Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Like other noble Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest—maybe a bit of a confession—in that I have been a Chelsea season ticket holder for the last 20 years. I also still feel a bit stiff from playing for the parliamentary team against the Army in the Remembrance Day game yesterday. Please do not ask me the score.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in thanking the Minister for her inclusive approach to date. I am sure that will stand us in very good stead as we get into a lot of what I think we would all accept are the quite tricky issues in Committee. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions. As ever, they show how fantastic this House is in breadth of experience. Talking to us tonight have been club directors, former FA chairs, Sport Ministers, sports media experts, supporters’ clubs’ chairmen, and rugby referees—all passionate fans, even if some of us are misguided about our choice of clubs. I will not point those out.

We are all here because we know that, as Bill Shankly famously once said, football is not a matter of life or death; it is much more important than that. I prefer the more fitting phrase that football is the most important of the least important things. Why? It is because, as we all say, it captures our hearts and that often overrules our heads. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Bach, during those 90 minutes all of us feel like brothers together in a community.

We would all agree that football clubs are a unique place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that they are more than just a business. They are part of the social fabric of a community and a force for wonderful social good. That is why I believe there is a general consensus among all the stakeholders—the supporters’ clubs, the FAPL, the English Football League—that there is a role for the football regulator in some of those basic protections. I mean clubs not moving away, as in the MK Dons example, the names, shirts, logos, the fit and proper owners’ tests, and the breakaway league threat—although I note my noble friend Lord Maude’s point that it was the English fans that killed it, unlike those in the other countries.

We also need to be careful in any area where the heart often overrules the head. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, gave a cautionary tale. We all know that fans can be a fickle bunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, said, more than anything, fans care about the success of their club. If you ask those Chelsea fans whether they cared about their owner being a Russian, they probably cared the most about being very successful during that time. As the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, asked, how quickly will today’s regulator be seen as tomorrow’s VAR—not the solution to the problem?

The general consensus here is that the regulator should be light touch. The high degree of concern is for overreach—very eloquently put by the noble Lords, Lord Hannan, Lord Jackson and Lord Moynihan—and mission creep. Just in today’s debate, I noted at least eight new powers that noble Lords have suggested, and this is just the start of the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out, the £140 million of cost we are talking about for this regulator does not feel like a light-touch situation.

The biggest area for mission creep and the biggest potential involvement is the financial regulator being more and more involved in football financials. As noble Lords have said, the Premier League is the UK’s clear stand-out industry—number one in the world. Unlike any other industry, there is no doubt that it is number one. As mentioned, the Premier League is the richest and the Championship the sixth-richest, richer than the Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium. That has benefited all the clubs and all the tiers; it has led to investment in grass-roots facilities right the way through the game, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned.

The Premier League is the most attended worldwide of all football leagues; the second-most attended, as mentioned, is the English Football League. That is all founded on media rights value. I confess that, like the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I have some experience in TV media rights, having founded a pay TV company and been involved in many sports deals and seen worldwide the power of football. I have had pay TV businesses in Thailand tell me that they are going to have a big increase in subscribers the following year because they have won the English Premier League rights.

Why is the English Premier League so popular? It is because it has so many competitive games. Spain, Italy, Germany and France each has two or three top clubs. We would probably argue over which, but I can think of at least eight big clubs in the Premier League. As pointed out by noble Lords, we have many clubs—the Bournemouths, Leicesters and Brightons of the world—that have come in and shown real upward mobility and won competitions. That volume of competitive games really drives the viewership and the pay TV subscriptions, which drive the TV rights money, which funds everything else we are talking about here.

Fundamental to that, I believe, and if you speak to the Premier League, is the parachute payment element of it all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, come February, any club that does not have the comfort—for want of a better word—of a parachute payment will suddenly be thinking that it has to cut back on wages and sell players because it will be in financial oblivion if it gets relegated the following season. It is not just the bottom three clubs but the bottom six, seven or eight that will be in danger of that. All of a sudden, you have a third of the games remaining, probably even more, and they become uncompetitive. The value that the world TV companies are paying for disappears.

Now, things are always a game of two halves. If you speak to the English Football League about this, which I have, it says that the flip side of these parachute payments is that relegated clubs are much richer and that two-thirds of the promoted clubs depend on those parachute payments. That distorts competition in the EFL. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, the Premier League is the most generous in the world in terms of the big solidarity payments, which enables, among other things, the English Football League to be the sixth richest. So, in absolute terms, the English Football League is very rich. However, the English Football League would say that the issue is not about absolute wealth but about relative wealth: because it does not have nearly as much money as the Premier League, it is harder for it to compete.

Among all of this, we are asking the regulator to step in. That is the danger from all this, because we are asking this regulator—unlike any other regulator that I am aware of—to get involved in the redistribution of money from one entity to another. All the other regulators might talk about payments that they have to make, but they do not talk about taking money away from part of the industry and giving it to another part. Yet we are asking the independent regulator to wade into exactly that issue—the use of those powers—like some sort of super-referee. That is the danger, and I believe that we will get some unintended consequences.

There seem to be some elements in some of the detail that will actually prevent deals being done. We will put restrictions on deals being for more than five years. Again, the Premier League will say that if it is longer than five years, it is prepared to pay over more money. Is that not the basis of a potential solution? Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but surely it is not the role of the regulator to put in red lines that could stop those sorts of agreements coming in. I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward: surely, if you have only the objective of sustainability and not the objective of the success of the Premier League or the Football League, the predisposition of the regulator must be to think about redistribution between clubs in terms of sustainability, rather than their overall success. Should one of the objectives not be the success of the Football League and the Premier League?

Most of all, anything that reduces the competitiveness of Premier League and Football League games will decrease viewership and TV rights. That is a danger, because the Premier League has no God-given right to be number one. Spain and Italy used to be number one. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, the European Champions League has absolutely been set up to try to compete with the Premier League. We really do not have a God-given right and we need to tread very carefully. At the very least, as the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Taylor, said, we should consider sunset clauses as part of all of this.

Clause 7 says that the regulator must exercise its functions in a way that avoids impacting the sporting competitiveness of any club against another club. Is that not exactly what the parachute payments are doing? They are eliminating competition in the lower half of the clubs towards the end of the season. Is that not exactly what UEFA is concerned about? It says that any member association might

“be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that”

the association

“may no longer be considered … fully responsible”.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord seems to be obsessed with competition at the bottom end of the Premier League towards the end of the football season. What about the distortion in the English Football League as a product of the parachute payments that he accepts have a distorting effect?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That shows why the subject needs to be considered in detail in Committee. Leagues are deciding payments between themselves and their clubs. We are asking about the regulator and about trying to change that structure—the competition between the clubs and the different leagues. As part of that, there is the risk that UEFA will be concerned about this, so will the Minister meet UEFA to try to get its approval in advance? The last thing any of us want is England being banned from the Euros because we have a Bill which oversteps the mark.

This has been a very good discussion. There has been a lot of passion, as we expect, and a general agreement that there is real social good. But we have the UK’s number one industry here and we need to tread carefully to make sure we have a light-touch regulator without the mission creep and the unintended consequences. I look forward to those discussions in Committee.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

I do not quite understand why, if this is the direction of travel that the Government are pursuing, they do not feel it is right to include growth in the purpose of the Bill, to make sure that it is a defining feature of the regulator. It seems to me that this is part of the Government’s drive, so I hope that the Minister might look favourably on this suggestion. If not, I just ask why, for this particular regulator, a specific growth duty is not relevant, yet they are applying it to numerous other existing regulators. I would be very grateful for that clarification.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I must admit that I am similarly scratching my head over how the debate seems to have gone into whether it needs to be one or the other—whether there is somehow a trade-off between sustainability and success. I am just surprised that success is not something that we would all want. I do not just mean success in terms of England playing in all the tournaments, which I hope we would all agree we want, and I do not just mean success in terms of taking on responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, says, for how well the teams do. We are talking about the success of the game in terms of the financial wherewithal.

I am a big believer that in life you want to maximise the size of the cake before you argue how you divide it. How do you maximise the size of the cake? Certain measures are vital to that. TV viewership is key—not just because of how much people enjoy watching the game, but that is what the media rights companies pay for. That is what is paying for the game, so why would we not want that as one of the criteria? I think the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was absolutely correct. Why is there not room for both? Why, all of a sudden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, has growth become something we do not want here? Surely we all want growth; the Government are saying, quite rightly, that they are all about growth. I could not agree more, so why would not we want a measure of success here in the objectives of the football regulator to have growth?

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord is saying, and as I have been chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee, I have heard a lot about growth. What worries me is that in one moment he and his colleagues are complaining that the regulator is going to be interfering too much, but in the next, we are hearing that the regulator should do more—it should be responsible for growth, for getting more fans and for getting more viewers. Is it more or is it less?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am very glad the noble Baroness mentioned that. When you set the objectives of any organisation, you want to set out the balancing factors. If it is only sustainability, you can get into the lowest common denominator, because a regulator would have absolutely done its job, by the nature of what is set down, just by the survival of all the clubs. There is a very easy way to do that: just dole out all the Premier League money to all the clubs straight away. That would make them all sustainable, giving the money to all the clubs. I think we would all agree that that would be a pretty nonsensical way to do it, but that would achieve the objective. If you set only a single objective, it is very one-dimensional.

Why would you not want a regulator to take into account that the overall financial health of the game is dependent on the TV viewership? That is what drives the money. What drives the TV viewership? It is how competitive the games are—not just the top games but all the games through the league? As I mentioned at Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned, we are people who have sold and bought media rights around the world. The reason why countries as far flung as Nigeria, Thailand and everywhere else will pay so much for the rights is that every game is competitive. There is a chance that Bournemouth will go out and beat Liverpool, so everyone cares about it. The Premier League does not have a God-given right to be successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many years ago, the Italian league was more successful. The difference today is that you do not have just two or three top teams, as you see in Germany, Spain and Italy. You have a whole host of teams which are all competitive in the league, so every game becomes interesting to watch.

My concern in all of this is if the only criterion set down is that of sustainability, it is so one-dimensional that the regulator could just decide to discharge its duties in that way. I hope it will not, but when it comes back to the scrutiny that we are all saying it should have, the regulator could sit here among us all and say, “Look, I have made all these clubs sustainable. Okay, too bad that the TV viewership has gone down and too bad that a load of the games are no longer competitive, so the TV rights money has gone down, but they are all sustainable, because I doled out all the money”. I do not think that is what any of us would want. I really do not understand why this should be. This is not a political point; I really do not understand the objective at all. I am literally scratching my head as to why there should be a problem with that.

That is why in our later amendments we try to put in other criteria of success. Those are designed to be the ones that are all about maximising the size of the financial pie, by making sure that TV viewership and attendance are high. People forget in all of this—

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he like to comment on the Premier League vote of last week? Some clubs, led by Manchester City, wanted to grow the amount of money coming into football by allowing different forms of sponsorship, which were designed purely and precisely to put more money into certain clubs—for example, Manchester City, which is obviously why it is in favour. That would obviously be growing the amount of money going into the game, as the noble Lord said. Is that an issue that the regulator should be deciding or, on his argument, that the clubs should be deciding?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I definitely do not want the regulator to be involved in every nook and cranny, but when the regulator is sitting here in front of us and we are assessing whether or not it has done a good job, to me, the only criterion is not whether all the clubs are still out there in existence. That is a pretty limiting move. Why would we want to narrow ourselves down to that measure? I do not understand why any noble Lord would not want an objective to be that TV viewership goes up or that media sports rights money goes up. I will sit down to give noble Lords a chance.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asks: would we want a matter such as that to be decided by the regulator or the clubs? Well, the clubs made the right decision. The decision was: “We want the Premier League to remain very competitive to prevent those who have access to, in effect, unlimited funds being able to stack the odds in their favour”. The clubs made a decision that this would not become a less competitive league than it currently is.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his point. I would totally include in that measure of success, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, enjoyment. That is absolutely part of it, because it is the enjoyment which means that people will pay a lot of money for their TV subscriptions, but it is all about the financial health of the game.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I know that in terms of Clause 10 and the funds for six months, the amendment is well intentioned and sounds quite reasonable. However, I have been speaking to a different Premier League chair—I am sure that we have all been speaking to club chairmen—and from one of those clubs that is very respectable. They are afraid of having to lock a lot of money into escrow for their sustainability. They said that all that this will stop them doing is investing in their team and their players. They look at their club as a balance sheet, with assets and liabilities. If the worst came to worst, they would look to sell one of their players, because they are assets. That is what businesses do; it is what clubs do. You do not need to say, “You’ve got to lock six months’ worth of money in there, £30 million, so you can’t afford a striker”. It is, “If you want to buy that striker, take the risk,” as my noble friend would say.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord agree that many other businesses have constraints on the kind of reserves that they have to have and that charities certainly have constraints on the reserves that they have to have? One of the difficulties, when many clubs go under or are on the verge of going under, is that there is a category of football creditors who have special access to any money that might be there, so lots of local businesses, as well as many fans, get really hit if things go wrong. Even discussing this seems to be alien to him. I am not saying that the wording of that amendment is perfect, but it is an area that is worthy of consideration if we are going to improve the future of clubs throughout the pyramid going forward.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The point that I was trying to make is that I absolutely agree that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well intended in terms of sustainability. I am worried that, as we all get back to the mission creep point and try to resolve all these things, we get into the law of unintended consequences. I know from speaking to a club chairman that if you put that money aside in that way, all you will do is deter their ability to invest in players. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, if we want to make ourselves unpopular in all this, it is by starting to do things that stop clubs buying players and investing. We think that VAR is unpopular today. Suddenly, you make all the clubs put £30 million to £40 million in escrow and they cannot buy those players. That would be a very brave decision for a Minister.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Following up on my noble friend’s point, looking at the finances of some clubs, you do wonder. Would the noble Lord, who has been in business himself, tolerate a situation where he only had five hours’ worth of reserves? Nottingham Forest last year spent something like £58 million on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves. I know that this is not uncommon across the world of football, but is that a highly desirable state of affairs? Is that not something that we should focus on? Is it not why we want good financial sustainable regulation? That is why we have got to this point where both sides of the Chamber have accepted the need to have a football regulator.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord may be looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is not that they have got only £25,000 in cash. You have to look at the whole balance sheet. The fact that they have a load of players who are worth a lot of money, who they could sell, means that they are fine financially. There are loads of companies out there today in positions of net debt. Most FTSE 100 companies have debt as a vital part of their balance sheet. You would be saying to them, “Oh, you haven’t got much money in your account, you’re in a net debt position”, when the value, when you look at all the assets too, means that it is in the FTSE 100 and is a very successful company. That is an example of why the whole area of us as politicians trying to get involved in setting criteria worries me. We will put things forward that are well intended but have unintended consequences. We will come on to this in later debates on the Bill.

I will finish. I hope that noble Lords understand that the reason why we have gone over time is that we have had a good discussion. It has been helpful in terms of the questions that have been asked. I would be pleased if the Minister could say why we would not want those measures of success as part of the criteria.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

The simplistic argument is, “Well, I can just sell a player”. Actually, you cannot just sell a player. We have a one-month window in January and the end of the season. If it is mid-October and that happens, you cannot sell a player. What do you do then? That is the point. You cannot run a football club on a shoestring because it makes them competitive. That is not the name of the game. The noble Lord’s argument seems to be that if we give them all the money, they will not try their hardest anymore. That is fanciful; it is not true. Football clubs need to be sustainable. They need to be able to pay their way. I could not buy a car if I could not afford the deposit. I could not buy a Rolls-Royce tomorrow saying, “I’ll give you the deposit, but I don’t have it with me today, so give me the car and, when I do quite well, I’ll give you the money”. That is not how life works. Football is a business like every other business. The noble Lord seems to want it to run in a way that is foreign to every principle of business.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Speaking as a former chief financial officer of a FTSE 250 company, I would say that, in those examples, if you found yourself in a situation where you could not sell a player until the next window, that would be very poor financial management by the CFO, who would probably get sacked pretty darn quick if they led their cash flow into those sorts of situations. In extremis, if you needed to do that, the bank would lend the money against that because there are assets on the balance sheet that they can borrow against. Every FTSE 100 company is set up in that way. They meet their cash requirements by looking at their assets and raising debt where they need to against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House for the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to make it clear now whether he has not completed his remarks, in which case it would be appropriate for the noble Lord to wait a moment, or if he has sat down.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have had a good debate. When the Minister replies, can she explain why it is not felt appropriate to have these measures of success to get the overall financial wealth of the game? I will now sit down.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he had finished. On success, which the two noble Lords that I mentioned talked about, the whole question seems to me to be totally subjective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, what is success for one club is not success for another. I suggest that for at least half the clubs in the Premier League, success is not being relegated rather than winning anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I know the noble Baroness has experience with one of the major Premier League clubs but, in a sense, she has made my argument for me. The other leagues are less competitive, but I am just saying that if only four clubs can win the championship twice in 32 years, it is not spread very wide, and I would like to see it spread more widely, as many other people would—no doubt including those at her own club.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I think the noble Lord misunderstands what I meant by competitive. It is not just which teams can win the Premier League overall and, as the noble Baroness showed, more teams can win here than anywhere else. It is the competitiveness of every single game, because the value is that you have so many games that people all around the world want to pay to watch, so they are interested in watching all the games. Brentford might not win the league, but they know they are going to be competitive against Man City and Liverpool and Arsenal, and they are the games that people want to watch. When we talk about competitiveness, it means that every single game is competitive and that is what the viewership wants to see, and drives the value up of the rights.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

That point was made earlier. I would not say every game is competitive, but I take the noble Lord’s point. I do not want to say any more at this stage because it is important that we get some clarity on how we go forward after this initial debate, because there are many important sections of the Bill that we need to look at in detail. The regulator will have a role, and we have to use this to make sure that it is absolutely clear. Some of the issues raised by noble Lords are legitimate, and until we can have our debates on each of these, we cannot quite see what shape this Bill and the role of the regulator will have. I thank noble Lords for the points made, and I think there are a lot of issues that we will follow up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes, suffering—all noble Lords will suffer for their football clubs as well, at times.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I think the Minister did not quite understand. She was talking about success in terms of success of teams. The point about success that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I were trying to make was about TV viewership, which drives the media rights value. I have not seen that anywhere else in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say where it is addressed.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I might have been being flippant, so I apologise to the Committee. After the length of time we have been discussing this, I came up with some flippant remarks. That was not to undermine the noble Lord’s point.

Much of the success of English football has come from investment, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Nor do we believe that the regulator will detract from the noble Lord’s point about what might be measures of success. Indeed, a stable, more certain regulatory environment is likely, in the Government’s view, to attract investors with a more long-term, prudent approach to stewarding and growing these community assets.

These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things such as broadcasting revenues—which the noble Lord referred to—transfer fees and sponsorship deals, alongside many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would be required to become actively involved in these areas, potentially causing unintentional harms when looking to advance these worthy objectives. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is not a space we necessarily want to have the regulator interfering in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Birt (CB)]

I agree that that reassurance is essential, but the only way to get it is not through publishing the letter but through knowing that UEFA and FIFA have agreed that we would be compliant.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

On that point, I think that is the only way. We all agree that this would be such a big risk. I looked it up before the debate, because this is not just the equivalent of us scoring an own goal, it is like a hat-trick of own goals, so I looked at whether there has ever been an example of a hat-trick of own goals. I found out that the most own goals ever scored in a match was 149. We may go close even to that. There is a real point here, and it was very well made by my noble friend Lady Brady, but I really want to unpack it.

What we are talking about here is a lot more than what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying about the pure financial sustainability of clubs. The concern of UEFA is:

“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.


The Premier League has thought very carefully about how it wants to bring in such things as parachute payments in order to, as we were talking about before, have competitiveness right the way through the game. It is to encourage those clubs—again, I have spoken to clubs about this—to invest, even though they might be in the bottom half of the table, because if they get relegated, they have that safety net. Without that safety net of parachute payments, they would not invest, so they would not be competitive.

What we are talking about here is that if we start to alter those parachute payments and the regulator starts to get involved in that, that is fundamentally altering the competitiveness of the game, so interfering in a way that I feel that UEFA, given the comments it is making, is absolutely going to say that we are overstepping the mark. To my mind, the only way to overcome that, while it is helpful to have these amendments, would be to have a meeting with UEFA—I know meetings have been had—and having a letter from UEFA clearing it, saying that this is something it is happy with and that it will not cut across it. If we do not do that, there will be a fundamental danger of what I think all of us would agree would be the biggest own goal of all.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham for their amendments in this group and for the way they set them out. I support the reasons behind their amendments.

Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a critical provision ensuring that the autonomy of sport from government influence is respected, in accordance with the established rules of FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee. The purpose of Clause 1, as stated, is

“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,

and my noble friend’s Amendment 5 would provide the necessary framework for achieving that purpose, while upholding international standards. FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee have clear rules regarding the autonomy of sports organisations and their independence from government control. Failing to adhere to these principles risks sanctions from these bodies, including the very serious sanctions that noble Lords across the Committee have set out, such as the exclusion of national teams or clubs from international competitions. My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the Bill operates within these very clear and well-established boundaries, safeguarding England’s participation in international football.

