Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who, 57 years ago, became a supporter of Tottenham, largely to annoy my best friend at school, Matthew Harding, who even then was a passionate Chelsea supporter. As a Spurs supporter, I am accustomed to disappointment, and I have viewed the trajectory of the Bill from review to the first iteration, then to this version, with some disappointment—although in this event it was not preceded by the brief period of optimism that accompanies the life of a Spurs supporter before the disappointment sets in.

I start from a position of scepticism about whether the introduction of a state regulator is likely to improve the position of an incredibly successful activity. We have heard from many about how the Premier League is the richest and most-watched league in the world; the EFL is immensely successful and wealthy, and all credit to it. That is despite the lack of regulation, and it is not obvious that self-regulation has failed. My position is also one of disappointment at the outcome of the review, because it was not clear that the introduction of a regulator was needed; dismay that the previous Government’s Bill added significantly to what Dame Tracey had recommended; and consternation that this Bill adds yet more burden. Listening to this debate so far, I hear contribution after contribution suggesting that it should go even further. You need only to listen to the debate to know how real the risk of mission creep and scope creep is. There is a risk that serious harm will be inflicted on an activity that gives pleasure to millions in this country and to more than a billion people worldwide. We have to cherish what has been successful.

Apart from anything else, this is a huge export, with huge soft power benefits for the country as well. If we look at the ills around financial stability identified by Dame Tracey in the fan-led review, it is an unusual area of commercial activity where we can say that, overwhelmingly, most clubs in operation 100 years ago are still around. Show me another sector where that is the case; it is an unusual degree of financial and commercial stability. She identified as a crisis the effect of the pandemic, but football survived it. The noble Lord who spoke previously was talking about the amount of debt that my own club, Tottenham, has, but that was to build a world-class stadium, generally acknowledged to be the best in the world, which was then condemned to have a year and a half with no gate money coming in, so a bit of debt was not surprising. The benefit to the area—one of the most disadvantaged areas of London—of that investment, and the activity that has been brought to the area around it, is astonishing.

Then there is the concern about the ESL. What we forget is that it was killed off within hours of being announced, and not by the Government nor a regulator but by the fans: they made so much fuss about it that its promoters and the clubs that had signed up to it rapidly drew back. It is not obvious that there is a deep problem that needs to be solved by the introduction of a state regulator. It feels to me as if this is slightly like what Sir Humphrey described as the politician’s syllogism: something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it. We know that the things that come most readily to hand are legislation, regulation and intervention.

We have to be very much aware of the dangers of unintended consequences. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who said that no one wants damage to be inflicted. Of course not, but that does not mean that damage will not be inflicted, because there will be huge costs involved in introducing this regulator. There will be the levy, which will be levied on the clubs to pay for the cost of the regulatory body, and the compliance costs on clubs, which reduce the pot available. It is all very well to have a perfect mechanism—if this turns out to be that—for distributing the goodies through the pyramid, but if you are reducing it by virtue of the intervention being promoted in the Bill, there will be less to distribute. We need to be very aware of that.

I will not add to what my noble friend Lady Brady said about the backstop powers and parachute payments. I will say only that, if the parachute payments were to be interfered with, there would be a danger of creating a greater gulf between the top of the Premier League and those lower down. It is really important to maintain that competition. Ironically, it was concern about the effect of loss of jeopardy and the lack of competitiveness that the ESL might introduce that led to it being rejected, so we need to be conscious that we are not recreating that.

I urge the Minister to look again at some of the provisions in the Bill and ask whether this is a sledgehammer to crack a rather small nut and whether there may not be better ways to ensure that there is genuinely light-touch regulation and we do not inflict great damage on an activity that gives pleasure to many but also makes a lot of money for this country.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 4, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hayward, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham. I look forward to hearing them introduce their amendments later.

