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.