Amendment 6, from my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, is crucial, as it would directly protect England’s participation in international football tournaments such as the Euros and the World Cup. Again, FIFA and UEFA have stringent rules regarding government interference in football governance. The test here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and others set out, is not for the Minister to imagine what she or the present Government may do, but what future Governments might do with the powers afforded them by the Bill, including the very sweeping secondary powers that it sets out.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

I would welcome a definition of what sustainability is and where that is to be found, but please remember that we are not doing this because football is in a great place at the moment. The people at the top may have plenty of air and light, but the people below them are struggling, and we have decided that we want to keep these structures, including of promotion and relegation. If we keep that in mind, the progress of the Bill will be quicker and saner.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13. I echo the points made by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Jackson: if the Chief Whip had stayed and heard the debates last week and this week, he would have found real experts and real, passionate supporters—dare I say fans—scrutinising the Bill and making sure there is real health and success there. I believe we would all be doing this whatever colour of Government had introduced it.

Last week, if noble Lords recall, we were left scratching our heads somewhat about how there was some sort of aversion to the use of the words “growth” and “success” in all this. That is what we are trying to address in Amendments 12 and 13, both with a similar purpose. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is vital because the pyramid structure and the health of all clubs depend on the health at the top of the Premier League, because the redistribution of that money funds so many of the other clubs and is allowing the Championship to be the sixth-richest league in the world as a result.

I really do not understand the Government’s reluctance to engage in these types of measures. There are precedents in other regulators. Everyone knows about the Bank of England’s inflation target, but also within its targets is a target to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Other regulators such as Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat have a growth duty to look at innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade and environmental sustainability. It is very clear that other regulators are being asked to consider these other measures of overall success in their objectives.

Why does it matter? Like other noble Lords, I think the meeting we had with the shadow regulator last week was very helpful. It is undoubtedly true that the intentions of all the people there are very good. Like all of us, they are trying to make sure that the game we love is protected, but the shadow regulator’s thinking on sustainability is very much in the mould of a bank regulator’s. The main method it sees achieving sustainability is to insist—as the FCA does with banks—that a certain amount of money is put on deposit to give a buffer, a certain comfort, to clubs. Numbers have been bandied around—it may be £20 million or so per club in the Premier League. Those are large numbers; £400 million will go out of the game because it will be held in aspect. That amount of money has a real impact. If the regulator has only a one-dimensional objective on sustainability, it will always be weighted towards putting more and more money aside as a buffer. However, if it has other objectives in its definition of sustainability, it will take other factors into account.

I think noble Lords know that all the successful companies we see today, such as the magnificent seven that people talk about—the Googles, Microsofts, Facebooks and Teslas of the world—had an early start-up stage when there was heavy investment and their costs far exceeded their income. We absolutely see that in football clubs. The story of Brighton was mentioned earlier, and I happen to know a thing or two about it. I think we would all agree that it is a fantastic success story. For years and years, that success was reliant on Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton, putting his hand in his pocket to invest more in players than the club’s income. He believed that, just like in any start-up company, you have to make that investment. That will build success, and from that you will manage to get promoted and get to a more and more sustainable position. He was able to achieve that.

Not every club can achieve that because, as we all know, not every club can get promoted. But the danger is that if the regulator’s only dimension is sustainability, it would look at business plans such as Brighton’s and say, “Hang on, they’re going to run a deficit if they stay in that league. That doesn’t sound very secure. How are we going to guard against that? We’ll make them put a certain amount of money into escrow as a buffer”. That will undoubtably dampen innovation, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. We all know that the beauty and the strength of English football are in the fact that clubs can get promoted and go on to do wonderful things, and we all know of plenty of examples.

Unless a regulator has more than one dimension—more than one club in its locker—it will only ever look at the sustainability angle and put more and more money aside. That is where I am coming from with Amendment 13, which is similar in intent to Amendment 12. It is from my knowledge of selling TV rights and of what people are really looking for. It is all about TV viewership, sporting competitiveness, the income that is generated and match attendance. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, those things are all clear and measurable; they are all things that a regulator should want for the health of the game.

I hope that when the Minister answers, she will let us know why we would not want to follow the lead of the regulators of the Bank of England, Ofwat, Ofgem or all the others, and give this regulator more than one dimension. I know the Minister really wants to see the health of the game and that everyone has good intentions. That is why this debate is so good—we all want what is best for the game. Widening the basket of measures that the regulator seeks to achieve can be only good for the health of the game.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham for speaking to their amendments and for setting out the case for them. Before the Minister responds to them and to my Amendment 7, which I moved at the outset, I should say that I am not precious about my amendment vis-à-vis those of my noble friends in this group, Amendments 12 and 13.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said that he did not like my wording and found it rambling and insubstantial. I take no offence; I simply took the wording that the Government used in the Explanatory Notes and sought to put that in the Bill. If he finds that rambling, it may be that the Explanatory Notes are as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest of a kind as a season ticket holder at Wycombe Wanderers, who are still top of League One, as they were when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore, I would count as a fan under the definition in Amendment 17A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. However, I want to describe a group of people who would not count, as I think it casts some light on our proceedings as to what the regulator might say and the Government’s view.

Last year, a Spanish-language YouTube channel, La Media Inglesa—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly; it is apparently the largest football YouTube channel—wrote to every single EFL club asking why Spaniards should support their club. Wycombe Wanderers were the only club to reply in Spanish. As a consequence, 100 Spanish supporters turned up to see Wycombe play Derby County at Adams Park, then again for a game against Sheffield Wednesday, and then again to Fratton Park for a game against Portsmouth—and so on, and so forth. They greatly enlivened the proceedings by waving their scarves, chanting loudly and showing commitment—to pick up the word just used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—to their team.

The point we are trying to get to the heart of is not exactly who we think is a fan, but what the regulator’s view will be and what the Government believe the regulator’s view might be, given that “fan” is not defined in the Bill. There is obviously common sense in the approach just taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, among others. He suggested that, logically and intuitively, there must be some sort of difference, in respect of interest in the ownership of the ground and the prices of tickets, between fans who live in the broad locality and fans—however committed—who travel to the ground from a great distance away.

That is precisely what we need to hear a view about from the Government Front Bench. What I suspect the Minister will say—knocking the issue back across the Benches—is that these are matters for clubs to decide for themselves. If that is the Government’s view, then the Minister in due course should tell us.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 17. What we have seen today, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has been here to witness it, is a passionate and informed debate. Perhaps it will give him an understanding of why the debate may be lengthier than one might have hoped. Not surprisingly, 15 or 20 noble Lords have spoken and we have probably had 21 or 22 different definitions of what a fan is—so none of us underestimates what a complicated area this is, but what we are all united in is that it is vitally important and, as such, it should be in the Bill. That is what we are asking the Minister to reply on.

I am probably biased, but I happen to think my Amendment 17 tries to take those different aspects into account, saying that fans are

“individuals who … identify with the club, engage with the service the club provides, and have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.

Bringing in the service that the club provides is trying to take into account that wider commitment and interest in it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the most dedicated version of that is the season ticket, but we also know that there are massively long waiting lists for season tickets. Does that mean that people who are on a waiting list or people who cannot afford a season ticket somehow count less? That is why my wider definition talks about people who engage with the services of that club to try to take that into account.

I think we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in his amendment that giving the independent regulator a definition to work to is vital, because this is at the core of what a club is. In any consultation that a club has to undertake, it needs to be clear who it is consulting with.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak against Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has clearly thought very carefully about this and I agree with a great many of his nuances and analyses of what a fan is. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, although not about the localism.

Why are we talking about San Francisco or South Korea fans? It is because, surely, the purpose of this Bill is to sustain and continually improve the commercial and financial success of football, not to introduce some more nebulous—indeed, I would say suspicious—metric that we could conjure up on social grounds or whatever. If we are here explicitly to damage the commercial and financial success of football, let us admit it—but, if we are not, let us then look at the consequences and implications of that.

What is a fan? Can it only be a season ticket holder? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said about fans, “These are working-class people”. As an unregenerate member of the middle classes since childhood, I sort of resented that, but let us go with it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is a champion of the working classes, but how many of the working classes can afford a season ticket? When I was 10 years old, I would jump on a number 11 bus and go down the King’s Road to Stamford Bridge. I only got there once a month maybe, by not having a gobstopper or a Barratt sherbet every day and saving up the five bob it cost me to get into the ground. I could not afford a season ticket. Fine, you could say that I should not be consulted, either, any more than children of 10 should be allowed to go on social media.

When I was an undergraduate of 21, I could not afford a season ticket but I was a fervent Chelsea fan. Later, I became a season ticket holder. Did I suddenly become worthy of consultation because I had managed to get a job that helped me afford a season ticket? Then when I moved abroad for a couple of decades, to study and work, did that disqualify me from being a fan? Then when I came back and got a season ticket, was I suddenly qualified to be a fan again? It is nonsense. If we are thinking about the commercial and financial success of this industry, we should follow the commercial and financial logic: my noble friend Lord Finkelstein was quite eloquent about that just now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords this series of amendments raises an issue that will come back again and again during Committee, which is a clash of priorities. I will introduce it by again reading out a section from Tracey Crouch’s original report, in which she refers to

“the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.

In other words, we are being told, on the one hand, that football is so financially troubled that we need a state regulator to guide it and, on the other hand—in this series of amendments and others to come—that we must load the regulator with additional responsibilities.

As my noble friend Lady Brady said, these amendments relate to climate change, but we will have more on fan safety, the regulation of women’s football, the expansion of the regulator to other leagues and others on environmental sustainability. On and on they will come. There is a fundamental tension between loading the regulator with these responsibilities and the state of football as the Crouch report described it and as the Bill attempts to address.

There may be other ways of meeting these environmental objectives. I will avoid being drawn into the adverse exchanges between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. There may be other ways in which clubs that lead on environmental action can help clubs that do not. As matters stand, the regulator, were these amendments to come into force, would be imposing on clubs that have, for better or worse, not thought about these matters at all, requirements that would affect how fans come to the games, how they treat their pitches and how they deal with litter—all matters for which they are completely unprepared.

If the Government are correct in stressing—as they have done throughout in talking to Peers; the Minister has been generous in doing this before and during the Bill—that they do not want the regulator to have a heavy touch, I look forward to the Minister explaining the other ways there might be to encourage clubs to take responsible environmental action besides accepting these amendments to the Bill, which might have effects we do not expect or want on clubs that are in financial difficulties—the very basis, after all, on which the Bill has been brought forward.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I join in with the sentiments expressed by many other noble Lords. I made the point at Second Reading that, however well intentioned, noble Lords came up with seven new commitments they wanted the regulator to be involved in. This all starts from the premise that we believe it should be a light-touch regulator and the unintended consequence is that each one, however well intentioned, can add another burden, as so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Brady. I, like others, am fearful of adding something new to the Bill.

I would like to explain a slight difference. In her response to the first group, the Minister talked about mission creep regarding how we were trying to expand the sustainability argument to other objectives of the regulator; for example, to some of the income-generating TV advertising. The key difference here is that we were trying to talk about the action the regulator takes—the measures the regulator might take to force clubs to put down a deposit to cover their sustainability requirements, and whether the regulator should have wider criteria beyond financial sustainability regarding the wider benefits of the game. Those sorts of things are appropriate because they look at what the regulator is responsible for and its objectives. Thing that put new burdens on the clubs come into a different category. They come into the mission-creep category, so to speak, which I, like other noble Lords, are reluctant to add in.

So, although I support the points made by other noble Lords, I would make that distinction. When talking about things the regulator might do that might impact clubs we should make sure that the regulator looks at the wider benefits of the game but we should not look to add extra burdens on clubs, however well intentioned.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to all noble Lords who have contributed to the useful discussion on this group of amendments, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke to on her behalf.

We recognise the importance of environmental sustainability and the target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It was, in fact, as noble Lords know, the previous Government who introduced and passed the law to ensure that the United Kingdom reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% from 1990 levels by 2050. In recent scrutiny of and debate on other legislation before your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches have discharged the duty not just of the Official Opposition but, importantly, of sparking several debates on environmental sustainability and protection.

My noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill to make provisions for nature recovery and nature-based solutions. We also supported and helped to pass an amendment to the Crown Estate Bill to require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of salmon farms on the Crown Estate.

I am very proud of those demonstrations of our commitment on these Benches to the protection of the environment and I am sorry that the Government did not support the sensible provisions brought by my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough on the water Bill. But I am not persuaded by the amendments in this group because I am not convinced that they are the proper responsibility of the new independent football regulator. I worry that additional requirements—in this case on environmental sustainability—will place a further burden on football clubs.

Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, requires clubs to operate

“in a way that will achieve net zero … by 2050 … materially reducing negative impact on the natural world”.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, adds an environmental sustainability objective to the list of objectives for the independent football regulator under the Bill.

These are important and noble causes, but they will be, as this debate has highlighted, very costly duties that some of the clubs, particularly in the lower leagues of the football pyramid, might not be able to discharge. This speaks to the tension that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned in our debate on the previous group about making sure that we are thinking about clubs of all sizes and at both ends of the leagues with which the Bill is interested. There is a great difference between their financial and administrative ability to discharge some of the duties the Bill will place upon them. The clubs in the lower leagues of the pyramid are significantly smaller than those at the top and have far fewer available resources.

Even with the Bill’s efforts to help with the financial flows throughout the football pyramid, we should be mindful of the concern about whether these clubs will be able to cope with these further regulations, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, in light of the additional burden placed on them by the Government’s new taxes on employment through expanding the scope and rate of national insurance contributions. Given the additional costs to football clubs from measures such as that and the other measures we will look at in the Bill, such as the industry levy, the costs of compliance with the financial regulations and so on, I fear that these amendments mean further regulatory burden on clubs at both ends of the spectrum.

It is important to note, as noble Lords have reminded us, that clubs and leagues have already voluntarily adopted and embraced elements of environmental and sustainability governance rules. In February this year the Premier League clubs met and agreed a Premier League environmental sustainability commitment. That means that each club in that league has agreed to:

“Develop a robust environmental sustainability policy”


by the end of the current season,

“designate a senior employee to lead the club’s environmental sustainability activities”,

and

“develop a greenhouse gas … emissions dataset … by the end of the 2025/26 season”.

My noble friend Lady Brady set out some of the other excellent work that has been done on a voluntary basis, but with enthusiasm, by clubs in the Premier League.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Like others, I have a dilemma, in that I am mindful that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are well intentioned and, on the whole, I agree with what they are trying to do. However, like others, I feel that there is the danger of mission creep. This is another area—we will be speaking about others later tonight, and over the next few days there are other areas that we will be adding—where each one on its own might not feel like a lot, but if we add layer upon layer, we move far away from the original intention of being a light-touch regulator and towards one that becomes overbearing.

It has been an education, probably for all of us, to hear, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, about the good acts that the Premier League is doing with local communities through local football clubs. There is probably more that can be done to make sure that the awareness of those, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was saying, is enhanced and greatened.

Generally, the idea, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, of having a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the Premier League to see how that can be more fostered, encouraged, known about and channelled is probably the right way. Where things are working, I much prefer the use of the carrot than the stick.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this has indeed been a good and very valuable debate. The issues which amendments in this group address are in a slightly different category to some of the additional duties and areas into which amendments in other groups have sought to take the work of the regulator and the scope of the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in opening, nothing has the reach of football.

These amendments speak to sustaining the future of the game and making sure that clubs can continue to do the work in their communities which noble Lords have spoken about passionately from Second Reading onwards. Particularly, the noble Lord’s Amendment 247 is about making sure that they are facilitating

“training for young women and girls”

and that the valuable work done in recent years is extended there. Like others, I was struck by the powerful contribution from my noble friend Lady Brady, who said that these are responsibilities which are authentic and deeply felt by clubs. She gave examples, drawing particularly on her experience in the Premier League. I agree with the points that my noble friend Lord Hayward and others have made: perhaps that work ought to be better known and the clubs should blow their trumpets more loudly, not just those in the Premier League but clubs at every level that are doing important work.

It might be helpful to flag to the Committee that the Premier League and the EFL already have rules in place regarding corporate responsibility. Section K of the Premier League’s handbook has a whole host of rules including, to name a few, a safety certificate and medical facilities, ground rules and regulations. Those are but some of the requirements already placed upon clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly highlighted the work done by the EFL through the awards that it presents to clubs that are doing valuable work in this area.

Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to impose additional reporting obligations on the executives of football clubs. While transparency in this important area is an admirable goal, it is important to bear in mind proportionality and, again, to echo the concerns that have been raised about adding to the duties of clubs and their executives in other areas, clubs, especially those lower in the league structures, already face significant financial and administrative pressures. Requiring more and more reports on a growing list of matters could strain their limited resources and have an opposite effect to that by which noble Lords are motivated when they bring their amendments. We have to bear in mind that a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate governance would fail to recognise the diversity which we should be mindful of in the financial ecosystem of football.

Amendment 165 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, aims to compel clubs to adhere to certain corporate codes beyond those which the Bill would currently mandate. As we keep reminding ourselves, football clubs are not merely businesses; they are community institutions with unique identities and relationships with their supporters. While it is a useful idea, we also have to be careful of imposing rigid corporate structures designed for companies in other sectors, which could risk alienating clubs from their communities. We have to find ways to ensure the sort of good governance that the noble Baroness seeks without overburdening clubs with corporate obligations that could conflict with the broader role that they play—and always have played, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Brady and others have reminded us this evening. Like others, I favour encouraging that work to continue voluntarily, but it would be valuable for a spotlight to be shone more brightly on the work being done, not just at the top end of football but all the way through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, thanked the Minister for answering the very good question that she raised at Second Reading about what would happen in the event of conflicts between the Privy Council and Senedd Cymru. I had a quick look again at the Minister’s helpful letter of 27 November and I do not think it was covered in that. My apologies if I have missed the answer that the Minister gave the noble Baroness but, if it was not in that letter, could it be shared with other noble Lords? It was a very technical question but an interesting one, at least to me, so it would be useful if the Minister is able to share that with the rest of us. But with that, I look forward to her response.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Can I just suggest to Members opposite who are making their point that they might look at Amendment 72, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? It is called “Support to clubs”, which very specifically gives advice on how smaller clubs might be helped.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords and I think the point about Amendment 72 was well made. Why I believe this is so critical is that when we have been talking about big clubs the feeling almost is that they are going to look after themselves and somehow we do not need to worry about the Premier League. But, as we have all said, the clue is in the word “pyramid”. The fact that the Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world—richer than Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands—is because of the money passed down from the Premier League. Fundamental to the health of the whole game, all the network and all the clubs is the health of the Premier League.

As my noble friend Lord Maude was saying, I am afraid that the more that I look into this Bill and the more I understand it, the more worried I become. As we have said before, if the only objective of the regulator is the survival of clubs, as the shadow regulator mentioned, the only tool it has in its locker is to get them to deposit cash as a cushion. I do not think there is any other mechanism. Again, I would be delighted if anyone else can come up with another mechanism and I will sit down and hear it. I really would be delighted.

But the only measure is to say “Okay, we want to be sure that there is no chance at all of you getting into financial difficulties, so put this money aside”. There have been figures of £20 million a club—£400 million—but, as noble Lords have said, maybe the bigger clubs are better able to cope. I bet the top eight or so—the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Tottenhams et cetera—will be better able to cope. It will be the smaller clubs, especially the ones that are just trying to break in—such as Brentford and Brighton, which have now broken in, but as they were trying to get there—are the ones which will be disproportionately affected.

It is not just the Premier League clubs because, of course, we would be talking about clubs right the way down the pyramid having to make deposits to make sure that there is less risk of them getting into financial difficulties. Of course, the further down the pyramid you go, the more of a hardship that becomes. Let us understand it more. The shadow regulator was talking about his concern about dependence on rich owners and what you can do about that.

We can give two examples recently from my club, Chelsea. I think everyone would say that Matthew Harding was a very reputable business guy, had very good intentions and was an absolutely stand-up person. He was tragically killed in a helicopter crash. No one could have expected that. The club was in financial difficulties and had to be sold. What would the regulator’s answer to that have been? Probably, “Oh, you were dependent on a rich owner. You have to deposit more money in case, God forbid, they die in a helicopter crash”. Our next owner, Roman Abramovich, was very well regarded for about 18 years and was absolutely fine. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and, all of a sudden, he was no longer a reputable owner. What could the financial regulator have done about that? Well, clearly, it has to look at all the owners and think “Ooh, what could happen in your circumstance? Could your country end up doing something bad on the world stage? Deposit more money”.

It goes beyond that. Lots of noble Lords have said, “What do we want? We want better management of our clubs”. Are we asking the financial regulator to assess managers and say “Oh, I don’t think you’re very good”, or “I don’t think your business plan is very good”. What can a financial regulator do if they do not like the management of the club? They cannot sack them. What can they do if they do not like the business plan very much? They can say, “Well, please try better, please make it a bit better”. The only thing they can absolutely do at the end of the day is say “I don’t like your management very much, I’m not very confident in them, and I don’t like your business plan very much, so I’m going to ask you to put more money on deposit”.

Then you get into a situation where I guess you follow that through to its logical conclusion and some clubs are going to have to put a lot more on deposit than others, because the regulator has decided, you know, “I don’t like the cut of your jib”, for want of a better word. What sort of situation are we going to get into there? We can see as we peel back the onion that this is fraught with more and more difficulties. You are asking the regulator to opine on each club, each business plan, each set of owners and each set of management and say, depending on all that, how much money a club should set aside—with only one criterion for success for that regulator: that that club financially stays in its place and never gets threatened with going bust. There is only one criterion, so every time we are going to have an ever-increasing ratchet to de-risk every club, and the only mechanism to do that is to get them to put more and more money on deposit.