I am very pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Football Governance Bill and thank all noble Lords for their evident interest in it. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for the time she has made available to me and my noble friend Lord Markham as well as to other noble Lords across the Committee. I also thank her for the letters she sent this morning following the Second Reading debate; they were greatly appreciated by all who spoke then.

It is fitting that we open this debate with perhaps the most fundamental of the issues under discussion: what will this Bill do, what are its guiding principles and what is its overarching purpose? The Bill states that it intends

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

The inclusion of the word “sustainability” in this initial purpose clause is a curious matter and the reason I tabled my Amendment 1. Why should English football be merely sustainable? Taken at face value, sustainability is a reasonable approach, and perhaps a reasonable one to take in this Bill. The Cambridge English Dictionary, which is far superior to dictionaries available from other universities, defines the word “sustainable” as being

“able to continue over a period of time”.

I would not argue against English football being able to continue long into the future—that is the reason that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships—but is that all we want from it? My Amendment 1 seeks to question and, I hope, to clarify what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. By removing the words, “the sustainability of”, from Clause 1, I am trying to highlight that the Bill should be aimed at protecting English football in toto.

As I set out at Second Reading, football has an incredibly long and rich history in this country. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere in the world, as was the English Football League. I spoke of the importance of heritage and how the distinct identities of each and every football club arouse the passions of so many people across the country and the globe. This strength of feeling and these passions are not best encapsulated by the limited notion of sustainability; they include something much more human and emotional, which we should have a go at capturing. Surely, through the Bill, we are also seeking to protect and promote these emotions and desires for the game.

I note that the provisions on home grounds and team colours seek to work to that effect, as do further amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled, which we look forward to discussing later in Committee. However, if there are provisions relating to this in the Bill, why does the purpose clause at the very beginning—Clause 1—not address it? Sustainability is too limited a condition for success. If we leave it as it is, would we not condemn the regulator from the start to be inert? Would the regulator not be frozen in time and unable to look to the future and to the positive beneficial changes that could be made to the game? It is important that the regulator should have a forward-thinking attitude. It should not be merely content with the current state of football but constantly looking to drive the game forward. If it does not, this whole endeavour would be, at best, a wasted opportunity and, at worst, a failure.

That is why it is so vital to question what is meant by “sustainability” in the clause and seek to go beyond that limited and limiting definition, which risks putting the sport in a box or creating stasis. As my noble friends have pointed out through their amendments, which we will consider shortly, we could, rather than striking out words in the clause, supplement sustainability. My noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, through his Amendments 4 and 4A, invites us to extend our focus to the success and growth of football. Those are two key goals and are important when we discuss the Bill and the game. No club would want to be frozen in time, never moving forward, eschewing new ventures or winning new glories. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Brady, the many advantages of English football come from achieving the right balance between growth, competition and aspiration. Should we not look to place each of those concepts in the Bill or encapsulating them in its foundational principles? Those would give the regulator a clearer guiding path and ensure that it does not stray from the objectives that the Bill and this Parliament seek to set out.

One of the concepts that my noble friend Lord Maude mentions is growth; the Bill would stand to gain from its inclusion, focusing the regulator on moving the sport forward by growing the number of fans, the amount of revenue, the extent of viewership at home and around the world, and in other areas. I hope that this would entrench from the outset a forward-thinking vision, thereby preventing the independent football regulator from falling into the trap of other regulatory bodies, which have been blinkered in their outlook.

Like other noble Lords, I have been struck by the coverage we have seen this week from the all-party group that has looked at the work and conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority. Cross-party and cross-House concerns have been raised about the way in which the FCA has gone about its work. It is important, as we set up a new regulator, to give it clear instructions about what we want it to do and clear guard-rails about what we do not want it to do.

As I said at Second Reading, it is important that we get the Bill right. If we do not provide the regulator with the necessary tools from the outset, we would be setting it up merely to fail. That would have catastrophic consequences for the game and all those in this country who love it.

