Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment 9. Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also touches on many of the issues that concern me and motivated me in bringing my amendments; I look forward to hearing him set out the case for it later in the debate.

My amendments in this group probe the Government’s definition of a football fan. In any other context, the exact definition would perhaps be academic, but fans have had an important role in the process that has led to this Bill. As the Minister and many others have said, the Bill seeks to put fans’ interests at the heart of this legislation. It was, after all, the fan-led review chaired—refereed, if you like—by my former honourable friend Dame Tracey Crouch which led to the Bill in its former iteration under the previous Government and which continues to inform the work that the new Government have taken forward in the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships. It was the fans’ voices in that process that were so important, and which began the path to where we now find ourselves.

We on these Benches agree with the Government that fans must be consulted and that they will have an important and ongoing role to play not just in the future of English football but in the operation of this new regulatory regime, but we cannot empower fans, or listen to their views, if we cannot say who they are. Through Amendment 8, I put it to the Government that both clubs and the new independent football regulator should seek to serve the interests of both “current and prospective” football fans. This expands the point that we have made about growth and making sure that the Bill is not simply seeking to preserve football in aspic.

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in November 1790, Edmund Burke wrote:

“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.


That may be a high-falutin’ way of putting it, but it is the principle that underlies my Amendment 8. Football must not be governed as a game merely for the fans of today, nor should it simply seek to preserve the game in a form that fans of the past have enjoyed; it must also continue to be a game for the future. That is surely what the Government mean by the sustainability of football which, as the noble Baroness said in the debate on the previous group, is the key concern of this Bill.

We on these Benches feel that prospective fans—whether they be literally unborn, as Burke would point out, or those who are not yet alive to the joys of the game—should always have their interests served by clubs and the new regulator as well. Only if we are seeking to serve the interests of prospective fans as well as existing ones will we truly secure a sustainable future for English football.

My Amendment 9 similarly seeks to expand the definition of the communities whose interests are served by the Bill. The purpose clause in the Bill seeks to serve only “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated. I was keen that the Committee should probe the inclusion of that word, “local”. We had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with us for earlier deliberations in this Committee. I am taken to understand that not everybody who is a fan of Manchester United or Manchester City lives in the city of Manchester. If a large group of people from London or another part of the country were to follow Manchester United or Manchester City during a period of success for one of those clubs, would it be right for those clubs or the new regulator merely to serve the interests of local communities in Manchester, or should they consider the interests of fans who follow those teams and who have a stake in them no matter where in the country they are based?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

One reason why I have been interested in this Bill is the European Super League proposals that previously happened—the possibility of clubs’ owners deciding that they are going to play two or three games in the United States or two or three games in the Middle East. By defining “local”, are we not ensuring that there is some protection against the aspiration that some owners may have to meet the needs of fans who might be numerous in the Middle East or the United States, but we want regulated clubs to be looked after here in Britain?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That is the question I am trying to probe with this amendment. Are the interests of fans of, say, Manchester United or Manchester City really served only if, as the Bill currently defines it, English football is contributing to the economic or social well-being of the “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated? Surely Manchester United is associated also with Weymouth, for instance, or other parts of the country where people might choose to be a fan of that club, even if they have never lived in Manchester.

As I set out at Second Reading, I am not the world’s biggest football afficionado, but I know that people do not have to be born in a specific town or city to feel an affinity to, pride in or excitement from certain regulated clubs. I am interested in whether the sustainability of those clubs should also serve people in Weymouth and people across the country. The noble Lord makes an important point about the growing tension with growing the international following of football, but, as we have heard in previous debates, that, too, is a good thing. It is an important part of the soft power of the United Kingdom. It brings inward investment and greater glory to the UK. That is a separate point from the amendments, which look at the work of the sustainability—

--- Later in debate ---

I hear the words “friendly game” mentioned behind me. The element of competition, unless it is banned by this new EDI proposal, is a hugely important part of any game, and friendlies are not the same as the pure thing. But whether friendly or not, why would we want to ban our famous, successful teams from playing abroad? I submit that this is quite extraordinary.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I do not think anyone is talking about banning; it is about preserving our Premier League and some of our domestic competitions, and it is for fans of clubs in those leagues who want to follow their team, home and away, and their ability to do so throughout the fixture list of that league. Clubs such as Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal—and West Ham, I am sure—go on tour overseas pre-season to meet the needs of fans who are overseas, and maybe mid-season for all I know. Our teams are playing too many games. It is not sustainable for them to play the number that they are at the moment, but there are opportunities pre-season for fans from around the world to visit.

I love them coming to this country. When I am at the Emirates Stadium and I see all the banners from fans from all over the world who have come to see Arsenal it is a great joy, but we need to be constrained in the regulatory purposes of this to preserve our Premier League and domestic league competitions.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

Noble Lords need to understand exactly what the previous speaker was talking about. It is about preserving our leagues. The fan base of a club is not 200,000 people in South Korea or 20,000 people in New York. The fan bases of these clubs are in this country. The unintended consequence of what is being proposed could occur very quickly, easily and suddenly.

I am quite appalled by the number of noble Lords in this House who have two or three football clubs. You should have one football club; it is the club you support. I do not have a second or third club. I have one club; I am indeed suffering for that pleasure at the moment, but I have one club, through thick and thin.

What is to stop someone setting up a supporters’ group for my club somewhere else, without honourable intentions but with the intention of doing my club some difficulty or harm? That is what muddies the waters and it is where you get all this involvement. The supporters are local supporters. The other supporters can be supporters but, if local groups are going to be set up, they should be there for 12 months or two years. We need to know their history and regulatory rights. They are not being set up by football clubs, because that is another way that this could be done—to set up your own shadow group that plays lip service to this.

Noble Lords know that football supporters have robust views, and chairmen who really understand that tend to meet them regularly. Lots of Premier League clubs do that; they go and meet their supporters—working-class people in areas and towns, who will give them their honest views, which the clubs usually do not like. United is now increasing the prices for all tickets, which is not going down well with all the United fans, but there is still a 10 or 15-year waiting list for a season ticket. That is why the club can do that, but it is not really supporting the fans.

Let us just bring it back from this existential conversation about Burke and the father of the son. Does that go into politics—“I was a Conservative so my son’s going to be a Conservative”? That is changing—we all know it is—and it is a reasonable evolution. If you are the son of a miner, you might end up a Conservative Minister. That is great, that is the opportunity that this country offers, and it should be the same with football supporters.

But football supporters support their own club and are very wary about suddenly involving any number of supporters, because the numbers then become detrimental to doing what we are supposed to be doing here, which is protecting the pyramid. It seems that these debates are all leading in one direction: “Leave the Premier League alone, let it run football, and the rest of you can have the crumbs off the table”. That is the feeling I am getting from these conversations, and that is wrong.