Again, please, I would be delighted. I know the Minister cares about football and the welfare of the game, so I would be delighted if someone could come up with another tool on how the regulator can try to manage sustainability. He could not come up with one the other day, so maybe we should ask him.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

Is it not far more likely that the regulator will simply insist on having a good-quality, conventional board—I know from the noble Lord’s experience that he will know what that looks like—with a mix of skills, a proper CFO and a real sense of financial accountability and risk management? That is the direction of travel a regulator is likely to take. I am sure the noble Lord would agree from his experience that that tends to lead to strong institutions—and that is not a description of many football clubs at any level.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Before my noble friend responds to that, he is on a very important point here about the remedies that are available to a regulator where they have concerns. The noble Lord suggests that you put in some great and good, experienced, splendid people, and they will make it all better. We have rightly heard a lot from the noble Lord opposite about Brighton & Hove Albion. If a visionary owner had a view of how you could, by investing in the right way, in the right kind of players and the right methodologies, have a different approach to managing and developing a football club, what would a great and good, wise and sage board have said? It would have said “Ooh, very difficult”. Board members would have pursed their lips and sucked their teeth and possibly stopped there being this great success story.

What would a regulator have done? They would have said, “This all looks very risky. How can you justify this great vision you’ve got?” Would they, as my noble friend suggested, say “Well, you’ve got to put more and more money on deposit as a hedge against possible failure”? What are you then going to say to fans when they say, “Well, why aren’t you investing in the players that we need to create the success?” This is why so much of this is of concern. It goes back to the point we made earlier about sustainability. It is all about downward pressure. It is putting a cap on aspiration, vision, excitement, ambition and the possibility of having these great romantic stories of huge success. Is that really what we want the future of English football to be?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I genuinely thank noble Lords for their interventions. We are trying to unpack and fix a tricky problem. I completely agree with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about better boards; of course that is a good idea, but how does the regulator make that happen? Will it be given the powers to force people off boards? I have not heard that; I have not seen that anywhere in the Bill. I fully support recommending a stronger board, but how do you make it happen? The only remedy I see for this in the Bill, and which I keep coming back to, is that clubs have to deposit more money as a sort of punishment.

On the visionary business plan at Brighton, which really was visionary, a regulator at the time could have thought, “That looks a bit risky”—and it probably was a bit risky—“so how do I guard against that?” They could have wondered, “How much does this chairman know about football? He is a poker champion; that is brilliant. He believes in the stats. But he is probably not your conventional person, who you would be going to and asking for more money as a deposit”.

This is what we all keep coming back to. If the only remedy is that the clubs put more money aside—

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. My understanding of the Bill is that the ultimate sanction the regulator can have is to withdraw the licence from the football club. If a football club loses its licence, it ceases to be able to play. It is put in a very difficult situation whatever the remedy: it either complies wholeheartedly with whatever remedy it is told by the regulator to put in place, or it loses its licence and cannot play in the league. Surely that cannot be right.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, I hope the Minister will answer this point. This is what the shadow regulator was explaining to us last week. What is the one thing you can do short of that? You can look to de-risk the situation, particularly if your only criterion is sustainability at that club; in other words, it survives by you saying, “You have to put money on deposit”. That is exactly the model they were taking from the financial regulator and the banks; that is what I see as the whole problem.

It is fundamental. As my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment suggests, we could make sure that it is aware of the burdens of regulation, or, as some of the earlier amendments proposed, it could be about broadening the definition and objectives of the regulator so that it has other criteria at stake. I truly believe that, unless we widen it out—it is only one-dimensional—we really are going to harm the great game.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate that it is a little unconventional to speak to the amendment, but I would like to make a few comments to the mover of the amendment and the Minister. The case was made that this is all about small clubs. I have met very many clubs outside of the Premier League and discussed this issue with them. They have raised many issues and changes that they would like to see, some of which might be controversial in the football world or in government but not in relation to this regulation Bill. I have not yet come across any club outside of the Premier League that has said that it is worried or opposes this Bill—not one. Perhaps the Minister might like to reflect on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross]

If I correctly understood the noble Lord’s point, I do not believe that clubs should be concerned about that particular instance. We will be discussing licences and licensing conditions in a later group so, with your Lordships’ indulgence, if we could wait until then, that would be appreciated.

The amendment would also require the regulator to submit a report on its effects on the financial position of regulated clubs. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already includes comprehensive reporting requirements on the regulator—for example, the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report to the Secretary of State, which must be laid before Parliament. These reports would of course be expected to include an assessment of the regulator’s own impact on the market. In our view, the intent of this amendment is therefore already achieved in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we are risking jeopardising English clubs’ involvement in international competitions. As I reiterated during the last debate, the Government are confident that the Bill and the regulator will not breach the statutes of UEFA and FIFA. This Bill will constitute the business regulation of football clubs in this country; it will not constitute interference in how the FA, or any international body, governs the game. For the reasons I have laid out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that I made quite a few points on how the only thing a regulator can really do—the only shot in its locker—is to put in more deposits, and on the impact that would have on clubs in terms of that safety net. I perfectly understand that she may not be able to answer that question now but I would welcome a follow-up in writing, and perhaps we can arrange a meeting on it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I appreciate that with legislation it is always better to have what you want on the face of the Bill. The women’s game needs more attention here, as this is something that deals totally with the top five leagues of the men’s game. It is also true that with a little bit of will, we could amend it. However, we are sitting here thinking about what would be best for the development of women’s football. When the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will give us a better steer on what they regard as that future. It is a growing sport that has outstripped everybody’s idea 20 years ago of where it would be, and we need to discuss what is happening there. My gut instinct is to resist this for the women’s game, but my legislative experience says we should have a definition here.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am scratching my head a bit on this. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that I would like to see the women’s game included. However, I accept that there is a debate to be had around that, so there could be an argument for having that as part of secondary legislation. What I do not understand that there could be a debate about is whether the Premier League or the EFL should be included. I do not understand for one moment why you would not have that on the face of the Bill. I do not think any of us would debate for one second the thought of somehow having all these discussions and not including the Premier League or the EFL.

I will freely admit that I am not very well versed in this, but my understanding is that, if it was mentioned on the face of the Bill, that does something about the hybrid nature of the Bill and would mean there are greater consultations and involvements that we would have to have—maybe some other noble Lords can help me out here—with those bodies that are impacted by the Bill. If that is the case, and if it is absolutely obvious to everyone here that of course the Premier League and the EFL are going to be involved in this, and probably some others as well—maybe the noble Lord can help me with this in a minute—I think there are consequences from not having it on the face of the Bill. That means it is not getting the proper involvement that you would expect, having the Premier League and other impacted bodies such as the EFL as part of this.

Again, all of this is an education for me and I think my noble friend Lord Goodman might be about to stand up to help me on this. But, if not, maybe the Minister could answer that, because it seems so obvious to everyone here that of course it is going to include the Premier League and the EFL. Why would you not have that on the face of the Bill?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment about the inclusion of the National Leagues North and South. I accept that my amendment is defective; I think the Committee on Statutory Instruments has declared it as such. However, I will use this opportunity to raise the question of where down the pyramid the regulatory process should stop.

Some of the teams in the National League North and National League South are quite substantial. Scunthorpe United is quite a big club and has a turnover somewhere in the region of £5 million to £6 million a year. Torquay United has a turnover of probably £2 million or £3 million a year. Even Maidstone, another former league club, has a turnover of between £2 million and £3 million a year. These are small but substantial businesses. They probably employ no more than 10 or a dozen staff—Scunthorpe probably employs more than that, looking at its accounts—but we expect other parts of the business world to be regulated by health and safety or environmental legislation, by financial conduct rules and regulations, and so on.

It is not smart to leave those two leagues out of consideration, because one of the things we should worry about is predatory ownership. We have seen some of that in the past, to the detriment of clubs in the lower leagues. The Bill is about making sure that the clubs in the lower leagues are properly protected. We have heard a lot from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches about the Premier League and how they believe that the regulatory regime may be damaging to the Premier League, but it is the plight of clubs lower down the pyramid that has sparked the most concern over the years and has been the motor for both major political parties to seek a football regulator.

I make that point because at some stage, we will need to have the National League North and National League South clubs in the regulatory framework. It seems odd to regulate one of the National League’s divisions, but not the other two. I wonder about the cliff-edge effect of having clubs coming up from both those leagues into a system of regulation. That does not necessarily seem to be the right way to do things; it would be better if they were all captured by the same framework.

The Minister made the point at Second Reading that regulation would be appropriate at each level of the pyramid—that has to be right—and that teams in the National League do not require the same degree of regulation as teams in the upper leagues. That is a sensible and proportionate way of looking at things. These clubs are already used to regulation; they are regulated by other regulators.

There is a case that we need at an early stage in the life of the regulator—I accept it may not be now—to have a report, or perhaps a section in the “state of the game” report, that looks at this issue. There may well be some unintended consequences and some cliff-edge issues, and if we do not get regulation right for these clubs, which could be vulnerable to predatory takeovers, some of them may well suffer as a consequence. None of us in the Committee wants to see that happen—I certainly do not, based on my experience as a Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club fan in the 1990s, when we were nearly destroyed by a predatory takeover. We very nearly went out of the league and out of business, and it took us a decade to recover our position.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared in the register. I defer to other noble Lords who have experience of the technicalities of hybridity and parliamentary procedure, but I hope it is helpful and illuminating in this context to raise the issue of consultation with clubs. We are creating legislation that will profoundly affect 116 unique institutions, from Premier League clubs through to the National League community clubs. But it is important for everyone to understand that the consultation with these affected businesses by the current Government has been remarkably limited—almost unbelievably so.

Just seven Premier League clubs—mine was one of them—were granted a brief half-hour meeting with the Secretary of State over the summer. Following this cursory engagement, significant decisions were made that could fundamentally affect the future of English football, most notably with the inclusion of parachute payments within the backstop mechanism. I say again: seven clubs out of 20 have been seen for just half an hour since the Government took office and before they made that seismic decision.

This is particularly concerning given that fundamental issues still remained unresolved. We still lack any clarity on UEFA’s position regarding state interference, for example. This clearly creates profound uncertainty for clubs competing in, or aspiring to, European competition, as well as our national teams. We do not know what the ownership test will look like. This causes significant uncertainty for potential investors as to whether they are able to own a club.

I have listened with real interest to this debate on hybridity. Can the Minister help my understanding here? Can she confirm that, if my noble friends are correct and hybridity is a live question for the Bill, this would give clubs at all levels a real opportunity to present their specific circumstances to Parliament? For example, would it mean that National League clubs could explain their concerns about the regulatory burden and the concerns of the many that they say “would not survive” this regulation? Would it mean that Premier League clubs could have more than half an hour to detail the very serious implications for them, and the risk that we may harm the competitive balance of the Premier League, which we have all agreed that none of us wants to do?

That would be especially important, given that the impact on Premier League clubs is very different from that on other stakeholders in the Bill, as the Premier League is the only party that provides funding to any other part of the football pyramid. The backstop is clearly designed as a mechanism to gain direct access to, and apportion, Premier League revenue and no one else’s. It would allow the IFR to do this even if it was against the Premier League clubs’ will, or even without the clubs’ agreement, even if it was to have a detrimental effect on the clubs and the overall competition that it removes revenue from.

I have spoken to many of my colleagues across the whole football pyramid. We are all alarmed about, and puzzled by, the lack of discussion on the Bill with Ministers. Does the Minister agree that we all want to get the detail of the Bill right, and can she see any downsides to providing meaningful opportunities to hear from all clubs across the football pyramid affected by the legislation?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I must admit that, probably like other noble Lords, I am scratching my head over this. As the Minister said earlier, it is very clear that the leagues know who we are talking about here and that a large section of the Bill is talking about the whole arrangement, and in Clause 6 about the distribution agreement, the pyramid, the parachute payments and all that. There are only two instances where that counts, in the payments from the Premier League to the other leagues, so it is very clear that we are referring to Premier League and English Football League clubs. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. As I was taught as a kid, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

I am pretty sure that this is a hybrid Bill already. I am not an expert, but I cannot see why it is not a hybrid Bill because, as the Minister just said, it is very clear to everyone which leagues we are referring to. The argument that somehow we could not change things if things changed, or if league structures changed, just does not stand up. Just as we are going to nominate which competitions we are talking about under secondary legislation, we could do exactly the same if there was any change in the format of the leagues. The Minister wrote in her letter about trying to stop people gaming the system, but we have a very easy way to stop them gaming the system. It is set up there already—you can change it in secondary legislation, just as the Government intend to do in defining the competitions involved in the first place.

I cannot see any reason why we would not call it as it is. It is as if we were somehow trying to stop the clubs having the proper amount of consultation. As my noble friend Lady Brady just said, it is clear that there has been very little consultation to date. The clubs themselves have said that there was very little consultation. The people here who are members of those clubs probably know more than anyone else about this.

I believe that we are all united in this Committee in wanting the best for football. That comes through very clearly in every conversation we have had. I know that colleagues from right across the spectrum want what is right for football, and I know that the Minister wants what is right for football—so why not give clubs the opportunity to be properly consulted and have proper input on something that is going to profoundly affect the whole game?

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I will very briefly support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 19. I do so as chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, although the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, chaired the relevant meeting in my absence. My noble friend’s amendment addresses a serious issue. I would have thought that, given the committee’s report on this, the Government would have at least considered the arguments and sought to alter them.

As noble Lords have noted, our committee’s eighth report highlighted that this Bill, as drafted, does not make the fundamental definition of English football clear. The committee was concerned because this Bill leaves us wanting. It leaves us with no definition in primary legislation of what it seeks to address; it is a Football Governance Bill that does not define what part of football it will govern and leaves such a key part of the definition of the Bill to come later in secondary legislation. As my noble friend has pointed out, certain parts of it say that the secondary legislation, if it were to be hybrid, should be ignored as hybrid. That gives a very wide-ranging power which we should be cautious about.

The memorandum explains that

“the rationale for regulatory intervention is based on market failures in the professional men’s game, and problems or harm that most typically and markedly arise in clubs of a certain size and type (typically professional clubs)”.

It then gives four different reasons why the Bill does not explicitly state that it intends to regulate the top five tiers of the professional men’s game. These reasons have been covered by other Members, so I will not go over them.

The Government argue that they need to define the scope in secondary legislation to allow them to change it in future. However, should they need to amend which leagues are in scope, they could still amend primary legislation to alter those leagues by statutory instrument. There is no change to that in my noble friend’s amendment. We have seen hybrid Bills before. I took one through the other place as Secretary of State for Transport, dealing with a rail link from the West Midlands to London. They are more complicated, but people know how to do them and know what regulations need to be abided by.

This amendment is not asking us to decide whether the Bill is hybrid; the Government are being asked to accept that there is inherently a form of hybridity in this Bill regardless, and that they must therefore allow it to go before the Examiners to see what they find. The Government should give very careful consideration to what the amendment says.

--- Later in debate ---

Think of the current owners and just look at the clauses we are considering in this group. The Bill encourages, not diminishes, the long-term potential of a super league. It may in the short term stop it in its tracks but, in the future, this onerous government intervention will do little to attract new investment—why should it? The losers will be the fans. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be, but there is no case to add the influence test.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is yet another example where, as we understand this Bill further, we see more and more complexities and unintended consequences which will have a profound impact on the sport that we all love. Those points were very well made by my noble friend, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to them.

My amendments are trying to be helpful and practical, given the complications set out by my noble friend around how you determine who is an owner or who has influence on it all. At the very least, as proposed in Amendment 30, the regulator must inform who it considers to be counted as an owner. I hope noble Lords would agree that that is a fairly sensible move, given that such a person might not consider it themselves but might be deemed to have influence.

Just as we require a certain competence from officers, Amendment 177 suggests that owners should be subject to a similar assessment.

We are all mindful of the numerous situations we have seen where there is a timeliness to the acquisition of a club, particularly in the context of rescuing a club or where there are certain deadlines, as happened in the case of Abramovich and Chelsea. Amendment 186 states that the regulator must make a decision about an owner or an officer within one month. Officers can be critical to the running of a club as well, so we need timeliness there.

My two further amendments, Amendments 188 and 189, propose that where the regulator is seeking to act retrospectively—as has been pointed out, this gives it the power to reopen the issue of ownership and officers—there needs to be a high bar before it is allowed to go in; otherwise, before we know it, it could be investigating and unpicking the officers and owners of every club. Once again, this is a massive example of just how overbearing we are in danger of setting up this regulator to be.

Amendment 188 says that the regulator can investigate the current owners only if it believes that there is a reason for them not being suitable. It is trying to put an evidential burden or barrier on that. Similarly, Amendment 189 is about trying to determine the fitness of current officers only if it already has information in place suggesting that those current officers are not fit. Otherwise, if we add up all the multiple hundreds of officers of the hundred or so clubs, we would be setting up a whole logjam of investigations, which I would hope that all noble Lords think does not best serve the interests of those clubs or football as a whole.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and I commend him on his comprehensive demolition of the Government’s case. I have fundamental problems with this clause, as it stands, in respect of ownership. As my noble friend rightly says, it goes way beyond the admonitions and existing legislation of, say, the various Companies Acts. It is much more draconian and prescriptive than anything we have seen in company law. It is quite sensible, and not ignoble, for all Governments to take a value judgment on who is a fit and appropriate person to be a company director and to trade and take part in commerce. We all understand and support that, but what we see here is very oddly drafted legislation. It seems to me that it may be a reaction to the trade policy clause that existed in the original Bill, which was withdrawn.

At the same time, the Bill is extremely opaque, permissive and open-ended in the power that is bestowed on the Secretary of State. Looking at the schedule, I am very uncomfortable about giving those sweeping powers, not least because there is a differential between the “significant influence”, as contained in the schedule, that a director or a person involved in a football club may have and what we read in Clause 3, which is just “a degree of influence”. What does a degree of influence mean?

It is not all a case of the Saudi royal family and Newcastle United. We are talking about 116 clubs. Is “influence” popping into the dressing room at half-time and saying, “Great match, guys; here’s a beer”? Is it saying, “If you play better next year, my company might sponsor you more favourably”? It may seem ridiculous to use those examples, but this wording is so unclear—so opaque and permissive—in asking to give Ministers very significant powers that we need to think carefully, again, about whether it is appropriate to let it remain in the Bill.

For that reason, I strongly support the eloquent and comprehensive case made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and, in passing, of course I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Markham. This is a bad clause. It will give rise to very big risks of litigation. Ministers should think carefully about whether it remains in the Bill and we should think again, perhaps on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

31: Clause 4, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(5A) The IFR must give a notice to all persons it considers to be an officer of a club for the purposes of this section informing them that they are considered as officers under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Regulator to inform every individual that it considers an officer of a club.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This looks at the tests around the officers and I start by saying that we are all united in the Chamber in wanting good management in place, so the officer tests involved here, I think we would all agree, are well intentioned, because it all comes down to good managers. However, at the same time, I think we are quite aware that a lot of the things we are talking about here are beyond the directors and Companies Act tests that are in place. We are extending to a new category of officer, or senior manager, and we are putting new responsibilities on them. The amendment tries to be quite simple. First, the Bill is not clear who an officer is. It talks about having one or more club affairs that they are responsible for. So, first, we are trying to get clarity by letting those people know who they are.

That is important because we are talking about having some pretty serious and quite intrusive checks on them. Again, those are well intentioned—there are amendments coming up later in Committee where we will go into what those checks should be—but they are quite intrusive; they are looking at your criminal record and whether you have been involved in any court or tribunal. Maybe they are all very good tests, but I think people should be aware of them, because they might not be certain that they are actually an officer of a club. So, again, this is making sure that they are aware of it before they take something on.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, not only are we giving them director-style responsibilities but we are potentially putting even wider-reaching penalties on them, of 10% of club revenue or £75,000, which many people would say is quite a deterrent. I am not talking about the big clubs. A lot of this refers to clubs that are pretty small, maybe run by a handful of people and for which a £75,000 penalty is pretty big. At the very least, they need to be aware that they are taking on those sorts of responsibilities and that should be outlined. That is what Amendment 31 tries to do.

Regarding Amendment 179, again, we talk about one of the tests being financial soundness. I think that we would all agree that, around an owner, that is right in terms of their financial soundness. I would like an officer or senior manager of a club to be financially sound too, just for their own good sake, but that does not necessarily make them a good or bad manager. They are not personally putting money into that club. Therefore, whether or not they have run up a lot of debts is not relevant to their ability to carry out the duties that we would want them to undertake.

Many of the 116 clubs are quite a bit smaller and often depend on people working on a voluntary basis. Those people suddenly having all their finances investigated and it being determined whether they are deemed sound or not, when we are not asking them necessarily to contribute any money to those clubs, is not proportionate. It might deter people who could probably be very helpful in the running of that club. I beg to move.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for these amendments. I agree that it is important for transparency and accountability to fans and officers that it is clear who a club’s officers and senior managers are. That is why this is already an integral part of the Bill. When a club applies for a provisional licence, it must submit a personnel statement. In that personnel statement, the club must set out its officers and senior managers, which the regulator will approve once it is satisfied that it is accurate. The club must then publish it and keep it updated. Therefore, this already provides clarity to clubs, officers and fans as to who has a role in the running of their club.