Football is, as well as a hugely enjoyed pastime, one of our largest and most popular industries. The Premier League makes up the largest share of the United Kingdom’s television exports, totalling £1.4 billion in 2019-20. Football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in 189 countries across the world. Through that export and shared enjoyment, it amplifies our values, spreads the best of British culture and generates hugely important economic growth for the whole nation. Football is undoubtedly a significant soft-power asset for the United Kingdom, and it is important to keep that in mind as we begin our detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee.

That is to say nothing of the millions of people who follow football here at home. To all those people in the United Kingdom and across the world, the ruination of English football would rip the heart out of communities across the length and breadth of the country. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not want that, and I hope that giving detailed thought to the purpose of the Bill and dwelling on its initial clause will be a way to lift our aspirations for it and seek a more important and meaningful goal than mere sustainability. I beg to move.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the eloquent way in which he moved the amendment and started the important debate on this group. It is important that we take time to consider this properly, because the Bill, if enacted in this form, will create a state regulator with an ability to impose a levy to make exactions on the football clubs that make up the football leagues. It is important that the tone of the regulator is set from the beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by the amendments from the Benches opposite because there is a degree of amnesia in some of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, moves to strike out “sustainability” from Clause 1. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in another place at the beginning of the year. In Clause 1, “Purpose and overview”, it says:

“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.


That is the same wording as is in the Bill before us. I say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that this Clause 1 is exactly the same as the Clause 1 that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have brought to this House, had he still been the Minister and had the Conservative Party not lost the general election. So I am extremely puzzled by the approach of noble Lords opposite.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Picking up that point, I think the noble Lord is trying to make it appear as if this is a partisan thing, but it is not. I would have tabled exactly the same amendments if this had been the previous Government’s Bill that he refers to. This is not a party-political matter at all; it is about a game that we are passionate about and that is a spectacular success. We do not want to see something done that damages it.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord has the benefit of supporting Horsham FC. I have the benefit of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion, and I am absolutely passionate about my football club, which is one of the best clubs in the Premier League. I would not be party to wishing to do anything that damages the Premier League, and neither would my colleagues on these Benches. We recognise, understand and appreciate that the Premier League is an institution that is more than worth supporting. It is the best in the world and we know that.

The other thing that noble Lords need to focus on in this debate is that when the noble Lords opposite were in government, they were very keen to have this legislation. A DCMS report published in September 2023 quoted the findings of a research paper that showed that there continues to be

“a widespread issue of clubs being run in unsustainable ways from a traditional financial analysis viewpoint”.

That was then the position of the party now in opposition, and I am hoping that it has the same range of concerns about our football finances now as it did back then, because it was quite clear that that was the primary motive for the legislation, and it is the primary motive for the legislation today. It is about its financial sustainability.

If a product or a good cannot be produced in a way that is sustainable, it will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made a great song and dance about, successful. That is why my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have tabled our amendments in the first group—to focus on making sure that the Bill and the regulator that the Government are seeking to create promote the sustainability and success of our beautiful game. That is why we are here today; that is what we are arguing about and what we are so passionate about. It is for that very reason that we tabled our Amendment 10 to Clause 1.

I hope that the party opposite is not going to suffer from this collective amnesia for too long, but that it will get behind the Bill, get behind the purpose and objectives set out very clearly in that first clause—a clause that, in government, it amply supported and gave voice to. We need to get behind the Bill and make sure that it is sustainable for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the way in which he has introduced and moved his Amendment 5. My Amendment 6, which also carries the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, has a similar effect. It would deal with the consequences if the Bill is not amended in a way that protects against those consequences. It is another way of getting at the same point—the same danger, risk and jeopardy that English football is potentially in if this is not dealt with at a very early stage.

On this business of English football having its own autonomy and not being subject to influence or control by government, we know that there are countries where football is an important activity and where national teams take part in international competitions. But in some of those countries, the boundary between where the state ends and the Government begins is sometimes unclear. It may be contended that in these circumstances, given the undoubted influence and control over English football that will come if the Bill is enacted in its current form, there will be state intervention, for sure. Is that the Government? It will be contended that this is an independent regulator.

