legitimate to be concerned about issues such as poor financial and operational management, the inequitable distribution of funds, particularly broadcasting fees, and insufficient input from football fans. I concede that, for most people, their local football club is the heart of their community, town or city; it is part of their history, heritage and culture, and the fabric of everyday life. As a communitarian, I understand and applaud that these clubs are cultural icons and often community champions. One of the most memorable occasions I remember as a Member of Parliament in the other place was attending the civic reception for the back-to-back promotion of Posh at Peterborough Town Hall in 2009.

I am not a devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian; I believe that there is a place for government intervention. It is right to intercede in a dysfunctional marketplace where there is unfairness, oligopoly, monopoly, price gouging or barriers to entry, and it is appropriate to protect the consumer in extremis. However, this Bill, while potentially improving the financial sustainability of individual clubs and English men’s professional football, does so at too high a price, with its encroachment by the state in the form of a behemoth regulator and ministerial fiat into the operation of a free market, broadly successful and lucrative business model, and private associations and private enterprise.

The impact assessment tells us that, over a Parliament, compliance and operational burdens will cost upwards of £140 million. Even the non-monetisable and monetisable social benefits in the impact assessment are essentially unquantified. The Bill represents another example of incremental mission creep that, sadly, we have seen over the last number of years, outsourcing governance and policy to reviews and consultations, and specifically to regulators.

Naturally, I do not blame the present Government for bringing the Bill forward; they actually believe in big government, state interference, regulatory overreach and that Whitehall knows best. But this legislative process began under the Conservative Government, despite it being completely at variance, ideologically and philosophically, with our values as a party of localism, free-market dynamism, minimal regulation and entrepreneurial endeavour in order to deliver profit and tax revenues to drive improved public services.

This Bill should be measured simply against the key tests. Is it proportionate? Is it necessary? Is it justified? I would answer no. Football is not unique. Woolworths was at the heart of the high street when it closed in 2009, but we did not immediately legislate to have a sweet shop regulator in the wake of its closure. Football clubs have always gone bust: Aldershot in 1992, Exeter City in 1994, Chester City in 1998, Crystal Palace in 1999, Swindon Town in 2000, and so on. Invariably, the free market corrects where there is a local demand and community support to re-establish and reconstitute clubs previously in administration and insolvent. This bespoke Bill is therefore not necessary or proportionate.

That does not fetter the discretion of Ministers or their ability to improve the English game using other regulatory or statutory levers. Surely it is not an insurmountable challenge to enhance and strengthen the existing owners’ and directors’ standards and the fan engagement standards.

I will now move from the political and ideological background to the details of the Bill, in particular its earlier parts. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, the Bill contains 42 delegated powers and 10 Henry VIII clauses, giving Ministers sweeping powers, notwithstanding the use of the affirmative resolution in respect of statutory instruments.

The creation of a new regulator is for me problematic. Theodore Theodoridis of UEFA is quite right to highlight the dangers of overreach and scope creep:

“While the initial intent of the IFR is to oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets, there is always a risk that, once established, the IFR may expand its mandate beyond these areas”.


He warns, rightly, of “government interference”.

Clause 45 is particularly problematic. It is drafted so very loosely, and the Government’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee explicitly references a “strong steer” for the Government in developing regulations on prohibited competitions. Even Dr Jan Zglinski of the LSE, an academic football specialist otherwise supportive of the Bill, believes that the clause will give rise to litigation and disputes due to its opacity.

It is difficult to legislate for something you cannot define. How can you protect and preserve important cultural heritage assets or engage with fans if you cannot define these terms in the Bill? If one consults Schedule 11 and paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Explanatory Memorandum, one finds that neither “fans”, “local community”, nor “heritage of English football” are defined. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue. Furthermore, Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State powers to define “specified competition”, is unprecedented.

I am concerned by other aspects of the Bill, such as encompassing investigatory powers and data sharing with public authorities, as well as the onerous powers under Clauses 28 and 29 on the suitability of ownership and officers, and the Minister’s powers therein. I am most concerned about the powers conferred in Part 3, and particularly Clause 22, on varying the discretionary licensing conditions. Clause 22 is particularly wide and loosely drafted, and contains Henry VIII powers to enable the most onerous and far-reaching interference by the IFR into individual clubs’ everyday activities. It would allow Ministers unlimited carte blanche to change and amend the licence conditions on a whim and without appropriate notice.

This brings us inevitably to the Trojan horse: the pernicious woke ideology of identity politics inserted into the Bill at paragraph (7)(2)(d) of Schedule 5—the EDI clause. The last thing football needs is primary legislation to embed identarian zealots into the operation of our national game.

I fear that the Bill is the Dangerous Dogs Act de nos jours; driven by anecdote and special interest, it is well-meaning but egregious. After all, in respect of Clause 49, on changing the crest, shirt colours or name, is this really necessary or enforceable, and is it really appropriate for primary legislation? We all want a successful football industry and we all support the aim of economic growth, but we must be careful about killing the proverbial goose with overregulation and legislative overkill, which I believe the Bill represents.