On Amendment 179, it is essential that clubs have suitable officers. The regulator has a key role to play in this. It is officers who exercise a significant level of direct control over the day-to-day operations of the club. These can include financial decision-making. That is why it is vital that the regulator ensures that these decision-makers are financially sound. It includes assessing the personal finances of anybody where they have held a position of responsibility. This will help to identify any concerns or irregularities that would impact on their ability to act as a suitable custodian of a football club. For example, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that if a club’s chief financial officer has bankrupted companies in the past, that is a relevant fact for the regulator to consider. Ultimately, these tests should help to prevent fans suffering the consequences of poor leadership and financial mismanagement, as has often been the case to date.

I hope that such clarity gives reassurance to noble Lords on these points. For the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lord did not press his amendments.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her replies. While we understand financial soundness in the context of a chief financial officer, in terms of the senior managers, as referred to in the Bill, we are talking about non-financial duties. I think that most people who run a club would say that the chief operating officer or the person responsible for the actual operations of the ground on the day is a key person. I am sure that they would be drawn into this definition and so would have all their finances investigated. Do not get me wrong: we want people as far as possible to be in a financially good position but, as I mentioned before, their personal finances are not necessarily relevant to whether they can be a good operating officer who can run the club very well on match days, with all the decisions involved with that. My fear is that we will deter people who are sometimes the backbone of the running of a lot of the smaller clubs from wanting to take on that sort of role because they know such intrusion will take place.

Those are the things that I am talking about. I absolutely get it when it is a financial director—the Companies Act and directors’ responsibilities cover that for finance directors. People who are not finance directors but who may be very involved in the operations are where the concern lies. I hope that we can cover this in more detail later on, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 36 seems to be taking a sledgehammer to a nut. If you have some expertise and you are commentating, you may well be qualified to be in that role. There is a balance to be struck here. The Minister might ask, “What would be an unacceptable position within the media that would exclude you from this role?” If you are a senior executive with Sky, in the current situation, that would exclude you, but what if you happen to be a commentator, say, for a local paper dealing with your own local team, and possibly going on further? Would that exclude you? I would be interested to know if the Minister or the Government have an opinion on this, because there is clearly a balance here, as the noble Lord has just pointed out.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This is exactly why we want to have these sorts of debates in Committee. Funnily enough, I put my name to this amendment. As noble Lords know, when I talk about media interests, I do so as a former director of a pay TV company. I was thinking about media interests less in relation to broadcasting and more that—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will know this—when you are making sports media rights bids, all information is good information. You would then be party to a lot of privileged, and maybe even inside, information.

I agree that there is a balance to be struck, because these are exactly the sort of people you want involved in the regulator as well; but if they have a current role that involves them bidding for media sports rights, that would probably rule them offside—if you will excuse the pun. Again, that is exactly why we bring issues such as this to Committee to discuss.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

There is a potential conflict on both sides. There are many different roles in media but obviously, it is a single role that might be filled here. I would feel very uncomfortable if someone were sitting in both camps, were I to be in the decision-making capacity ever again in a broadcast organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, perhaps I could have a clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that he had lots of experience of regulators. He referred to the Online Safety Act and Ofcom and his dealings there. I found it incredibly unhelpful to be constantly told by Ministers at that time that something was not up to them, it was up to Ofcom, even when we were making a decision about what the Ofcom regulator was going to do.

There are times when it feels as though Governments of any political stripe can outsource authority to a regulator. They tell the regulator what to do and then, when you try and hold somebody to account, the Government say, “Oh no, it’s the regulator that makes that decision”. So it actually removes any accountability. I am very keen on a mechanism for accountability and I am very anxious that, when we constantly stress that they are independent, arm’s-length regulators, that can be a way of avoiding any kind of political accountability.

However, I am also sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, about the kinds of things you can imagine happening if there is accountability at Select Committee level. I want accountability and I can take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about the forensic way that Select Committees can hold people to account. That sounds very positive. But it depends which one it is and who is on it. I can imagine the political fads of the day. You can imagine a Select Committee saying, “Why aren’t you doing more on”—my favourite topics—“EDI or the environment?” or “Where’s your environmental target? You’re not doing enough on that, are you?”

We have to be quite precise about the principle. On the one hand, there is the very important principle of parliamentary accountability. On the other, we also have to ensure that that does not become political interference, because it could. There could be a kind of pressure from Parliament for the regulator to adopt political priorities rather than football priorities.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have had three days of debate and it is fantastic that we have an outburst of consensus. On all sides of the Committee, we seem to agree that we are putting a lot of trust in this regulator. We have had long and thorough debates about what its objectives should be. I come back not to Erskine May or other writings but to the Gorbachev and Reagan saying, “Trust, but verify”, which I always remember. There is consensus around the Committee about how vital parliamentary scrutiny is for what we think is such an important role. I hope that, when the Minister responds shortly, she will take on board the consensus view of the Committee and respond positively.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

I hope the Minister will look at the amendments in this group with these points in mind. I beg to move Amendment 42.

[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 ---

One reason is that, in this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, so ably opened, in terms of the Secretary of State being able to say, “Well, here’s some more money”, it is not the taxpayer but the football clubs that will pay this, as I identified earlier. The other element associated with these costs, to which there has been no reference up until now other than in briefings meetings, is the cost of set-up. Not only are we talking about an annual charge, but the Government’s abridged version of the impact assessment says that these levies are then expected to recover these costs. In other words, not only do we have an individual figure for each club per annum, including the small clubs about which I am most concerned, but there are also costs being incurred now, in substantial ways, which will have to be recovered at a later stage. I will continue to press until I get an answer on the costs for the small clubs.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his Amendment 50, which looks to protect the taxpayer. I particularly support my noble friend Lord Hayward’s as ever forensic analysis, which really focused on the burden to the smaller clubs. These things easily get out of control and, as my noble friend mentioned, £140 million in anyone’s book is a lot of money, and that is just the central case—it is not even the highest example.

I will speak to my two amendments in this group: Amendments 171 and 253. Amendment 171

“restricts discretionary licence conditions to include only internal financial controls”.

Interestingly, this was the drafting of the original Bill that was brought before the other place before the general election. We have heard many times in the Chamber how this Bill is substantially the same as the original one. However, this time round there is a key change in the wording: instead of “internal financial controls”, the word “financial” has been taken out, so now it is just “internal controls”. I think we would all agree that there is a world of difference between looking at the financial management of a club, which is something that we would understand, particularly with regard to the sustainability argument, and why that might be in the remit. Removing “financial” from that, all of a sudden, so you are just looking at the internal controls of a club, is obviously a massive moving of the goalposts, if I may say so.

In trying to understand the thinking behind it, I looked at the Explanatory Notes. In those, it mentions that, broadly speaking,

“Internal controls refer to the system of policies and processes established by the management of a club that allow it to continue operating in an effective, orderly and efficient manner”.


That may seem innocuous, but it goes once more to the whole issue of mission creep. The Bill does not define internal controls—and remember that we are talking about 116 clubs, and we are saying that a regulator is suddenly going to have powers to explore those internal controls.

Again, the Explanatory Notes say that those internal controls are looking to make sure that the club is being run

“in an effective, orderly and efficient”

way, and that they help a club to operate in such a way. First, is that the role of a regulator, to get involved in the internal controls of every club, as to whether it is running efficiently? Suddenly, we seem to have appointed a management consultant on steroids, who will be looking into the cost of each club and opining on it. Surely that is not the sort of thing we want to do for 116 clubs.

Then, what does that bring in? Why not the IT department of a club? I think we would all agree that digital information technology comes into the definition of the effective, orderly and efficient operation of a club. So, are we now asking the regulator to do that? Maybe we should be hiring Capgemini, IBM and whoever else to start to get into it.

Suddenly, we start to see this mission creep. Then, we realise that the other parts we are trying to bring in, on having protection for clubs and the taxpayer in Amendments 50 and 253, become all the more important. Not only have we now got the concern that this regulator will be looking into every nook and cranny of the internal controls of a club, but who will be footing the bill for all of this? There is a blank cheque that either the taxpayer or the clubs are going to have to foot. I think we would all agree that we probably do not want either of them to do it, but as this is set up here and now, the regulator has absolutely been given the remit to do that.

In my Amendment 253, I am trying to make sure that at least this does not fall on the taxpayer; I think we would all agree that we do not want that. I must admit that I do not feel particularly comfortable about that, because I do not want it falling on the small clubs—or any of the clubs for that matter—but I am absolutely sure that I definitely do not want the taxpayer to be funding a regulator to look into the internal controls of 116 clubs and whether they are effective. However, I do not think that we want the clubs to have to do that either.

It is a long-established principle that the regulator is paid. I am familiar from my old media days with Ofcom being funded by the broadcasters, and that has to be appropriate, because we do not want the taxpayer to do it. However, what sort of control do the clubs have over this? All of a sudden, the regulator says that it is going in and to look at every single nook and cranny of their internal control to opine on whether they are efficient and effective—and the really good news is that they are going to pay for all of it as well. Is that really what we want from a regulator? I do not think it is. We started off with a very small mission and, suddenly, the regulator is looking into the internal controls of 116 clubs. I really do not believe that this is what we want.

That is why, in my amendments, I am first trying to return the regulator back to internal financial controls, which we can see a role for. Secondly, I am making sure that this does not fall on the taxpayer. However, if this falls on the clubs, we need to think about how we can give them some sort of control to avoid them having to pay a blank cheque for all of this.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

Most of what the noble Lord said would be done during an audit. All of these companies will have audit, and almost everything he mentioned will be conducted by the auditors. Plainly, it would be completely duplicatory for that to be done twice over. The issue is whether the regulator would have access to the audit. I agree with the noble Lord about the need to avoid cost, and wherever the cost falls, audits—as I am sure he knows—are ever more expensive, because the obligations on auditors are increasing the whole time. There is a lot at stake here.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This is another example of the benefit of getting different brains on the committee. I absolutely hope that that would be the case, but it is probably a question for the Minister to answer. It is definitely logical.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will make some brief comments. As I read the Bill, the Secretary of State providing some finance might be necessary, particularly in starting up. One of the things we do not want is an underresourced regulator blundering around making mistakes. A bad regulator is the worst outcome you can have, and that is usually because it lacks resources. When the Minister responds, can she give us some idea about when the power to give extra money would be used? This being done badly would be the worst result.

When the noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about regulation, I am afraid I kept thinking about Fulham and Al Fayed. Are your internal control structures right? Are you doing something wrong? The damage that could be done by bad organisation immediately catches in the back of my throat. The regulation will not be straightforwardly financial; it is also about reporting structures, the care of your workforce, et cetera. Surely that should be covered by the Bill. These are questions about where you draw the line. If we have a regulator, does it regulate the whole thing? I think it has to; it cannot be just financial. If these are socially important structures—this is what we keep coming back to—we have to look at this question.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has a point about the costs involved. I hope that we will get an answer when the Minister responds—at least a rough ballpark figure—because it will clarify what we will do. Those of us who approved the idea of a regulator think that it has to be properly resourced and that it has to cover the whole thing. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more guidance about what will happen and what the Government’s thinking is at this point, because they should have an answer by now.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I ask the noble Lord this given his experience of consulting in a lot of entrepreneurial and start-up situations. I know that he has done lots of these types of moves. Clearly, when you invest in a start-up business or a club you will have business plans. They might be good or bad business plans, but they are normally based on an investment and an expansion. In this case, given that the regulator can say no to those business plans and that investment once it gets into it, I assume your investment proposition would suddenly be up a creek. I would like to hear the noble Lord’s opinion on what that will do to the investment proposition.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, makes a very good point. If some local worthies approach you and ask, “Will you invest in this club?” and you say, “Well, I’ve got to figure out what it’s going to cost me”, and they then say, “You’ve also got to figure out whether your plans are going to be acceptable to the regulator”, again, you would turn your back. Entrepreneurialism is the heartbeat of the economy, as several noble Lords have said in this debate over the past few days. This regulator proposal just turns entrepreneurs away from wanting to invest.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

It would be helpful if the noble Lord could give examples of entrepreneurs wishing to invest in football who he has spoken to. I have spoken to a lot of entrepreneurs, including people who have invested smaller amounts in smaller clubs and larger amounts in Premier League clubs. They know exactly what they are anticipating and what they are going into. Of course, as part of their business plan, they are factoring that in. There is a figure, there is a concept, and investment has not gone down in the past 18 months. Indeed, further major investment in major clubs in English leagues is likely to happen soon. What is going wrong if they are all running away? Can he give a single example?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I posed the question, and I can give an example of that. I have mentioned to noble Lords before that I have experience of the Brighton situation and know the board and the set-up there quite well. Brighton is a perfect example, and it is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not in his place, because he is very familiar with it. It was a club without a stadium or good training facilities. An owner, Tony Bloom, came in and invested a lot of money in it, with a plan predicated on investing in players and doing a lot of analysis to get the best ones from around the world. It was absolutely a start-up scenario where he was heavily investing, and part of that was the concept of being able to yo-yo in terms of having parachute payments. He cited to me the example of West Bromwich Albion, which at that time had been promoted and relegated and promoted and relegated, but each time, because they had the parachute payment, they were able to become more sustainable.

Suddenly you get a situation whereby someone is thinking, “I want to do another Brighton like Tony Bloom, but I do not know what my cost base will be. I do not know whether the regulator is going to stop me going on with my plans because it thinks I am unsustainable or make me deposit a large sum of money as a financial buffer. I do not know whether my parachute payments, which are part of my plan, are then going to be taken away. Suddenly I’ve got a hell of a lot more risk involved”. I can only believe that that is going to dampen enthusiasm to invest in the first place. That is a very real example.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I apologise to the Committee for going over my allotted time, but I hope that it will appreciate that a great deal of that time was taken up not by me but by entirely welcome interruptions by other speakers.

In the interests of trying to move this on fast, I will stop talking about this issue of “What is it going to cost me?”, important though it is to have far more understanding of and far more limitations on the regulator’s ability to charge, and will move on to that of “What I will get?”. As soon as it becomes possible for a club to get money out of this arrangement, suddenly you have discussions about parachute payments and backstops; you have supplicants; you have lobby, lobby, lobby. It is called crony capitalism, state capture, rent-seeking. These are the dangers that you get when you involve the Government, and although we are calling it a regulator, this is a governmental action. It is essential that we limit the amount of money that that regulator has to play God with football in this country.

With those problems, it goes beyond just stopping the regulator spending beyond the levy amounts, as I understand Amendment 253 to say. We need to ensure that the levy amounts in the first place are suitably parsimonious and as little burdensome as possible to the clubs. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had to say, but let us not be too free with other people’s money. I am sure it is not popular in all parts of this House to quote the great Baroness Thatcher, but she had the great remark, “You can spend other people’s money until pretty soon there isn’t any more”. Let us think about the impact.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests declared in the register. I support Amendment 71 tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which raises a crucial point regarding the backstop mechanism. We must be clear at the outset about what this mechanism governs and, critically, what it does not.

First, it is vital to understand that the backstop is categorically not about the fair apportionment of collective football revenues. Each party—the Premier League and the EFL—has its own central broadcast revenues. Indeed, the EFL has just secured a landmark five-year domestic broadcasting deal worth nearly £1 billion, increasing its central revenues by 50% from next season. This is testament to the Championship’s growing competitiveness and appeal.

I will not dwell on the fact that many of its recipients are incredibly wealthy—I believe there are nine billionaire owners in the Championship, along with many other extremely well-funded ownership groups—but I will dwell on the fact that, despite its very healthy income, the EFL does not give any money to the National League. It gives no funding to the leagues directly below it. It is the Premier League that supports the National League. Far from some sort of neutral arbitration to allow all parties to share with each other, the backstop is in fact a mechanism for the forcible redirection of billions of pounds of Premier League revenue only. In other words, this is one set of private businesses handing over money to another competing set, even if they do not want to give more than the £1.6 billion they already do and it damages their ability to compete.

The critical point, therefore, is that this backstop mechanism represents a completely unprecedented and untested intervention in what are the private commercial rights of Premier League clubs only. It impacts uniquely on Premier League clubs. The gravity and novelty of such an intervention demands the most careful consideration. Crucially, the backstop introduces a major and radical change in the Bill: the inclusion of parachute payments. This decision was taken without adequate consultation with Premier League clubs.

I mentioned earlier in Committee that just seven out of 20 clubs were invited to a 30-minute meeting on the Bill with the Secretary of State between the Government taking office in July and the decision, which was taken in October. It is no surprise that this lack of consultation has produced such a reckless decision. There simply cannot have been an appropriate understanding by the Government of its potential consequences.

Parachute payments are not a financial convenience; they are a cornerstone of the Premier League’s competitive balance. Without them, clubs cannot plan for long-term investment, or the stability required to maintain the intense competitiveness that is the hallmark of the Premier League and a significant driver of its global appeal. Parachutes are also—this is an often-overlooked point—a key part of the financial incentives for Championship clubs to invest in that league, knowing that if they reach the promised land, it will not all be undone with one bad year.

To fundamentally alter this system risks undermining the very factors that have made the Premier League such a global success and one of the UK’s greatest soft power assets. Potentially harming the magic ingredient of the Premier League’s competitive balance threatens to destabilise long-term commitments, jeopardising investment in lower-league stadiums, academies and community programmes. I believe it would fundamentally undermine the Championship, too.

We should also consider the concerns raised by UEFA. It has warned that the backstop mechanism could disrupt the balance of power in football governance and negatively affect the competitive equilibrium in both domestic and European competitions. UEFA has urged the Government to carefully reconsider their approach, emphasising that mandating redistribution in this way risks deterring amicable solutions and the very investments that underpin the success of English football.

This unprecedented intervention into private commercial rights must be carefully scrutinised. It very obviously has a differential and disproportionate impact on the clubs within the Premier League. It is also clear that the consequences of this seismic and deeply flawed intervention have not been fully understood. We do, as UEFA has said, need to reconsider this critical issue.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my amendment to Clause 71 on financial redistribution, and to add to the very valuable points made by my noble friend Lady Brady.

What the Bill seeks to do—which I have not seen in relation to any other regulator in the UK—is to give the regulator unprecedented powers to take money from one part of the sector or certain companies and give it to another. In any other field, this would be unheard of. Can you imagine the FCA saying, “I think HSBC should give some money to Barclays”? Can you imagine Ofwat saying to Severn Trent, “Thames Water is having a bit of a hard time, can you help it out”? Can you imagine Ofcom saying that Sky should help ITV out where advertising revenues are going down? That is unheard of among regulators.

I value the days in Committee as there is such knowledge around the House, so I would love it if any noble Lord could come up with an example of where a regulator has got the power to take away money from a part of the sector or company and give it to another. I would love to hear it.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

On the noble Lord’s point, can he explain to me what happened to the banks when the financial crash came and they ran out of money, or the money was disappearing? Who stepped up then and financed all the banks? The Government did. That was an example of rebalancing and ensuring that the money supply could keep going throughout—that is why they did it.

This Bill will ensure that the rest of the pyramid can survive and carry on. One document I read today says that in 2022-23,

“20 members of the Premier League and five … in the EFL … received 92% of the distributable”

wealth—£3 billion—while

“the other 67 professional clubs”

got £245 million. Is that fair?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That goes right to the heart of this conversation. I can point out loads of industries where there are only one or two top companies. Think of the share of the search revenue that Google has. Is that fair? Is it the role of a regulator to get involved and say, “Oh, Google, you should give some money to Bing, because it’s not doing that well”? That is exactly my point.

The noble Lord made a point about the banking sector. The Government stepped in there because they felt that there were wider consequences for the whole economy. They stepped in; they did not say, “Barclays, you should give some money to HSBC”. What we are talking about here is fundamentally different. It is a different set of regulatory powers that I do not think anyone has seen—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

We are talking here about a fundamentally different thing: the football pyramid and its sustainability. That is what this Bill is about. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was entirely fair. Is it fair that the top 20 Premier League members and the top five clubs in the Championship get 92% of the television revenues generated, when it is the whole of the football world, in a sense, that helps generate those revenues? I do not think it is fair, and I want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Markham, comment on its fairness or otherwise.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable? Is it fair that Verstappen has won the championship four or five times in a row and is earning far more than everyone else? That is about sporting competitiveness—or competitiveness in anything. It is not the role of a regulator to start to redistribute income; I believe fervently that we will then get the law of unintended consequences.

My noble friend Lady Brady talked about parachute payments. This weekend was a perfect example of why the Premier League is the most popular league in the world. Crystal Palace held Man City to a draw. Can you believe that Crystal Palace—fourth from the bottom, right on the edge of being relegated—would have invested that much in players if they knew that, if they got relegated, they would lose all that money and face almost financial ruin in the Championship without it? I do not think so. I think a regulator would have said, “Oh, Palace, it’s not very sustainable having all that money when you could go down”. That would fundamentally alter the competitiveness of those games. That is the value of the Premier League. People will tune in, because they know that it will not be a walkover between Palace and City in this example; they know that it will be a competitive game.