None the less, it is a regulator appointed by Ministers in the Government. Its powers will be defined in secondary legislation drafted by the Government and if there is mission creep and scope creep, which some of us fear is almost inevitable, that will come about because of government decisions. This is a real issue; it is not scare- mongering. UEFA has written on these concerns, so when it is argued that this cannot really matter because Germany has regulated football, the fact is that that has been done in a way that prevents those concerns.

UEFA, which matters for these purposes, is not content at this stage that this jeopardy does not exist, so it has to be dealt with. The sooner that the Minister can give us some comfort that she understands how serious this is and the political danger the Government would be in if they—by lack of proper care and attention to these risks—allowed this malign effect to come about. It is very important to indicate at the earliest possible stage, which is really tonight, in this debate, that a provision which deals with this risk will be incorporated into the Bill by way of government amendment. I think that would be a great comfort to all of us.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My understanding of the exchange of correspondence was that UEFA’s primary concern was that the scope of the legislation in the Bill may go beyond financial concerns. It was entirely happy with the regulator being concerned about the finances of football, and rightly so. I do not quite see the fear that lies behind this set of amendments. Although the noble Lord is right that we need early clarification, the regulator’s purposes are clear: they are about ensuring sustainability and success, and all the rest of it, of our brilliant game. I think UEFA was just seeking clarification that it was tightly constrained around the notion of football finances.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit of a Brighton supporter myself. Tottenham is my first love; Horsham is my second; Brighton comes a very close third. I hope the letter from UEFA will be published so that we can see in exact detail what is said and therefore satisfy ourselves that the concerns will be dealt with comprehensively and finally so that there is no lingering anxiety.

I totally understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I wish I could be as happy as he is that there is no risk of subsequent mission creep, which is exactly the concern that UEFA raised. Some of us have raised that, in the Bill as currently drafted, there is scope for precisely the kind of mission and scope creep that UEFA seems to have identified. That is why it is so important at this stage that it should be dealt with and for it to be finally laid to rest that this concern need not be a concern.

My noble friend Lord Goodman spoke about the political risk for the Government if they come to be the people who have enacted a Bill which inflicts savage damage on English people’s expectations that their clubs will be able to participate in the Champions League, the Europa League and even the Europa Conference League, which West Ham so spectacularly won. It has to be dealt with quickly, cleanly and effectively, so that we no longer need to have sleepless nights over this.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this group as a point of clarification and reassurance, as has been asked for. I would expect the Minister to accept this, because she has been at great pains to stress that this is intended—I do not doubt her good faith—as light-touch regulation motivated by the best of intentions. But I think that there is a real problem with this Bill that could potentially destroy football, so I want that worry at least to be taken seriously.

The examples given by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, were in relation to UEFA and FIFA and what damage could be done. I understand that, but I think this is a point of principle. It is really important that the Government state at this point that they believe that the Bill is not to be used as a vehicle for government interference in football. That is what they agree with, so why not put it in the Bill?

Should I just be having a moment of paranoid delusions? I spent as much time reading the amendments last night as noble Lords spent on the first group, possibly longer—i.e. it took me a long time. They are, in many instances, the vehicle for what can be described only as a wide range of political hobby-horses for people who believe that this Bill and the regulator should be asked to do things that are extraordinarily contentious, political and have absolutely nothing to do with football. The fact that they are deemed in scope of the discussion on this Bill is nerve-wracking. Consequently, this group seeks—very importantly—to state as a matter of principle that the Government should not interfere in the autonomy and independence of football in England and Wales, and English football particularly.

I want to stress, and I said it at Second Reading, that this not just because of any technical matter; it is because football came from and remains at its heart a grass-roots part of civil society. The last thing it needs is an overbearing political hand that will try to shape it into the image of the particular Government of the day. The particular Government of the day might be one that the Government trust; it might be one that many football fans trust, but imagine if it was not? We do not want the political fashions of the day to dominate football—to destroy football. I think the Minister will agree and therefore accept these amendments willingly, because it will reassure us that we are not all being paranoid about it. It will reassure football fans that the Government are doing it in their best interests rather than trying to use football as a hobby-horse to push a particular political agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I said, UEFA had a meeting with the Minister for Sport. My understanding from that meeting, at which I was not present, is that this was confirmed. It has not raised other concerns. If any noble Lord knows of other concerns that it has raised directly with them, please get in touch afterwards.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

We are listening very carefully to this, and it is really important. I have absolutely no doubt about the honesty of the Minister’s —or the Government’s—intentions and sincerity. The concern is that stating that it is not the intention that the regulator would do anything, or that the Bill would have any effect that would conflict with these international football bodies, is not quite as reassuring as it is meant to sound. The concern has always been the unintended effects, and the fact that, for all their good intentions, she, the Government and indeed the Prime Minister cannot bind future Governments. The regulator is meant to be independent, so there is scope for activity. Unless it is explicitly excluded in the primary legislation, there will continue to be a doubt, whatever good words we hear either first or second hand. To put it beyond any doubt, it is essential that this is in the Bill.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I can only repeat that I know that the Minister for Sport is clear that she had a positive and constructive meeting with UEFA, and that we will continue to work with it. The only other point I was aiming to make on this matter, rather than repeating what I had already said, was that when the Government say that we want to keep the Bill within its current scope, this is clearly partly to avoid mission creep, with the unintended consequence that we might then stray into areas that are problematic. When we debate subsequent groups, please note that it is front and centre of our minds that we are very clear that this Government will do nothing to jeopardise the ability of English clubs or the England team to play in international competitions, whether they are European, world-level or at the Olympics. I hope that noble Lords accept that there is no intention to do anything that will jeopardise that. The advice we have had is that this will not be the case. The engagement with UEFA is essential, and it is aimed at ensuring that there are not any unintended consequences that would damage the ability of English clubs or national teams to compete in UEFA, FIFA or Olympic competitions.

This legislation does not impose undue third-party influence on the FA, and therefore does not breach FIFA or UEFA statutes, which the FA has confirmed. In any case, there is an additional safeguard already in place in the Bill, in that the regulator must have regard to its duty to avoid any effect on sporting competitiveness of regulated clubs. For the avoidance of any doubt, and to ensure that there is no possibility of any clauses that may concern these sporting bodies, we have already taken action. As previously noted during the debate, we have removed a clause from the previous Bill which allowed government foreign policy and trade considerations to be considered when approving takeovers. The regulator will be fully independent from Government and tightly focused on the financial sustainability of the game.

On Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I say that we are extremely confident that no powers or potential actions taken by the regulator would be in breach of the rules, and thus preclude England’s national teams from competing in international competitions. We are mindful of UEFA’s governing principles around undue third-party influence, and this has shaped how we are setting up the regulator.

I am proud that this is a Labour Government Bill that we are taking through this House, as was noted, with agreement from the previous Government. This legislation will not impact the intention for our teams to play in UEFA competitions. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments and hope that they will not press them.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I have to inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 7 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7A to 15 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 12 in this group. Before I do so, I think it important to express mild regret at what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said before we started our proceedings today. This is an incredibly important Bill, which, for the first time, imports into our much-loved national game a costly system of regulation. It is a very long Bill. There are numerous amendments being tabled, mostly by Members on the government side. We know that the House of Commons these days gives scant scrutiny to important Bills. It is therefore incredibly important that this House in Committee gives the Bill the detailed scrutiny that is required. If the five days that the Government have rather meagrely assigned to this Committee stage are not enough, I hope they will be quick to extend the proceedings so that we can give proper scrutiny. Much hangs on this. The more we have debated the detail of the Bill, the more issues have arisen, giving rise to greater concerns—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I was here last Wednesday, waiting quite a long time for my amendments to come up in group 3, and I sat through an awful lot of what I felt was hypocritical stuff from this side of the Chamber, given that this was a government Bill under the last Government. Not that much in it has changed, yet there was a lot of discussion on this side. Listening to that was agony, so I am quite keen to get through the Bill. Of course we should debate it, but not at the sort of length that is, I would say, rather self-indulgent.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I empathise with the noble Baroness’s pain, but this is what legislative scrutiny is about. It is about looking in detail at what is proposed and ensuring that we do not pass into law measures that will inflict damage on something that is both an incredibly important economic activity but also a source of great pleasure to millions in this country and more than a billion worldwide. So I hope the noble Baroness will suffer less and we will move as quickly as is appropriate in these circumstances.