Countries all over the world are prepared to pay more money than anyone else to see these games because they are competitive. Take the Bundesliga or the Italian or Spanish leagues: there are two or three top clubs and then a lot of also-rans, so it is not competitive in the same way. That is the danger we face here. By allowing regulators to redistribute income, on the basis that it is not fair that the top clubs are getting more, you will alter the whole competitiveness of the structure. Again, we say that it is not fair, but is it fair that the Championship is the sixth wealthiest in the world, while the Premier League is the wealthiest? Why is that? First, it gets a lot of payments down from the Premier League as part of voluntary arrangements. Secondly, it is because of how the whole of football has been set up for clubs to be promoted: money is being invested to give them a chance.

We have all said many times that this is our number one industry worldwide—there is no doubt whatever about that. We then have the second tier, which is number six worldwide. There is nothing else like that, and I believe we are at risk of putting that whole system under threat if we meddle in these ways.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I declare an interest, having acted recently for Manchester City in relation to the charges by the Premier League. I put it to the noble Lord that the system he and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, portray of Premier League clubs having the normal activity of a commercial company that can to do what it likes is simply incorrect. The Premier League itself imposes considerable restraints via financial fair play on what companies can spend and how they use their money. It does that because this is a sport, and the effectiveness of the sport depends on competitive constraints. What the regulator may or may not do is simply an aspect of that. The world that the noble Lord portrays simply does not exist.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He makes a very strong point, which is that the current system of regulation for Premier League clubs, and the EFL doing it for its clubs, seeks absolutely to set up that competitive environment and those financial fair play rules. My point supports what the noble Lord said: there already is a system of checks and balances, which is working well and making sure that our English Premier League is the first in the world and the Championship is the sixth. Why do we need a regulator coming in between that?

I perfectly accept that there are certain things that the regulator is important for, such as the breakaway league, but is it really the best place to start to have financial distribution from one club to another? That is why I brought this amendment forward. We are fundamentally asking a regulator to do something that we have not asked any other regulator to do in the whole of the economic environment. I thank noble Lords for their interventions; they have added to the debate. I look forward to discussing this further.

Briefly, my other amendments, Amendments 126 and 130, again try to ensure that we do not get mission creep, that we are quite clear about the information the regulator should be asking for from the clubs, and that we cannot set up a regulator that is allowed to go on a complete fishing trip in a lot of these areas. The amendments would set out what information the regulator can ask for from clubs and what they should provide in their strategic business plans, so that we are all clear about that without an endless list that goes on and on. Again, I speak in the context not just of the large clubs; a lot of these are very small clubs, without a large amount of resource to reply to lots of information requests. We need to be quite clear about what we are asking the regulator to do.

I hope this has contributed to the debate. I hope noble Lords will reflect on the fact that we are asking the regulator to do more than we do in any other sector—in our most successful sector too—and whether that is wise.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with

“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—

in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.

The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.

It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.

The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.

This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.

The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.

This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, asked about fairness; and there was also a discussion from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, about businesses being required to give away their cash. The Premier League itself recognises that financial redistribution is needed to ensure the solidarity of the football pyramid, which is why it already voluntarily distributes its revenue to lower leagues. The Government’s strong preference is for an industry-led solution that works for all of football. However, given the importance of financial distributions to financial sustainability and that ensuring a timely satisfactory agreement is in the public interest, the regulator will need to have a targeted backstop power to intervene if necessary. The regulator will have targeted powers to intervene as a last resort. This means that, if football cannot deliver a solution, the regulator will. These backstop powers have been carefully designed to incentivise an industry-led solution that delivers the right outcomes with minimum regulatory involvement. As such, the regulator will only ever intervene as a last resort.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I want to make sure I properly understood the answer to the question on the circumstances in which the Minister would say it was appropriate to take money from one club and give it to another. The Minister answered that the Bill was not seeking to do that because it was looking at the movement of money between competitions. But if you take more money from the Premier League to give to the Championship and other clubs, by definition the clubs receive less money, so that is what happens there. I am not sure that saying money is coming from the competition, not the clubs, is an answer; the money is coming from the clubs. I was not sure about the Minister’s answer. When you change the payments between the Premier League, that directly impacts the clubs and the money they receive.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 157 in my name; I am grateful to those who have added their names. It seeks to add to the governance requirements for licensed football clubs that there should be at least two independent non-executive directors appointed to their main board. The remit for these directors should follow the definition set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code developed by the Financial Reporting Council. I thank the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust for its support for me in putting this amendment together.

As your Lordships know, independent non-executive directors bring independent expertise, scrutiny and accountability to a board, and would have a key role to play in upholding the principles of the Bill around financial sustainability and supporter engagement. I had a quick look and noted that Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club have several independent non-executives; West Ham are reported to have a couple; Liverpool have solely Kenny Dalglish; and Arsenal have simply the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham.

I think we should have more than just the one. The appointment of independent non-executive directors, and their role in advising and scrutinising a club’s financial position, can be an effective check and balance. It is likely to mitigate the need for an independent regulator to intervene regularly, as more issues will be successfully addressed through the accountability that independent non-execs provide.

They can also safeguard the interests of the association’s stakeholders and membership, as the code sets out. In this case, that means supporters. The UK Corporate Code sets out how independent non-execs have a role in overseeing effective engagement with stakeholders. In the case of football, this would of course be adopted to cover supporters and would really help to develop progress on the requirement for effective fan engagement by providing independent senior voices who would play a key part in ensuring effective dialogue with fans.

In that vein, the DCMS requires all national governing bodies for sport to appoint independent non-executive directors to their boards, as set out in the sports governance code. So I ask the Minister to set out provision for independent non-execs on the face of the Bill, or give us reassurance that the regulator itself will bring forward requirements around this issue in the governance code that it will produce.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I would like to support absolutely these amendments. I say for the record—and I am sure that I speak for all contributors to these debates—that I am making these points because I care deeply about football and about what is best for football. I think these amendments absolutely do that.

I have many examples of sitting on boards as an independent non-exec director; they are absolutely the sort of people we want, making sure that a club is putting forward appropriate business plans that are sensible, and sometimes taking a risk—risk appetite is in these amendments—but with the right approach to doing so. Having that balance on the board, of owners, supporters and independent, wise heads, has got to be a sensible thing. With that in mind, I offer my support for the amendments.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 54, 156 and 157. I apologise to your Lordships for not being here on the previous day of Committee but, as chair of Sport Wales—I declare my interest—I was chairing a meeting of Welsh governing bodies of sport.

In my time involved in sport, I have sat on a number of different sports bodies, including British Athletics, where intimate knowledge of the sport is really helpful, and the Olympic Park London Legacy Development Corporation, where wider knowledge of a range of sports makes a difference. I put my name on these amendments because I sat for two years on the board of Yorkshire County Cricket Club and was interim chair for nine months. As part of that, I was challenged occasionally on whether I knew the laws of cricket and how dare I put my name forward for this. But I was not there as an independent non-executive to umpire a game; I was there to bring good governance to the county.

Bringing that jigsaw of skills is really important. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, there is a sports governance code. Olympic and Paralympic sport have benefited greatly from having this. It is about bringing that expertise, accountability and scrutiny. For me, it is about setting the tone for the whole pyramid of the game, and how that feeds up to the Premier League. If we do not get this right for the pyramid, we do not get it right for the sport. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

56: Clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
(d) to promote the growth of English football (referred to in this Act as “the growth objective”);(e) to promote and protect financial investment in English football (referred to in this Act as “the financial investment objective”).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates two new objectives the IFR must promote.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope that this proves to be a quicker debate, because I would hope that what we are talking about here are not controversial measures but measures that go to the heart of the regulatory framework we are trying to establish. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is not in his place. Although we are supportive of the principles of regulation, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said, we are trying to make sure that that regulation is set up in the right way.

Our debates in Committee stage so far have all been about the first few pages of the Bill, which are about the regulatory framework and objectives; the point of my Amendment 56 is that if you only have an objective of sustainability, it is one-dimensional and that is not good for the game. I will freely admit that I have spoken to a Premier League club which wrote to me about that—Brentford—and I hope that noble Lords would agree that Brentford is exactly the sort of club we should listen to in this sort of debate, because it is a club that has come through the divisions and is seen as a well-run model club—and one definitely not guaranteed its place in the Premier League. So it has an important contribution to make to this debate.

The letter that Brentford wrote to me and to local MPs says: “a regulatory framework that prioritises stability above all else would be disproportionate. It could mean the regulator financially constraining some Premier League clubs more than others. For Brentford, a club that has risen against the odds to the Premier League, such restrictions risk stifling our ability to grow and compete with larger, established clubs”. That is why I tabled this amendment, to expand the regulator objectives. Otherwise, there is the danger exactly as written in the letter, which I am happy to share with all Members here and which has also been sent to local MPs.

The exact concern of Brentford’s chairman is that, if the regulatory framework is just based on financial sustainability, it risks entrenching the closed-shop nature of the top clubs and will restrict the ability of the Brentfords of the world to compete. From its point of view, having an objective that promotes the growth of all English football, protects financial investment in the game and means that you know you can reap the rewards from investing in a club is very important. Amendment 56 seeks to add this, and is, I hope, uncontroversial, because who would not want to promote growth? We know that that is the Government’s number one objective, and it is fundamental to the Bank of England’s remit and a lot of other regulators also have growth objectives.

In the new clause proposed in my Amendment 58, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) refer to the “financial soundness” and “resilience” of clubs and aim to ensure that the regulator takes into account the whole financial picture of clubs, looking at their assets and liabilities—their whole balance sheet—and their ability to meet any future liabilities. In other words, we want a holistic picture of their sustainability. Funnily enough, that is akin to what the Chancellor announced in the Budget about government spending and so-called “persnuffle”—or PSNFL—which looks at assets and liabilities to make sure you have a rounded picture of the health of the Government’s, or the country’s, finances. Amendment 58 tries to encourage a similar approach to looking at the overall wealth of a club and its overall balance sheet strengths.

Proposed new subsection (1)(c) looks to make sure that the heritage of English football, which we all agree is vital to all this, is rounded out in its definition, while proposed new subsection (1)(d) looks at all the things that are key to the health of the overall game. It would make sure that the regulator, when it looks at how it acts in this space, looks at the overall health of the game—the growth of football in terms of TV viewership, matchday audience, fan engagement, number of clubs and number of fans. I shall not repeat the arguments that we made earlier, but noble Lords will be aware that these are the key things—that media rights go to the heart of the value and TV stations around the world pay to back those media rights, for the health of those sorts of objectives that we would like to see it have.

That is why, in introducing this amendment, I am trying to make sure that we have a much more rounded definition, going to the heart of the framework of what we hope the regulator would look to do and have in place. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support what I hope is a very sensible objective and will take on board the concerns of the Brentford chair—if it was only one-dimensional and looking at financial sustainability alone. I hope that the Minister will be able to take those points away for further consideration. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I support Amendments 56 and 58, tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which together propose critical enhancements to the objectives of the regulator. These amendments seek to establish clear and ambitious goals for the regulator, while ensuring that its powers remain proportionate and carefully defined.

Amendment 56 introduces two new objectives for the regulator: to promote the growth of English football and to promote and protect financial investment in the game. These objectives are not just desirable; they seem to me to be essential, if we are to preserve the vibrancy, competitiveness and international appeal of English football.

The Premier League is the crown jewel of global football. Its growth and success have been driven by significant financial investments, made in good faith and with the legitimate expectation of stable and predictable regulatory conditions. Without that certainty, clubs would not have been able to commit to the infrastructure, youth development or community programmes that are now the pillars of our game. Yet, as currently framed, the regulator’s remit is heavily focused on constraints, restrictions and redistribution. While these may be important, without taking growth into account, they risk creating a chilling effect on the investment that has driven English football to its current heights. To constrain without also providing balance is to risk stagnation or, worse, managed decline.

Amendment 58 complements this by providing detailed definitions of these new objectives. It outlines what growth means in practical terms: increasing TV viewership, matchday attendance, fan engagement, the number of clubs and the number of fans. These are good proxies, in my view, for the growth of football and ensuring that the regulator’s actions are aligned with the long-term health of the game. Although promoting growth and protecting investment are vital, I listened carefully to the Minister’s argument that a growth duty or purpose could in fact be scope-widening. I believe that she indicated that it could place the regulator in conflict with the broader European framework of football governance. This would risk significant repercussions—but only, of course, for those clubs competing in European competitions.

This is one of the tensions at the heart of the Bill. You could have proper balance in the regulatory regime’s design, so that it is de-risked, light-touch, pro-growth and business-friendly and protects this highly successful industry—but, in doing so, you potentially risk the future of a smaller number of clubs which may, one day, be barred from European competition. Alternatively, you could do what the Government have done, and you therefore risk setting up the regulator to be harmful to growth, overly intrusive, risk-averse and dampening to investment—but, in doing so, you are more likely to be compliant with UEFA, although no one has been able to provide a cast-iron guarantee on that.

In supporting these amendments, I urge Ministers to take this opportunity to refine the objectives of the IFR to set it firmly on the path to success. We need to create objectives that support football’s future without overextending the regulator’s reach or compromising the autonomy of competition tools, which must rightly remain the domain of the competitions themselves. I hope that, as we deepen our scrutiny of the Bill, we can find a better balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for Amendments 56 and 58. I look forward to reading the letter to which he referred when it is forwarded to the Committee.

On Amendment 56, while we appreciate the intent of the amendment and agree that English football should continue to be as successful as it has been, we do not believe the amendment is necessary to safeguard this. The growth of English football over the past 30 years and the financial investment in it have been widely regarded as a huge success and have turned it—as has been noted by a number of noble Lords across the Committee—into a global export. However, in pursuing such growth and investment, systemic issues have grown throughout English football which justify regulation. Some noble Lords have suggested that football’s growth is evidence that regulation is not needed, but these two things are not mutually exclusive. English football is both successful and fragile, with issues of sustainability throughout the pyramid.

We have discussed the reasons why the game needs regulating at some length, so I am not going to go through them again, but the main aim of the Bill is to address these issues to ensure financial soundness and resilience of clubs and to safeguard the heritage of English football—all things that football has shown itself unable to do. On growth and attracting investment, on the other hand, football has already shown itself to be incredibly good at both those things and does not need, in our view, a statutory regulator to promote them. Indeed, as is clear from its articles of association, “promoting” the game is one of the objectives for which the FA is established.

Noble Lords have raised concerns about breaching UEFA and FIFA’s statutes. In my view, stepping on the FA’s toes here is exactly the sort of thing that might risk that. That is why we do not believe that the regulator needs primary objectives to actively pursue growth and financial investment. However, the Bill already makes provision to safeguard these features. As part of its general duties, the regulator must have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football—domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football—rather than a general growth objective.

The bespoke and novel duties in Clause 7 acknowledge the specific market features that have contributed to English football’s growth and will be key to its continued success. Much of the success of English football has come from investment and exciting competition, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Indeed, a stable and more certain regulatory environment will be more likely to attract investors. These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things like broadcasting revenues, transfer fees, sponsorship deals and many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would also be required to become actively involved in these areas.

My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie highlighted that these amendments would broaden the scope of the regulator. We cannot on the one hand warn against scope creep and over-intervention in a successful free market and on the other hand call for a statutory regulator to be tasked with growing the market. Regulators exist to address specific problems that the market cannot address itself. Football has a sustainability problem and not a growth one.

On Amendment 58 specifically, the additional detail in subsection (1)(a) to (c) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause is already included in the Explanatory Notes which cover heritage. Explanatory Notes provide illustrative detail about the intention behind legislation and not drafting intended for the Bill. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the purpose of Explanatory Notes is to provide additional illustrative detail. However, this kind of detail is not appropriate for the face of the legislation, because good legislation should be clear and concise, and the current drafting is in line with that ambition.

I want also to draw noble Lords’ attention to the letter I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on this same topic of a growth duty. A copy of that letter was also placed in the House Libraries. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[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.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

59: Clause 7, page 5, line 16, leave out “, so far as reasonably practicable,”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that this one will be simpler. A lot of the amendments in this group are just trying to make sure that there is more specificity; I go back to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s previous point about making sure there is absolute clarity on what we want the regulator to do. Amendment 59 would take out

“so far as reasonably practicable”

because we want to make sure that there are no areas of greyness. We think that these are things the regulator must do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will not go around the same loop again. A lot of this is again around the growth and success objectives . We rehearsed those arguments quite well in the previous groups. However, I would question a new point that the Minister made: that, somehow, they would open up the regulator to legal challenge. I am not sure that I agree with that. I do not believe that the growth objectives that Ofwat, Ofgem, other regulators and the Bank of England have open them up to any more legal challenge. It is just saying that it is a criterion and trying to make sure that in any decisions they make, they have more than one objective that they are seeking to fulfil. I will not go beyond that and rehearse the arguments, but I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 is not about whether women’s football should be covered by the Bill; it is about something quite different. I will very briefly illustrate it with an issue that would arise at a regulated club, the National League Solihull Moors Football Club, should this Bill go through. I do not know whether the issue has been resolved and, in a sense, that is rather incidental to my point.

The issue, from what I have ascertained, is that Solihull Moors has a women’s football team as well as a men’s football team and, because of that, with a licence, it would be regulated under the men’s football team. The women’s football team would be quite separate, but the women’s football team plays in the same complex as the men’s team. Also, the business had been structured with a set of community interest companies that were required to break even. The one that the women’s football team played on did not break even, which led to them being thrown off their pitch. However, the facility had been part-funded by the Football Foundation.

That is a particular comment on Solihull Moors, but also a real example from this year. Using it as an illustration, in that situation, where funding has been received and a women’s club has been, as some claim, thrown off so they are not able to play on a facility, is this an issue for the regulator? It should be. The regulator could, for example, look at whether the moneys that were given by the Football Foundation should be repaid. While it is a small issue in monetary terms, if you are a women’s football club and you are thrown off the pitch, it is a big issue. So the reason for tabling this amendment is to see whether this kind of situation is covered. If it is not, I suggest it requires an amendment similar to or the same as the one I have tabled. I beg to move.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support and to give an example of a similar unintended consequence. This is around the 3 pm kick-off on Saturday games and not allowing those to be televised. Again, that was set up exactly because Premier League games, if they were televised, would impact the attendance of the Championship League and other EFL games, because they knew that people would be watching those games instead. Within that regulatory framework, they had a view on the impact of how that one competition could impact the other competitions.

In a similar way, what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is trying to do is to add, in proposed new paragraph (d), the impact on the women’s game and make sure that it is one of the considerations taken into account. Without it, you could be taking action around the men’s games in the competition that has those unintended consequences—so I support it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is one of those that reflects real life. Anybody who has set up any club of any structure at any point knows that, if you are working between two bodies—I have seen it very much at junior level between rugby and cricket clubs—their interests seem suddenly to contradict each other under a new set of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will have a reassuring answer about the flexibility and ability of the regulator to intervene and try to find a way forward, because this is a real problem that will occur every now and again. It is probably not a structural thing, but “Is the flexibility there?” is a genuine question. I do not think any of us wants one of our regulators to suddenly start having a negative effect.

My Amendment 70 in this group basically says that support should be available for the women’s game. We have already covered this issue at some length, so I will not go much further than to say that we should not exclude giving the women’s game some help, because it is developing and going forward, and it is very important to the foreseeable future of developing elite-level sport in this country. We should address that by having another look and asking what the capacity is.

I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is ready to speak to her amendment. Can we find out what flexibility there is and what the regulator is seen to be doing to handle these not quite down-the-line situations, where there are positive outcomes that we hope would be facilitated by it?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting—and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important.

It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real.

UEFA says that it is concerned and that:

“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.


My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now.

Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to clarify my position. I did not want an absolute yes; I wanted a probable yes in the most civilised world. Going forward, that is what I was looking for, because we cannot let UEFA dictate our sovereign law to us, can we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 68, 89, 120 and 121, which focus on ensuring accountability and transparency and are critical to protecting the Premier League and safeguarding its unique role in the football pyramid.

This Bill introduces a radical new framework for the governance of football, one that includes significant regulatory oversight and redistribution mechanisms. We are the first country ever to do this, and I am worried that we may well suffer from first-mover disadvantage. There are profound changes in this Bill that will impact every level of the game, and it is essential that the Government and the regulator are held to account for the consequences of these measures. Regular reporting is not just a bureaucratic necessity; it is a vital safeguard to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders, particularly those of the Premier League, are protected.

If we are to introduce a regulator with such extensive powers, it must be held accountable for the full range of consequences its decisions may have. The competitive balance of the Premier League—its very dynamism and unpredictability—is central to its global appeal. This, in turn, drives its ability to attract world-class players, managers and investment, generating revenues that flow down the football pyramid. Yet, without baselining these measures or requiring the regulator to report on its impact in these areas, we risk implementing a system that could inadvertently undermine the Premier League’s success.

Similarly, international competitiveness is a crucial factor for the Premier League. It is the most watched and admired league in the world, representing a unique soft power asset for the UK. The ability of Premier League clubs to compete at the highest level in Europe has been a driving force behind their commercial success, as well as their capacity to support the wider game through solidarity payments and grass-roots initiatives, all of which are voluntary. However well-meaning, if the regulator’s interventions dampen investment or create uncertainty, this international competitiveness could be severely compromised, and yet somewhat incredibly there is no requirement in the Bill for the regulator to monitor or report on this.

Investment is another area where the absence of reporting requirements is deeply concerning. Premier League clubs operate in a highly competitive global market for players, sponsorship and broadcasting rights. Long-term investment decisions, whether in infrastructure, youth academies or community programs, depend on regulatory certainty and stability. If the regulator’s actions lead to a chilling effect on investment, it would have profound consequences not only for the Premier League but for the whole football ecosystem. Again, there is no provision in the Bill to track or report on this impact, leaving us blind to the unintended consequences that could arise.

The amendments before us, particularly Amendment 68, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, seek to address these gaps. They recognise that we cannot introduce such a transformative regulatory framework without ensuring that it is judged against the metrics that matter most: competitive balance, international competitiveness and the ability to attract investment. Unless we retain these qualities, we will end up with a much smaller, less well-funded and far less successful football pyramid. The question of stability in a rapidly declining ecosystem becomes somewhat irrelevant.

We must ensure that we have a clear understanding of whether this legislation is achieving its aims or instead introducing unintended and potentially harmful consequences. For example, if the redistribution mechanisms introduced by the regulator begin to destabilise clubs’ financial planning or deter investment, we must know about it quickly and transparently. If the regulator’s powers are being applied unevenly or disproportionately, we need to be able to challenge and rectify that. If the Premier League’s unique role in funding the pyramid is being undermined by these changes, we surely need a mechanism to address that impact.

I encourage the Minister to consider the spirit of these amendments and, between now and Report, consider ways that the accountability and transparency mechanisms can be considerably strengthened.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

73: Clause 8, page 6, line 3, leave out “should” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to use its resources in the most efficient, expedient and economic way.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I have got up a number of times today to say that a particular amendment is not controversial and I hope it will be an easy one for the Minister to agree to. I have not been correct yet, because the Minister has not agreed to any, but I think that with this one I am on to a good thing. Everything that I am trying to do here is to make sure that what is written down in the Bill really does happen.

To take the exact wording on the regulator’s regulatory principles, in a number of places it says that it “should” use its resources

“in the most efficient, expedient and economic way”.

We are saying no, it must. It “should”, as far as is reasonably practicable,

“co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”

with clubs, owners and competition organisers. Again, we are saying no, it must. There can be lots of good intentions, and lots of times when you can say that someone should do something. My mum told me that I should eat my greens. I cannot say that I always did. In all these instances, it is about making sure that the wording that the Minister and her team put in the Bill means that things really do happen.

Again, we suggest that the regulator “must” act in a way that

“recognises the specific context of football and the fact that clubs are subject to rules, requirements and restrictions”;

it “must” act consistently,

“recognising the differences between clubs and competitions and the differences between the circumstances affecting clubs”;

it “must” act in a way that

“recognises the responsibilities of owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs in relation to the requirements placed on clubs under or by virtue of this Act”;

and it “must” act

“as transparently as reasonably practicable”.

Again, we are just making sure that everything that the Minister has put down by way of the wording of Bill must happen, not just should happen. I think, this time, I am backing up exactly what the Minister would like to see happen. There are also a couple of other sensible amendments from others that fans should be consulted and engaged with in all this, which I also hope would get a resounding yes from the Minister. I look forward to hearing her response in terms of making sure that what she would like to happen really does happen. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 78, and I would like to begin with a quote, that

“there is no reference to players as a group the regulator should co-operate with … There is not a single mention of players, even though they are the main employment group within the regulated clubs. This means that the decisions that the regulator makes could have a tangible impact on their employment. For example, if the regulator exercises its powers to withdraw approval for a competition or refuses a licence to a club owner, there would be a direct consequence on the contracts of and conditions for players … Just as with fans, the professional game could not exist without players, so will the Minister explain why players are not mentioned in this part or elsewhere in the Bill?”—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 16/5/24; col. 129.]

Those are the words of the then shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock MP, on 16 May, when the original version of this Bill was in Committee in another place. For that reason, I know that I am pushing at an open door here, because Stephanie Peacock is of course now the Minister for Sport.

As shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock not only robustly argued in favour of her amendment but then forced the matter to a vote, which, as is always the case with opposition parties in Committee in the other place, was lost. Therefore, it was both surprising and disappointing to myself and a number of others to find that this Bill—amended only in minor ways from the Tory Bill—did not include mention of players. Ms Peacock’s amendment in May this year included five categories of people and organisations to be added to Clause 8. I have taken out four of those so as to focus on much the most important: namely, the players.

Jock Stein, one of the greatest managers ever, once said, “Football without fans is nothing”. He was right, of course. As evidenced in 2020 during the pandemic, all games at the top level in England were played behind closed doors, and I defy anyone to say it was worth the effort. We all know it was driven shamelessly by the financial aspect of it, but as an experience it was, exactly as Mr Stein said, nothing.

Important as fans are—I am very much one of them—it was shown to be possible to play matches without them. Try doing the same without players. The players are not simply another stakeholder group in football, and it is fatuous, not to say insulting, that they should be categorised as such. Decisions made by the regulator have the potential directly to impact their careers and their contracts, as Stephanie Peacock said. It should not be left up to the regulator to decide whether they need to engage with them or not. In essence, this is, I believe, an employee relations issue rather than a football issue, as is the need for players to be viewed as distinct from other stakeholder groups.

The PFA—Professional Footballers’ Association—represents a very high proportion of the professional players in the Premier League and the English Football League. You might think that young men earning millions of pounds each season would not feel the need to join a trade union. You might, but according to the PFA, membership among Premier League players is close to 100%. Based on my experience as a full-time trade union official, that is remarkable in any sector of employment. But for such wealthy individuals to have calculated that there is benefit to them in becoming part of a union and working collectively, and having people work on their behalf, is astonishing. To suggest that players and their trade union should not be a group of people that the regulator should—to quote Clause 8—“proactively and constructively engage” with is frankly a nonsense.

The absence of players and their representatives constitutes a clear and obvious lacuna in this Bill so, with respect, I say to my noble friend, please sort it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord might need to be content with my sympathy at this stage. I genuinely look forward to future discussions on this point.

Overall, the Government have been clear that the regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, meaning that it would co-operate constructively with the regulated industry where possible. There are some parts of the Bill—this is one of them—that directly relate to the people or organisations being regulated, rather than to stakeholders across the game more widely. The intention of the regulatory principle in question is to guide the regulator to co-operate constructively specifically with the regulated industry where possible, as this co-operative approach might not otherwise be explicit. We think that to list every possible stakeholder, or possible interpretation of fans or fan groups, that the regulator “should” ever engage with during the course of regulation, could be onerous on participants and the regulator. However, I am happy to meet my noble friends to discuss further how we can reassure fans that they will be consulted where appropriate. For supporters and their relevant representative groups it is clear that the regulator should be acting in their interests. There are several places where this is formalised through specific consultation requirements; for example, in relation to Clause 45, the prohibited competitions clause.

For decisions materially impacting players, I recognise that the game is nothing without players, as I said earlier; it is absolutely right that the regulator works with them on matters that impact them. As I mentioned, the specific regulatory principle in question is intended to steer the regulator to co-operate with the regulated population. This does not include players, as they are not themselves subject to the regulator’s regime. This would be not an appropriate place to include players, or indeed any other stakeholder group. However, I understand the desire among noble Lords to ensure that important stakeholder groups are appropriately acknowledged in the Bill.

I am sure we will revisit this topic ahead of Report and in future debates. With that said, and for the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group. I hope that noble Lords and my noble friends will not press them.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I thought we had an uncontroversial set of amendments with a great deal of consensus around the issue of players and fans. I thought that we almost had the ball in the back of the net. We had some sympathy from the Minister, who said she was looking forward to discussing this further; unfortunately, we did not quite get a yes. I hope we can firm that up as we continue to press for a goal as the Bill approaches Report. There was a large degree of consensus in the Chamber that we definitely “must” include players and fans, rather than just “should”. I hope we are able to pursue that further as the Bill progresses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my Amendment 104, but I start by saying that I agree with the thrust set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that we want this to be a comprehensive report. We all agree that we need a common factual basis on which to try to agree onward action. As such, I agree that this needs to be the first thing that the regulator does. With that, I am sympathetic towards the quicker timeframe. Obviously, I am mindful that we need to give it a certain amount of time so that it can do the report properly; six months is probably unrealistic as a quick proposal but 12 months should be enough time. Beyond that, given how quickly things move, every three years is a reasonable frequency.

Before I come on to Amendment 104, I admit that I am a bit concerned by Amendment 95, which asks the regulator to report with its assessment of how well each club is managed. It is one thing working with each club and looking at its plans; having to report on that is almost like a different level of burden of proof when it comes to the evidence needed. I am sure the regulator will be nervous about putting this down in black and white without having a strong evidential base. When you are trying to do that across 116 clubs, it creates a duty that is probably burdensome on the whole industry. It would result in a whole host of Deloittes, KPMGs and PwCs of the world going into every club, all 116 of them, to try and find assess how well they are run.

I turn to my Amendment 104. Key to this is football financial health. We all agree that it is critical to everything that we have been talking about—to sustainability and to the whole pyramid payment system and how much money is going at the top end. Every time I have proposed something, I have thought it was not controversial, and have said so many times over the last few days. I have then been—“upset” is too strong a word—mildly disappointed that it was not taken up by the Minister. I hope that asking the regulator to write in the “state of the game” report a section on football financial health is a no-brainer. Even though we are getting towards extra time, and into stoppage time, I hope we can have one thing chalked up that the Minister is happy to take away and agree to tonight.

Similarly, on the state of fan engagement, one thing that united the whole Chamber earlier was when we were talking about how fans should be consulted in all this. I hope that including a section on fan engagement in the “state of the game” report would be considered as close to a no-brainer as you would hope to get.

Lastly, proposed new paragraph (f) looks at the operation of the current regulators and an assessment of how well the independent regulator performs. That comes on to a clause later with the subsidiarity principle, and we are asking the independent regulator to, for want of a better term, contract out different functions where a current regulator—the FA, the Premier League or whatever—is better placed to do that. That is the general principle that we hope to get established. However, for it to be able to do that, the football regulator in the “state of the game” report first needs to report on the functions of the current regulators and how well they fulfil them.

Again, late into stoppage time, I hope these will be seen as quite sensible and uncontroversial measures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on them later.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, we are, I hope, on the home straight, to take a metaphor from another sport. I rise to support an amendment in this group, to say nothing about some others, and to oppose some others.

I take my thoughts from a reflection on Hong Kong and its enormous success as an economic entity for many decades before, lamentably, we had to lose it to the Chinese—with the current appalling situation that we now see in Hong Kong. Why was Hong Kong so successful? It is generally acknowledged that Sir John Cowperthwaite took an attitude of benign neglect to its success. He arrived in Hong Kong, he was urged to govern, and he said, “No, I’m going to step back because it’s doing very well without my interference”. He assiduously prevented reports being written about Hong Kong.

I am very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Brady because it seeks to limit the report, and I say nothing about the various timing amendments, which I do not feel qualified to discuss, but I did say at Second Reading that this Bill was a Christmas tree and, unfortunately, people like to hang baubles on Christmas trees: “Let’s look at women’s football”; “Let’s look at the environment”; “Let’s look at so many things”—it is irresistible when you have a Christmas tree. What is wrong with having a report on these interesting, important things? We go back to Cowperthwaite: if you have a report, people feel urged to do something about it. If you say, “My report says that there’s something wrong here, or that more could be done there”, then that moves on to the impetus to interfere more and more.

There are two attitudes in this House to what is going on in football in this country. There is the attitude that we know best and that we say what is fair—fairness seems to be the prime objective among many speakers. There are others who are saying, “Why are you wanting to interfere with what is working so well?” I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for defying the injunction not to repeat ourselves, since he repeated himself earlier this evening in claiming that there was this catastrophic situation in the lower orders of football. I do not see it. Football is thriving. Others said the same when the point was made before—but good on him for defying this attempt to suppress deeply held thoughts, even if spoke twice.

No actions have no consequences. Attempts in these amendments to put more and more into this Bill will be detrimental to the great sport of soccer in this country.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

124: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Delegation of regulatory powers to competition organisers(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations direct the IFR to delegate some of its functions under this Act to specified competition organisers.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IFR may only delegate a function to a specified competition organiser if it is satisfied that the competition organiser—(a) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with the same degree of stringency as the IFR;(b) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to the IFR’s objectives under section 6;(c) would discharge the function delegated under subsection (1) with regard to section 7(2);(d) would not alter or disregard its obligations under this section.(3) If the IFR is satisfied that the specified competition organiser meets the conditions set out in subsection (2), and the Secretary of State has directed the IFR to delegate a function under this Act, the IFR must abide by the Secretary of State’s direction.(4) If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the IFR has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the direction to delegate a function under subsection (1), then the Secretary of State may take such action as is deemed necessary to ensure the IFR does comply.”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope noble Lords will see this as another constructive measure that is in keeping with many of the issues on which there has been broad consensus in the Committee. The principle behind the amendment is delegating regulatory functions to the competition organisers where they are considered best placed to discharge them.

Many noble Lords have said that the competition organisers already regulate their own competitions to a large degree. We are all aware of the fit and proper owner test and of financial fair play, to mention just a couple of areas. We would all agree that competition organisers have extensive experience in this space, having been doing it for a number of years. If they were discharging a lot of the functions and the regulator was also discharging them, there would be the danger of duplication. Again, I think most noble Lords want the regulator to be light touch and low cost, particularly as all the costs are coming out of the pockets of the clubs.

I hope that this will be seen as a sensible move. The regulator would be asked to look at each area of responsibility and to decide which of the competition organisers might be best placed to carry it out. If the regulator thinks that, in delegating some of those powers, the current Premier League or EFL owner tests are insufficient, there would be nothing to stop the regulator saying that, on top of competition organisers’ existing processes, it would like them to add X, Y and Z. That would be entirely appropriate and would give the competition organisers the opportunity to prove themselves.

Given that the regulator would have overall responsibility, it would always have the opportunity to take the powers back if it thought the competition organisers were not up to the job. Amending the Bill in this way would be seen as a sensible move. It would send a good signal to football that we want to work with it in setting up the new regulator. We have all heard the Minister say that she does not want to increase the burdens on the independent regulator—in fact, she made that point in responding to the last group—so here is a way to reduce the burden we put on the regulator and to delegate it to a local level, where others are felt best placed to carry out the functions in a collaborative way. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, puts his case very powerfully but I for one am not persuaded, because the delegation of functions to competition organisers would frustrate the very purpose of independent regulation. The whole purpose is that regulation is done by the independent regulator. As I said in considering the previous group of amendments, it is of course vital that the regulator consults those affected and takes into account their concerns and expertise. But to delegate the responsibility to those who are being regulated, or to the competition organisers, would be an abdication of regulatory responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that statutory regulation should exist only where it is necessary. In our view, the regulatory system is already designed to be proportionate so that intervention can automatically scale up and down as needed. Clubs that are already well run and are lower risk should not face additional requirements. We want standards in the industry to improve, and if this were to happen and the market was derisked, I would expect the regulator to be less involved and less noticeable. I want also to stress that the regulator will not stop the leagues imposing their own competition rules so long as they do not conflict with the regulator’s regime. However, this is not an amendment which we feel would serve the sector well, and that was why I asked the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords; it has been a genuine exchange of views. I am also glad that it gave an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to make a positive point about Spurs over the weekend—and that there was a positive point available to be made about Spurs.

I genuinely appreciate the constructive challenge that we have had in this debate. I feel that there has been a bit of a misunderstanding, however. When we say that we are asking for delegation, as in contracting out the function, it is not abdication, because the independent regulator will always be ultimately responsible for that decision. It always has the final say. It is just trying to adopt the policy, which I think many of us believe in, in terms of devolution or subsidiarity—call it what you want—but it is another form of trying to make sure that the power is as close to the coalface as possible, at the same time always giving the opportunity for the regulator ultimately to make the decision. As my noble friend Lady Brady said, this point was absolutely envisaged in the White Paper. The FA and UEFA welcome it, and I must admit that I cannot see why we would not want those who are closest to it to have responsibility first.

Again, I want to clear up that I am not talking about the clubs; they are different from the competition organisers. The clubs and the Premier League, for instance, have very different views, as we have seen recently on financial fair play. The amendment is about giving those regulatory bodies—such as the FA, the Premier League and the EFL—an opportunity, where they are best placed to do it, to make those decisions themselves. If the regulator does not agree with that, ultimately it always has the final say.

I hope we will be able to return to this, because I hope it would demonstrate the collaborative approach that all noble Lords and the Government are trying to bring. I know that it is what we have all said many a time in this debate as well. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a fair question, but the amendment that the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to support today is what I might call a dangerous dogs amendment. It is basically reacting—legislation by anecdote or by the lowest common denominator. You find one bad apple in a barrel and you smash the barrel up and throw the apples everywhere. This will have a big impact on clubs.

I pray in aid the financial guidelines 17/6 that the Financial Conduct Authority put out in 2017 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That was about stopping people laundering money—fair enough. What it has actually resulted in is dozens of people in prominent positions, such as local councillors, Members of Parliament, judges, chief executives of local authorities—even Members of your Lordships’ House—not being able to open bank accounts, and their sisters, their wives, their husbands and their brothers not being able to open bank accounts, because of onerous, overzealous regulation.

I am not saying that the IFR would necessarily develop in that way, but some of the most innocuous wording in primary legislation can sometimes give rise to that kind of gold-plating. It began, of course, under the anti-money laundering and counterterrorism regulations that we all supported. My point is that the sins of some clubs should not be visited on all clubs. My noble friend Lady Brady is absolutely right that if we do not have an objectives-based strategy, if we do not have a focused strategy for dealing with the most egregious issues, we will have a universalist approach of assuming that all clubs will be owned by dodgy owners—drug traffickers, people smugglers; I exaggerate for effect. There is the perception that that is the case and, of course, it is not the case at all. I say to noble Lords: be careful what you wish for.

On Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, I have very serious issues with this clause, because it fails on its own merits, in many respects, because it is not commercially flexible. If we are going to give a power, under Clause 22(5), for the Secretary of State to vary the licence conditions—and I have big problems with “add”—which are already settled, we will want to do that quickly and in an efficacious manner. We will not be able to do that using the affirmative resolution in this House and the other place, because we cannot move quickly or make decisions quickly to respond to commercial change.

I am also very worried about the limited sanctions available in terms of mission creep. Clause 22(6) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (5) only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR”.


Again, mission creep is almost built in there. Then, in Clause 22(7):

“A request under subsection (6) must explain why the IFR considers that the making of regulations under this section is compatible with the purpose of this Act”.


The question is: is a Secretary of State likely to refuse that? Probably not. There is not really a built-in self-policing mechanism in the Bill, and it is because of the wide-ranging powers and the permissive nature of this wording that I have problems.

The provision fails because it is too onerous and too draconian. However, it also fails on the other side, in that it cannot work quickly enough to address the specific club-based issues that the licencing condition variation is needed for. For those reasons, I ask the Minister to consider Amendment 128 carefully. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it invites the independent football regulator to exercise its powers ultra vires, which is not in the best interests particularly of smaller clubs.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I rise to speak to my Amendment 173, but first I echo the words of many other noble Lords. I support the outcomes-based approach the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is trying to achieve with his amendment, and I think there is broad support for that.

To pick up on the debate between the noble Lords, Lord Maude and Lord Bassam, on strategic business plans, and to give a bit of detail by way of background, the information one needs to provide for an audit is necessarily backward-looking, looking at the last year for which accounts have been provided. A strategic business plan, by its very nature, is forward-looking. I would be very surprised if smaller clubs with, say, a turnover of £500,000, do that as a matter of course. Lots of small businesses and shops have that sort of turnover, and I am sure they are not doing it either. I am not saying it is not desirable, but it could quite quickly turn into a consultant’s paradise if every single club, including the small ones, suddenly had to produce three-year or five-year business plans. They would have to resort to consultants to do that, which would become burdensome.

This brings us to another problem that we have talked about a number of times. Noble Lords have heard me talk about liquidity issues. By trying to solve the sins of one or two clubs, we are in danger of putting a burden on all of them, particularly if we are asking clubs to deposit money as part of a liquidity ratio to ensure they have a safety net. That will inevitably take money out of football. I had a meeting with the Minister and her team last week, and I thank her for that. We had a very good conversation about exactly this point, and what she promised was a proportionate, sensible approach.

That brings me to my Amendment 173. We are having very sensible conversations, in general, based on the desire of all noble Lords to do what is best for football. However, the problem is that whatever happens here, the Secretary of State has the ability quite easily to change everything. So, in response to everything we discuss, such as ensuring that the licences required are proportionate, the Secretary of State can easily say, “Well actually, we want a more muscular approach”. All the debates over the last five days and counting, the meetings and the various consultations could quickly be set aside because a different approach is wanted. That is my concern.

It does not matter where we have got to in the conversations we have had over the past few days: they will suddenly count for nothing if the Secretary of State can completely change the rules, raise the bar and change the discretionary licensing conditions. I would like assurances from the Minister. How do we safeguard against the fact that these—in my opinion, very good—debates could suddenly be set aside because in a few years’ time, a Secretary of State wants to take a completely new approach, which could be entirely disproportionate?

This has been a rigorous and constructive “two plus two equals five” process, as I call it, as we try to agree on an approach to checks and balances. None of us will be totally happy with how it turns out, but we have all had constructive input into to it. However, all of that could be quickly set aside by a future Secretary of State being able to change the approach.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Under Clause 22(6), the Secretary of State may make the regulations the noble Lord is concerned about only if requested in writing to do so by the IFR, so the Secretary of State does not have complete discretion. We would be creating a new system which may reveal defects and omissions in its operation, so surely it is sensible to have a power to amend it if defects become manifest.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. Of course, we want to have the flexibility to react to such situations. This issue comes up in various other contexts, such as government statements. There are lots of points where the Secretary of State can vary the approach. The question is: how do we get the checks and balances right? However, I think there is basic agreement on this issue, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Mann for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each of the amendments in turn before responding to the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, and their opposition to the entire licensing regime standing part of the Bill. I will endeavour to get the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, a response to his question in the near future; I do not have the detail he requested today.

Amendment 128, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 129A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, relate to owners. The first seeks to make identifying an owner’s source of funds a prerequisite for a provisional licence. I absolutely agree that it is crucial that the regulator has oversight of an owner’s funding, so it knows how a club expects to fund its activity and the source of this funding. I hope my noble friend will be reassured that this is why a club is already required to provide such detail as part of its application for a provisional operating licence.

When a club submits its application for a provisional operating licence, this must include a strategic business plan. Among other things, this must contain detail about the club’s operating costs, how these costs are to be funded and, crucially, the source of such funding. This will enable the regulator to scrutinise the source of the funds. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, importantly, a club must set out how much it plans to spend and how it will fund that cost. Furthermore, if the regulator has concerns at any time—even before it has received its provisional operating licence—about the source of an owner’s wealth, it can test that owner. Should it find that an owner’s source of wealth is connected to illicit finance, that owner will be found unsuitable.

I also agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider “significant influence” by owners. Of course, what is meant by “significant influence and control” would need to have been set out in guidance before clubs and the regulator can consider who meets this definition. That is why I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time, in order to give this clarity.

Noble Lords should note that the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 that define “owner” come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation on the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day, whereas the licensing provisions and other provisions which rely on the definition of “owner” will be commenced later, by regulations.

I turn to Amendment 132, from my noble friend Lord Mann. Although the risk of clubs going into administration will be greatly reduced, it may still happen. The regulator revoking a licence would be the ultimate punishment and would be used only in the most extreme of circumstances. I assure my noble friend that the regime is designed to avoid the situation his amendment aims to provide for, and that ensuring that a club has a plan for adverse shocks is at the heart of the regulator’s financial regulation regime. This might include a plan to keep the club going if, for example, an owner can no longer continue to fund it. We have spoken to many football clubs while developing the Bill, and know that the well-run clubs already do this.

Turning to Amendments 167A and 168A to 168C, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his intention that the regulator should identify a clear risk before acting. The amendments are not necessary to achieve the aim in relation to his points on discretionary licence conditions, as was explained to the Premier League when it suggested these exact amendments prior to introduction. The regulator can attach discretionary licence conditions only if the conditions contribute to a club meeting the threshold requirements, or if the conditions advance systemic financial resilience.

The regulator is bound by its general duties, meaning that it must have regard to its regulatory principles and must act reasonably and proportionately. In effect, that means that the regulator can attach a discretionary licence condition only to address a risk it has identified. I assure the noble Lord that the regulator cannot take any action that is meaningless or does not advance its objectives. If a club feels the regulator is doing that, it can appeal any action through the appeals regime.

Ultimately, these four amendments all seek to raise the threshold for intervention and limit when and how the regulator can act. For every discretionary condition, the regulator would have to demonstrate that there was no possible alternative to achieve the aim than to impose that specific condition. This would be an unacceptably high bar, fettering when the regulator can act. In practice, we think the risk of legal challenge could lead to an excessively risk-averse regulator, afraid to act swiftly or at all.

I thank my noble friend Lord Wood for Amendments 168 and 169 and for his genuinely constructive approach to scrutinising the Bill, which I very much appreciate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also expressed concern on the points he raised. My noble friend has met with officials and me regarding these amendments and I hope that those meetings were useful. We believe these amendments would severely limit the regulator’s flexibility to meet its objectives and ensure clubs reach their threshold requirements. The regulator should not take its lead from the competition organisers. Of most concern is the blurred accountability that this approach would introduce. The fan-led review laid bare the significant issues with self-regulation, and that is why we are introducing an independent regulator.

That said, the system is designed so that the regulator should not need to intervene if the required standards are being met. If clubs meet their threshold requirements naturally—for example, through their compliance with the industry’s own existing rules—the regulator should not need to apply discretionary licence conditions. The model in this legislation is the right one, with clear accountability, and where discretionary licence conditions are not applied in a one-size-fits-all way but reflect each club’s specific circumstances.

My noble friend Lord Bassam raised the basic requirement for clubs to have a sustainable business plan. I agree with him that that is important. That basic requirement, as well as the requirement for clubs to engage with their fans and ensure that their owners and officers are suitable custodians, are light-touch, appropriate measures that should already have been in place.

On Amendment 169A, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator is already required to publish guidance about how it will use discretionary licence conditions, including the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That will give upfront clarity to clubs and competition organisers. However, the Government do not believe that the level of detail in the noble Lord’s amendment is appropriate for the Bill. He and I would agree that we are not in-depth experts on football finances—had I looked ahead in my speech, I perhaps would not have said that, and I apologise. I am not an in-depth expert on football finances, the inner workings of football clubs or how football clubs operate; I will allow the noble Lord to make his own conclusions on the extent to which he is. The regulator will employ experts in this sector who will have far more knowledge of these areas than we do. They will also have a stronger evidence base on which to base their actions, informed by things such as the “state of the game” study and consultation with the industry itself. That is why we have required the regulator to publish guidance on discretionary licence conditions and why we think it should be left to do this independently. We do not want to unintentionally hamstring the regulator with overly prescriptive requirements for the guidance it must produce.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, if the regulator agrees with him that it should include detail on financial shocks, liquidity and debt management, it will include this.

I turn next to Amendment 173, from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The Bill outlines the specific types of discretionary licence conditions that the regulator may attach to a club’s licence to address its financial or non-financial resources or to improve systemic financial resilience. It is possible that, as the industry evolves, these types of conditions might not remain adequate to address the new or different financial risks faced by clubs, and there might be more effective ways to address them. That is why it is crucial that there is a mechanism in the Bill to enable the types of conditions available to the regulator to be updated. This amendment would deny the regulator this flexibility and potentially make the regime unable to adapt to changing economic circumstances. It is vital that the regulator has appropriate the tools to regulate football effectively, both now and in the future.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that the Bill does not give the regulator or the Secretary of State free rein to make changes. The Secretary of State can amend the types of discretionary licence conditions that can be attached only if requested in writing to do so by the regulator—a point highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The regulator would have to provide clear reasons and consult stakeholders ahead of making a request.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

125: Clause 16, page 9, line 35, after “rules” insert “which must be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day this Act is passed”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Regulator to set out its rules regarding licences no later than one month after passage of the Act.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I shall speak to Amendments 125, 133 and 135. Hopefully, this will be a fairly uncontroversial, simple set of amendments, which try and set out clear expectations on timing.

I am very aware that, while there is uncertainty as to what the discretionary licensing regime may be, that has an unsettling effect on both clubs and potential investors into the sector. We would all agree that this is not something that we want. We want everyone to know what the rules of the game are, so they can either get on with doing whatever they need to do to apply to those licensing conditions and/or, if they are looking to invest in the game, so they can have that degree of certainty as to what the rules of the game are going to be, so as not to have that potential chilling effect on any new investment.

Amendment 125 tries to give the regulator a time limit of one month from the passage of the Act. I am very aware that there is a shadow regulator in place at the moment, so I hope that this is something that the shadow regulator is working on in the meantime. That is why I think that a one-month deadline is quite doable in that sense.

Related to that is Amendment 135, which says that once a club has put a discretionary licence application in, it will receive a reply from the regulator within one month. Again, I am very much assuming that these things are not a binary process. I would expect the club to be in liaison with the regulator as it put this application in and be receiving advice as it did so—so a one-month timeline at the end of that is quite relevant.

It is for us to set some expectations on the regulator in the Bill. In Clause 17(9), the regulator gets to set its own timing for it all, so it is quite appropriate that we are saying that, given the uncertainties placed on clubs, we expect these sorts of reasonable timeframes. Again, I am quite happy that we decide what those appropriate timeframes might be through our discussions on this, and there may be arguments to vary that slightly—but one way or the other, it is quite important that we set out what those timings and expectations should be.

Finally, Amendment 133 tries to give more time for how long provisional licences last. We want to try and avoid a cliff-edge situation whereby clubs are suddenly in the provisional licensing regime and then do not get beyond that. We would all then have a set of circumstances which I do not think any of us have really planned for, in terms of what would happen and whether the club would have to stop taking part in the competition at that point. Amendment 133 tries to give a bit more time around the provisional licence, increasing it from three years to four.

The main reason for these amendments is to make sure that these things are considered and that there is a good debate on what the appropriate timeframes are. It is reasonable that we put down what those timeframes should be, so clubs get as much certainty as possible in this. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to his Amendments 125 and 135. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to him and to the Minister what may be more palatable than what his amendments suggest. Amendment 125 is rightly concerned that the rules for a provisional operating licence should be made speedily. Everybody must know what the rules are. The amendment would require that these rules be made no later than the period of one month beginning with the day that this Act is passed. If the noble Lord is going to bring the amendment back on Report, I respectfully suggest that it would be more acceptable to say within one month from the date when the Act is brought into effect. The noble Lord will know that under Clause 99(1) and (2), Part 3—with which we are concerned—comes into effect not when the Act is passed but at a later date when regulations are made.

In relation to Amendment 135, the noble Lord is rightly concerned that the IFR should make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence speedily. He lays down a period of one month from when the application is made. The amendment would allow for an extension of only two weeks. It is an absolute rule, subject to a two-week extension period. I respectfully suggest that that is far too confined. It is normal in a provision of this sort to allow for the period to be extended if there are exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to envisage cases where, rightly, the IFR cannot take the decision within a period of one month plus two weeks.

For example, the IFR might reasonably take the view that it needs answers from the club to questions of detail, which it puts to the club, and the club may not provide those answers, or be able to provide them, within the period of six weeks for which the noble Lord’s amendment allows. I understand and I share the concerns at the root of Amendment 135, but it really needs to have an exceptional circumstances provision.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 135, the regulator has the necessary flexibility to ensure that all clubs that meet the test for a provisional licence will be granted one. Rather than set an arbitrary and inflexible deadline in primary legislation, we believe the regulator should have the ability to set in rules the period within which it will make the decision. The regulator will have a better understanding of the industry and will be able to determine how much time is required for those applications. It will also be required to consult on those rules so that it can make sure the processes and timelines work for clubs, which is important. Ultimately, that will ensure that the regulator has the flexibility independently to set the timings for the application process, while still ensuring upfront clarity for the industry. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and I will respond to the points raised during this debate.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his helpful suggestions. Having some certainty on the timeframe is quite valuable; the major concern is that while uncertainty is out there, you will get clubs and potential investors holding back on investment. Addressing that is the main intention behind these amendments. I hope that, as we progress further, we can look at some of those helpful suggestions so we can get the balance right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 125 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The alternative drafting I have proposed is more workable. I hope it gets the agreement of my noble friend, who has spoken very eloquently on the importance of trying to simplify this and make it absolutely clear, so that there is no uncertainty or complexity and no additional cost is required, where clear drafting can help clubs meet the requirements of the regulator. I hope that the alternative drafting that I have put forward in Amendment 242A to Clause 50 is more workable for clubs and the regulator. Linking the notification of the regulator’s objectives as the sole factor—it is the regulator’s objectives that should be considered, rather than all the regulator’s functions—would clarify the situation and meet the spirit of what I believe is in the legislation. I hope this will meet with the Minister’s agreement.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

In speaking to my Amendment 332, I will follow the words of some other noble Lords and say that I find it quite confusing that we have so many disparate amendments grouped together.

My Amendment 332 would stop the Secretary of State being able to define a season. I hope that someone—maybe the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—will tell me that I have read this wrong somehow, or that it is not the intention at all, but I think we would all agree that, when it comes to regulatory or government overreach, trying to define a season and when it should start and end is not the role of government or a regulator. I hope that this is quite an easy one to clear up, because I would be very surprised if that is the intention behind it. The relevant Clause 92(3)(a) says that:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change … the definition of ‘football season’”.


It would be very welcome if that could be clarified; otherwise, I suggest that we might want to delete it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment very briefly on the subject of football agents, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I declare an interest: my son Joel Pannick is a football agent—I am very proud of my son—who works at Base. My perspective of football agents is that there are still abuses; they need to be regulated and they are regulated. The era of unregulated bungs no longer exists to the extent so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

Let me say why I want, in the interests of balance, to inform this Committee of what the position is. Football agents are now licensed and they have to pass a demanding examination. They are regulated by FIFA and the FA. I should mention that the scope of the regulations was the subject of legal challenges in the last year, and those legal challenges partially were successful. It is the case that HMRC adopts a far more vigorous approach to this topic than it used to, and rightly so; it keeps a close eye on payments and receipts. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right that there are many agents who are not subject to HMRC because they are based abroad, but those based in this country certainly pay tax, and in many cases a great deal of tax. I thought I would just mention those factors in the interests of balance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

134: Clause 17, page 11, line 10, leave out “14 days” and insert “one month”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope this will be a nice, quick and simple group ahead of dinner break business. Clause 17 refers to awarding or refusing a provisional licence. I think we all agree that, if a provisional licence were not agreed, it would have serious consequences for a club, which would not be able to carry on playing or start a season, for example. That would have serious consequences on the fans, as well. All this amendment seeks is to give clubs sufficient time to respond. Generally, in serious situations, 14 days is not enough time to respond fully, so the suggestion is to give clubs a month in these circumstances. I beg to move.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments. Apart from Amendment 148, which I will turn to shortly, they all seek to extend to a month the minimum period for clubs, individuals and competition organisers to make representations to the regulator on a number of issues—far longer than the 14 days that the Bill sets out.

The 14 days set out in the Bill for representations is the minimum to ensure that the individual concerned has a fair amount of time to prepare and present any representations to the regulator, though it is not an absolute. The regulator may choose to specify a longer period if it thinks it is appropriate. However, the 14-day minimum also means the regulator can respond quickly to urgent issues without an extended delay if necessary. We do not think it is appropriate to introduce unnecessary delays into the regulator’s regime that would slow down decision-making and leave clubs in an extended period of uncertainty. A 14-day period for representations is not uncommon among other regulators such as the FCA and CMA.

Turning to Amendment 148 specifically, I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is to ensure that, if the regulator is looking to revoke a club’s provisional licence, the club will have an opportunity to make representations. I reassure the noble Lord that this is already captured by Clause 18(4), which says that, if the regulator considers that a club has not met the full licence test, it needs to give the club notice. This must include

“inviting the club to make representations about the proposed action”,

be that to extend the provisional licence period or to revoke the provisional licence. To be clear, the regulator would look to revoke a provisional licence only if the club had persistently and without excuse failed to take reasonable steps to meet the requirements for a full licence. This is a high bar. Therefore, the club will have had sufficient opportunities to take remedial action even before the opportunity to make representations under Clause 18(4). The club will also be able to appeal a decision to revoke a provisional licence if it believes the regulator has acted unfairly. This is yet another way in which the regulator can be held to account and decisions can be scrutinised.

I will close with the question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. I understand that the rationale of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in tabling the clause stand part notice is the same as that which we already discussed in relation to the earlier group on licensing. I am happy to provide further detail on Clause 18 in writing if the noble Lord wishes it, but, as I set out earlier, we do not believe there is a credible risk that clubs will refuse en masse to participate in the regime. Clubs at all levels of the game have welcomed this regime.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. The main thing is not only having a sensible conversation but making sure that the regulator is aware that, where there are circumstances in which more than 14 days are required, it demonstrates that flexibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 134 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am sorry that we did not have a proper exchange, because I was looking forward to that.

The reality is that the revenue that local community clubs get is predominantly gate money—match day revenue. As you go up the pyramid, a greater proportion comes from commercial sponsorship and merchandise; and then, when you get to the Premier League, pretty much half or more is broadcasting revenue.

I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Brady for this. More than half of the Premier League’s revenue from broadcasting is international—that took me by surprise. The next-largest part is commercial—sponsorship, merchandise and so on—and the smallest part is the matchday revenue. The point is that all this comes from the good will of fans, either directly from their pockets or because of their engagement and commitment. Tottenham happens to have a very large fan base in South Korea because our captain is South Korean. Our biggest sponsor is an Asian insurance company. Why is it supporting Tottenham? It is because there is a huge fan base in Asia.

After all, as we know—although we are sometimes shy of saying this in these debates—the Premier League is the goose that lays the golden eggs that then cascade down through the pyramid, to a much greater extent than in any of the football pyramids in other European countries. Therefore, the way in which clubs consult will be very different—but the suggestion that they need a regulator to enforce upon them the duty to consult their fans is to ignore this really important point: it is in their interest to keep their fans, wherever they are, on board. If ever there were a vivid illustration of that, it is when the European super league proposal came up. It was killed not by politicians, a regulator, your Lordships’ House or the other place but by fans.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will speak briefly to my Amendments 238 and 241. I agree with noble friend Lord Maude that it is absolutely in the clubs’ best interests to make sure that they are consulting their fans on this. If we are going to put things down, though, I will speak to two essential points.

A football club shirt is more than just the colours; it is the design as well. Any football supporter would know that the blue and white hoops of QPR are quite different from the stripes of Brighton—fans could maybe be involved in that. I remember with some humour that one Brighton design was a bit like a Tesco bag and the fans used to wear an actual Tesco bag. That probably cost the club a lot of money in lost shirt sales. But, generally, the fans have a role in that and in the name of the club—my Amendment 241 is on this—which I think most people would agree is fundamental.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am glad that the Government Chief Whip has been here to see the lively debate on all sides of the Committee, including on his own Benches, on this group. He will have noted that only two of the 19 amendments come from the Opposition Benches. So I am very glad that he has been able to join us for this lively discussion as we head into dinner.

I will not elaborate on the points that my noble friend Lord Markham made on his two amendments, to which I added my name, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Given that the Government are already looking at club colours, I am interested in why this is not extended to home shirt design, which my noble friend mentions in his Amendment 238.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 241, the name of a club is hugely important. It is not uncommon for clubs to change names. I gather that Bournemouth began life as Boscombe St John’s Lads’ Institute and Arsenal started as Dial Square, in the Dial Square workshop, and then became Royal Arsenal, I think because of a local pub called the Royal Oak, and Woolwich Arsenal—

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

172: Clause 22, page 15, line 3, leave out paragraph (c)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of the IFR to restrict a club’s overall expenditure.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 173A in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and Amendment 173B in the name of my noble friend Lord Hayward.

The amendments in this first group carry on from our discussion on the licensing regime on the previous day of Committee. The amendments rightly deserve their own group since they relate to the specific financial conditions that clubs will be required to abide by as part of their licensing conditions. My Amendment 172, which is in the name also of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, would remove Clause 22(3)(c). That provision permits the regulator to restrict the overall expenditure of a regulated club. We do not believe the regulator should be able to attach a discretionary licence condition which places an overarching restriction on a club’s expenditure. This is surely an overreach of the regulator’s financial powers. The point has been made on many occasions, not least by the Minister, that the aim of this Bill is to ensure the financial sustainability and resilience of football clubs. How would telling a club how much money it may spend aid it in achieving that goal?

The key thing here is not expenditure but profit. Spending £50 million on a player might sound like a lot, but if that player is worth £60 million, I think we would all call that good business. An expenditure cap could stop that happening. If the goal is financial sustainability, surely the focus needs to be on profit or cash, not on expenditure. It is almost like a manager of a football club saying, “Look, it’s not just good enough that you go out and win today. We want you to score in the first half, then the other team can equalise and then we need you to score the winner in the last couple of minutes of the game”. It is trying to micromanage and overengineer. No one can ever do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the repeated statements “For every winner there is a loser”, “The Premier League is in terrible danger” or “Football is in terrible danger” just ignore the fact that football is tremendously successful in this country. If for every winner there is a loser, there would have been no progress in the last 20 years. There has been progress and enormous success. We now have the greatest football league in the world. The statement that “Your biggest asset is only one accident on a training ground away from being worth nothing” completely ignores the fact that all football assets—all players—are insured. If, God forbid, your best player was injured irrevocably on the training ground, you would receive an enormous insurance payment, so it is just not true. The actual commercial realities of what is going on in football in this country seem to be completely mis-stated so often in this Chamber. I hope that the Minister will take heed of the tremendous success that private enterprise, unfettered by an onerous regulator, has created in the world of football in our country.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will sum up on a couple of new points. I always welcome comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because his forensic brain is really helpful in making sure we get to the bottom of what we are talking about. I have only just had a chance to look up Clause 22(4); this is about the regulator’s ability to restrict expenditure. It says that the regulator

“may not impose restrictions on expenditure of a particular kind or a particular transaction”.

That can be open-ended, unless the particular kind or particular transactions are defined somewhere; they could refer to anything. I do not know if the Lord, Lord Pannick, is aware of what they refer to, but perhaps the Minister could follow up on that, either now or in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments or their intention to oppose Clause 22 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and thank noble Lords for all the contributions to the debate on this amendment.

On Amendment 172 and the expenditure cap, the Minister referred to league rules on permitted losses, and that is exactly the point I am trying to make: permitted losses are different from expenditure. I completely get why you might have rules trying to prevent permitted losses, but with permitted expenditure you can spend a lot and still make a profit, and that is a good thing. Maybe we can explore further whether Clause 22(4) allows clubs, despite everything, to still spend money on players. As per the example I gave earlier, I am not quite sure that it does, but again, it would be good to consult or work on that later.

On Amendment 173A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I do not think any of us could envisage the regulator not consulting the clubs and the competitions, so it seems sensible to have that in the Bill. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to look at that.

On Amendment 173B and my noble friend Lord Hayward’s point about capital buffers, this really is an area of huge concern. The Minister said, “Well, if you’re reliant on an owner, maybe they need to provide more examples of how they could cater for that financial shock if they were to die”. The trouble is, as with so many clubs at that stage, that was exactly the Brighton and Brentford model—they were reliant at that stage on the owners bankrolling them behind what was a very sensible plan. But if, God forbid, something had happened to them during that stage, clearly, they would have gone, and if they had been asked to put aside some money as a buffer against that, that would have made their plan much harder to achieve. I know it is the view of both clubs that they may well never have embarked on those plans in the first place, because it was tough enough to begin with, and having to set some money aside makes the hurdle even higher. So again, I would appreciate it if we could return to that issue.

The last point about this clause overall, which goes right to the point the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made, is that there is a fundamental difference here. He said that for every success there is a failure, and that we have to stop that speculative spending. With Brighton and Brentford, it absolutely was speculative spending. With any team that invests in players ahead of their revenue, that is speculative spending. That is the excitement of the league and of the game: there are no guarantees of success behind any of that. But if we seek to restrict that, we are seeking to restrict the whole competitive element of the game we love: football.

The reality is that we cannot point to many failures; I think there have been two since the war. I do not want any failures, but are we really trying to prevent any club trying to embark on those success stories— I hope we are seeing it again now with Wrexham, who have come very far—because we want to protect against any failures whatsoever? That is the fundamental difference we are talking about here.

We have seen examples of asset stripping, and I absolutely agree that we want to guard against it. But owners wanting to put in a lot of money in order to really get behind a club, invest in players and gain promotion—to me, that is the fundamental spirit of the game we all love. I therefore hope that we will be able to return to that issue, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

180: Clause 27, page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (7)

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that Amendment 180 will be much simpler, because is a bit niche and, dare I say it, anoraky in nature, for which I apologise. It would amend Clause 27 by removing subsection (7).

This subsection states that where a prospective owner or officer does not inform the regulator of their intention to become an owner or an officer

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

that person must inform the regulator as soon as it is reasonably practicable. We probably understand the issue there. Not to mince my words, it is a slight tongue- twister. It is a bit confusing and nonsensical. In essence, it says that if someone has not told the regulator in the period when they were meant to, they must do so later

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

I hope that this provision is a fairly simple one to tidy up. Again, I think we all understand the good intentions here, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clear that up. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Moynihan to raise his amendments.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief in proposing my Amendments 187ZA and 187ZB. The drafting of the Bill states that if the regulator takes too long to determine applications for new owners and officers, then the applicants are treated as not suitable under Clause 32(5), through absolutely no fault of their own. This is not aligned with practice in other regulated sectors. It could have an impact on that person wider than purely their involvement in the club and be detrimental to clubs that have only one potential new owner, who is deemed unsuitable purely because the regulator ran out of time.

The change that I propose to Clause 32(5) would reverse the consequence of excessive delay, addressing the inherent unfairness in the current drafting. This is aligned with how statutory time limits on mergers work, for example. If the CMA fails to make a decision within a specified timeline, the merger is automatically allowed. These are clarifying amendments; I very much hope that the Government will see benefit in improving the legislation by accepting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate and the Minister for her response. While my amendment was anoraky by nature, I think we would all agree that the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan are quite serious. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, this is something that happens in all other regulatory environments, and other regulators manage to cater for that in exactly the same situation.

What my noble friend Lord Moynihan is suggesting is not, if the deadline has passed, that an owner is deemed suitable for ever. They will be deemed suitable only until the regulator is able to get round and opine. It would be a pretty silly thing to do for an owner to drag their feet and be awkward, for them to be allowed to do it only to be removed a few months later. That would be a big waste of money for them, and it would be completely illogical for an owner to try to game the system in that way.

So I am afraid that do not quite understand, and I think other noble Lords share in this. I ask the Minister to go back and think more on that, because it has got to be the right case. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, in a situation where the regulator is not able to pass judgement through their own incompetence, it is the owner, who might be perfectly suitable, who loses out. So I would be grateful if we could consider that further—but at this point I am happy to withdraw.

Amendment 180 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, that might be the noble Lord’s interpretation, but, ultimately, it is government that makes law.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, just to be clear for the record, no law was passed in this instance. In a matter of days the clubs quickly withdrew from the competition because, as my noble friend mentioned, it went down like a lead balloon and fans were up in arms. The Government were nowhere near it. That was a perfect example of where the clubs and the fans regulated themselves.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I have a very strong recollection of this because I wrote an article the day after the proposal came, which was published, like many articles at the time, and I remember that the very next day the proposal was withdrawn. It had nothing to do with the Government. By the way, I was not a politician at the time; some would say I am not one now, but it had nothing to do with Governments or Parliaments.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

251: Clause 53, page 43, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) any interest charged under paragraph (b) may not exceed the rate of inflation, as measured by the Retail Price Index, plus 2 per cent.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment limits the rate of interest the Regulator may charge on unpaid levies.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 251 in my name and to speak to Amendments 257 and 258 from my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

Amendment 251 seeks to place a limit on the rate of interest the regulator may charge on any unpaid levies. I think all noble Lords have agreed that we want to keep the regulator fees and cost burden on clubs as low as possible, so having a reasonable rate of interest seems helpful. The proposal is that we take the formula the Government currently use for tuition fees, and which is proposed for the tobacco levy, which is the RPI rate plus 2%. I am not absolutely wedded to that figure, but we believe there should be a figure we can all agree on.

Amendment 257 from my noble friend Lord Parkinson would remove the provision whereby the regulator does not have to consult on changing the levy if it considers the change to be minor. We understand the intent behind that provision, but all sorts of discussions could then be got into about what is minor and what is not, so it is probably easier just to establish that it be properly consulted on if there is a change.

Amendment 258 is pretty straightforward. It seeks to establish that if the regulator plans to change the levy rules, it gives six months’ notice before the chargeable period begins. We have said a number of times that we want clubs to improve their financial budgeting and planning, and this would help them to do that. With those simple changes, I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their amendments concerning the levy. On Amendment 251 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, setting the rate of interest charged on non-payment of the levy is an operational decision for the regulator, which needs the flexibility to charge interest at a rate that deters non-payment. A rate that is too low could increase the incentive for non-payment and jeopardise the regulator’s ability to carry out its functions. The level of interest charged would be subject to the same consultation requirements as the levy itself. This will ensure a firm but fair level of interest.

Amendment 257, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would require the regulator to consult every regulated club and others such as the Secretary of State and the Treasury on minor changes to the levy rules. These would be immaterial amendments or replacements to levy rules, such as correcting mistakes. Going out to gather the views of all clubs feels like it would be a disproportionate burden on clubs and on the regulator. For material changes, the Bill already requires the regulator to consult as appropriate. No club, especially those in the National League, wants the administrative burden of unnecessary consultation.

Finally, on Amendment 258 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, requiring the regulator to publish its levy charge six months before the chargeable period would create an operational challenge. The regulator would have to estimate a levy charge having only half a year’s costs to base it on. This could lead to inaccurate levy charges, which could see the regulator underfunded or clubs needlessly burdened. The current requirement of charges being publicised as soon as reasonably practicable strikes the right balance, we feel, between adequate notice for clubs and operational flexibility for the regulator to ensure an accurate and appropriate levy charge.

I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. As I say, these are not major things, but I must admit, I am a little surprised. The Government rightly see fit to set interest rates on all sorts of other things they deal with, such as student loans, tobacco and vapes, so it seems strange that they do not have a view on what should be an appropriate rate for the regulator to charge. I am not aware of that happening in other parts of the government network.

On the final amendment, this is about the regulator behaving responsibly if it is going to change things. Here, there seems to be a pattern. We had a debate earlier about what happens if the regulator does not approve someone as being fit and proper within the right time period. Again, the Government were saying the regulator might not be able to do it, so that person is automatically deemed not fit and proper. All noble Lords would probably agree that we need the regulator to be a bit more on its game than this. We should be a bit tougher and say that there is no reason why it cannot work out its rules on a change to the levy and give clubs six months’ notice. If the regulator is asking clubs to be financially disciplined, it should be doing the same.

I pose those as things for the Minister to consider but at this point, I will happily withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 251 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a compelling point. It is the case that the EFL is dominated by the Championship clubs. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the EFL has secured a beneficial deal. It is not for me, her or anyone else in this Committee to say what the right sum of money is. I am merely pointing out that the distribution has changed over time. The available money for distribution has grown as the game has become more successful as a product unique to England and Wales, and it is for the IFR to get the distribution right. The point that the noble Baroness makes is that we should not be arguing the case for either the EFL or the Premier League; we should be arguing the case for football, because it is all of football that we want to see benefit, so that the pyramid truly acts as a pyramid and acts well in strengthening the national game.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I want to echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. With 44 amendments in this group, it really is hard to get your head around them all. Although they are given the broad title of “Regulatory powers”, I do not think that is conducive to good debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Many of the amendments are consequential. I have highlighted the main points for the benefit of the Committee and that was my objective so that it would get the message.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to do that. It was not specific to this group. There have been a number of examples which have been unwieldy, to say the least.

I turn to Amendments 260, 269 and 293 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. They alter the backstop method to enable the regulator to trigger the resolution process. The current drafting permits only the competition organisers to trigger it. That is quite a profound change, if you think about it. To date, we have been saying that the regulator should step in only as a last resort if the competitions cannot reach an agreement among themselves. What we are saying here is that the regulator can step in—I guess, in theory even if the competition organisers have agreed—if it feels for some reason it is not quite happy with the agreement. That seems quite a shift away from the principles we were talking about earlier. Our concern would be that we are suddenly setting up a role for a quite muscular regulator which can interfere maybe not at breakfast, lunch and tea but quite a bit of the time, to say the least.

Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, states that the leagues can trigger the resolution process if there has been a change to revenue received by other leagues, as mentioned. Again, I think we could get into situations where a five-year deal has been put in place and a league is suddenly trying to reopen the deal. I am delighted that the Championship has a good Sky deal. Do we think that gives cause to reopen the deal? That would be a concern there. I am always a great believer that a deal is a deal is a deal. You live by that deal for that time and when it comes up again, that is the time to negotiate. Amendment 264 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, again makes provision for multiple competition organisers to trigger the backstop and mediation process.

In all of these, there is a general concern that instead of the backstop being the backstop, as it is called, it becomes almost the first stop and the first resort. It goes to the concern that noble Lords have mentioned many times that while we start with the principle of a light-touch regulator, very quickly we get into a scenario of a pretty heavy-touch, muscular regulator. That would be our concern.

Amendment 261 provides that competition organisers must obtain the regulator’s consent before entering into a distribution agreement. Again, this adds another level of complexity. If the competitions have agreed between them, why do they need to get the consent of the regulator? It goes far beyond the original intentions of the backstop per the Dame Tracey Crouch report, in which she referred to it as the nuclear option, and how that would be the only case it would come up in. Instead, through these amendments, we would be setting up a lot of situations in which it would be the first resort.

While I understand that the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are noble—as ever—I feel that this is another circumstance of mission creep and unintended consequences, where we would end up with a very muscular regulator. Those are our concerns.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am not very bothered by having a muscular regulator; I want an efficient one that gets things done and looks after the lower clubs. There is a disagreement between us that has been there all through this Committee.

I regard the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as a smorgasbord from which we should select something that is actually going to get us to have a look at what is going on. There are lots of options and I have put my name to one of them. Making sure that we get the regulator right and get money going down to preserve something we regard as good is the primary objective. It is not just to take money off the Premier League; it is to make sure that the structures below survive.

If the Government think these amendments are not the right way to progress, hearing why from the Minister would be sensible. Nobody is quite happy with the backstop power in the regulation structure at the moment. Everybody is a little bit upset about it. People who were happy are now not happy. The Premier League and EFL are having great fun not talking to each other or disagreeing. I have no real objection to a slightly more muscular approach. I do not think it is a light touch that is required; it should be efficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

263: Clause 56, page 45, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) In this Part, revenue received by a specified competition organiser is “relevant revenue” if—(a) it is revenue received as a result of the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches included in a competition organised by the specified competition organiser, and(b) it is not revenue that the specified competition organiser distributes to a club by virtue of a team operated by the club being relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment prohibits parachute payments from being included in the distributions of revenue resolution procedure.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Amendment 263 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson. Going on from the last debate, it talks about probably one of the most important elements in the whole make-up of the financial payment system: parachute payments. The amendment seeks to remove from the regulator the powers to impact or change those parachute payments.

The reason for that is that parachute payments are a very common feature—I understand that just about all European leagues have parachute payments—and that is for a very simple reason. Any club that gets promoted is automatically in a situation where financially, it has a lot less money than other clubs in the Premier League or whichever higher division it is—parachute payments happen right the way through the pyramid—and they need to invest. They need to do that if they are to have any opportunity, any chance, to compete. If they do not invest, it is pretty likely that they will get relegated again straightaway, and any games that they take part in will be pretty uncompetitive and not very interesting to watch. But how do you get them to invest when they know that there is a decent chance that they will get relegated straightaway and go back to a situation where they have a lot less income?

Of course, as I say, the common mechanism that all the leagues across Europe seek to put in place is the safety net of a parachute payment, so that clubs know that for a period of time—three years—they have that safety net, particularly in years one or two, because in the third year it falls away quite quickly from that.

However, it is not just as a key measure for promoted clubs. Right now, if you are a Wolves fan and you are sitting second from bottom, what do you want them to do? You want them to sack their manager—they have done that; it cost them quite a bit to do that in terms of pay-offs and attracting a new manager—and you want them to invest in the January transfer window to get more players, to give them a chance of staying up for the rest of the season. That is the absolutely normal thing that you would expect them to do.

That is what you want the whole Premier League to be doing: you want the teams to be really fighting to survive and competing in every game. That is what makes the game so interesting to watch. A lot of the fun towards the end of the season, when you know—maybe not this season—that Man City is going to win it again, or whatever, it gets really interesting around the bottom of the league. Why is it interesting? It is because those clubs still invest. So Wolves will no doubt invest in this window and a lot of the bottom clubs, which might be looking over their shoulder, worried about relegation, will invest. They will do that because they have the safety net of the parachute payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord may not be surprised to know that I am not going to commit to doing that. We believe that the model in the Bill is the correct one. I am happy to meet the noble Lord and others to discuss this before Report, However, on the basis of the arguments I have made this evening, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. We can all agree that everyone spoke with passion on this point. We are passionate because we know it really matters.

I am grateful to the Minister for her acknowledgement of the importance of parachute payments. They really are critical. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Brady that, since parachute payments were brought into this, my understanding is that there has been only a 30-minute meeting with the clubs, where this was barely brought up. I urge the Minister to consult more with the clubs.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I asked officials to draw up the words that I said on consultation because, night after night, group after group, it has been said to me that there has been insufficient consultation on the Bill. I went back and asked whether I could stand up and say that there has been sufficient consultation on the Bill. What consultation happened? When has it happened? How has it happened? Who has it been with? I am confident there has been a huge amount of consultation on the Bill and I will continue to state that when I am asked. I will follow up things that people feel have not been followed up, but any club that wanted to have a meeting has had one, and some have said they did not want one. I will sit down and allow the noble Lord to finish, but I am not going to accept that there has not been sufficient consultation.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene, but I want to say again that on the specific issue of parachute payments there was no consultation with either the Premier League officials or the Premier League clubs that attended that meeting before this went into the Bill. I am not saying that there was not consultation on other areas, but this is a significant change to the Bill that had zero consultation with the Premier League or Premier League officials.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

It may be that it should be a matter of fact and we can find out one way or the other. The question is: how much consultation has happened specifically on the parachute payments? Obviously, they have been a recent introduction. My understanding from my noble friend is that there was just that 30-minute meeting, at which this was barely raised. I would be grateful if the Minister could ask her officials directly.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will intervene again, and I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Labour tabled an amendment on this in opposition, so I am surprised that there seems to be so much surprise that the Government have now put this in the legislation. I accept that perhaps it was not noted at the time.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Minister will also know that Labour tabled a lot of amendments, many of which we are also now pushing, but are told they are not going to be considered. So, yes, but equally perhaps the Minister might like to look through all the amendments tabled by her colleagues in the Labour Party in the other House and see whether she is now prepared to accept them all.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I hope we can move constructively on this point. I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to give clubs as much time as they request. I appreciate the amount of time the Minister has given all of us in all this. It feels that that may be a point worth taking forward, particularly on parachute payments.

To my mind, the biggest proof on all of this is the fact that 51 of the 92 clubs in the whole pyramid have been in the Premier League at some point. That is way over half. That speaks to how fluid the system is and how much it is working. Over half the clubs have spent some time in the Premier League. To me that speaks volumes. That is the biggest concern I have. We have a system that works; we have competition throughout the pyramid. The real fear from all my noble friends who have spoken on this, and why we speak with such passion, is the fact that we endanger all of that. I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 263 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

This goes to the principle of the redistribution amendments in the group. We have had two debates on this; I hope this will be the hat trick, so to speak, because it is talking about the general principle of whether the regulator should be involved in the redistribution of revenue. This goes to the whole of Part 6—Clauses 56 to 60—and stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson.

As noble Lords have heard me say before, what it comes down to is that no other regulator—and I am still ready to stand corrected—is given powers to take money from one part of the system and give it to another. The FCA cannot take money from Barclays and give it to NatWest; Ofwat cannot take it from Severn Trent to go to Thames; Ofcom cannot move money from ITV to Channel 4. No other regulator can do that. It is unheard of. But that is what we are proposing here.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

That is the point of the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

No, I do not agree that is the point of the Bill. That is the fundamental difference. I would totally agree that there are certain protections about the European super league, about moving home grounds, as in the case of MK Dons, and about fit and proper owner tests. I would agree they are very good roles for a regulator to play. What I do not agree with is giving a regulator unparallelled power to take money from one part of the sector and give it to another.

What are we trying to do here? Is the English Football League impoverished? Does it have so little money it cannot run itself? We know the answer to that is no. It recently had a very good Sky deal. The Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world. That point has been made before. We are saying that Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal, which are very good footballing nations, and all the other leagues in the world apart from the top six, all manage to live on less money than the Championship. But we are saying we need to fix that. That is what I do not understand. We are trying to say we will give unparallelled power to try to fix a situation that has had unparallelled success and makes the Championship the sixth-richest league in the world. We cannot argue that is because clubs do not have enough money to be viable in that. If that was the case in the Championship, how do the Portuguese league, the Belgian league, the Netherlands league and all the other leagues cope? This is not an area I believe the regulator should be intervening in. There is no market failure there.

What I have heard noble Lords speak about a lot is fairness or narrowing the gap. Well, I am sorry, but competition and sport are not about fairness, not about trying to narrow the gap or level down. We are not trying to equalise. The whole point of sport is that it is the most competitive thing out there. There is nothing more competitive than a game of sport. That is the whole lesson. It is not about trying to equalise. It is about winning and losing. What football has done is create that very successfully, with great fluidity. As I mentioned in the last debate, over half of clubs at some stage have succeeded in getting into the Premier League. This is something that is working. I do not see any evidence of market failure. So why are we asking the regulator to get involved in all this?

I truly believe we will endanger the whole game and the whole income. Noble Lords have heard me say before: let us maximise the size of the cake before we argue how we distribute it. I fear here that by trying to equalise and level down, all we will do is make the games less interesting, the league less competitive, which will mean fewer people watching, less TV rights money and the result being less money to distribute. That is why I do not believe this is the role of the regulator to take, and this is why I feel strongly that all those clauses that seek to give this unprecedented power should be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contribution to this debate, and again I thank the Minister for her response. I noticed that she went into the detail of the backstop mechanism but I did not hear in that the more fundamental point about why she believes that the regulator needs to be bestowed these unparalleled powers to redistribute income where there are no examples of market failure. In fact, there are the examples of the very healthy Premier League and Championship, which are respectively the first and sixth richest leagues in the world—and all the result, as my noble friends pointed out, of a voluntary agreement and distribution between them all.

However, the whole prospect of the backstop happening is creating the reverse. As I understand it, those negotiations have stopped. Of course, it is entirely rational from the EFL’s point of view to stop them, because why reach an agreement when suddenly you are going to have more negotiating leverage because you have a regulator which will come in? So, again, it is perfectly rational behaviour on the part of the EFL to reach the best agreement it can with the Premier League but then instead of finally agreeing with it, appeal to the regulator in case it can get more because it has already banked what it has got from the Premier League and there is only an upside to doing that. So I am afraid that I believe this whole mechanism will actually create more friction and more disputes, rather than less, and will mean that it is less likely to reach a voluntary agreement. In addition, as I mentioned before, I still have not heard why we feel that the regulator needs these powers in the first place when we have a successful situation in place already.

As a result of that, I believe that these powers will endanger the whole size of the cake that is available for distribution. It will endanger the success and the revenue gained from that, which will result in a loss to everyone. We will definitely return to this on Report but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw.

Clause 56 agreed.