We debated last time whether the ambition for football to be sustainable was sufficiently ambitious for the state of English football, and I think many of us in different parts of the House concluded that it was not so. However, if the Government insist that sustainability is all that is going to be sought then it is important that we define what is meant by sustainability in a way that does not circumscribe the mindset and the approach of the regulator that is going to be established.

Football is a very successful industry and activity. As we have heard, it remains the case that the Premier League is the most successful league in the world and the Championship is the sixth most successful in Europe, and we need to make sure that we do first do no harm but, secondly, because we know that there is no such thing as steady state any more, if it does not continue to grow and improve then it will be going backwards. So it seems right that, in addition to the addition suggested in my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, we should look at the four elements that I propose should be added to the definition of “sustainability”.

First, it should continue

“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”.

That is important because you cannot take anything for granted. The success of English football has been earned, but it has been harder over a period so we need to be extremely careful; this is a precious asset and we need to be concerned all the time with competitiveness. The costs that are proposed to be imposed on English football through the creation of this regulator—both the costs to be recovered through the levy and the compliance costs for clubs of accommodating themselves to this regime—will in themselves be a blow to competitiveness, so there needs to be at least an equal and opposite concern to offset that. Competitiveness is going to be incredibly important in relation to audience and quality.

Secondly, it should continue

“to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”.

My own club, Tottenham, has invested hugely in a world-class new stadium; other clubs need to do the same. A huge amount of investment will be required in upgrading stadia around the country. They are extremely expensive commercial assets that are of great importance to their local communities as well. They are community assets that tend to attract in their wake, in their slipstream, other regeneration investment into the communities, often some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. It will be extraordinarily important that the regulator has in mind at all times that the return on those big investments that will be needed should not be imperilled by the way that the regulator itself operates.

Lastly, it should continue

“to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues”.

All these are fragile. None of these revenue streams—from broadcasting or from the asset and enterprise values—can be taken for granted. The success of English football has to be earned, every day of every week of every season there is, so this will be very important.

Given these approaches, I cannot feel that anyone will quarrel with these being elements that the regulator should think about and seek at all times to prioritise. What is the objection to them appearing in the Bill, since that shows the importance that Parliament attaches to these considerations? That can in some way help to make a difference to the way in which the regulator is set up, because much of that is left unclear. Much of it will be at the discretion of the board and its chair, yet to be appointed, of the regulator. This Committee should have no difficulty in supporting having these factors placed squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this away and think carefully about whether it would a be way of improving a Bill that currently leaves much to be desired.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.

A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.

English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

The noble Lord asked, perfectly sensibly, in relation to my Amendment 12, whether I am expecting the regulator to positively intervene to promote growth. No—my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there. There will be some harm, because additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator, but that has to be as limited as possible.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it depends on whether by harm you mean spending any money on regulation. Yes, making sure that there is any structure of regulation is a harm, but it is a necessary harm, because the Bill is not just about the top guys in the Premier League. It is about the entire structure, five leagues down, and should possibly go even further. It is about making sure that there is something below that, so that if things go wrong in your competitive league—and they will; the big boys will eventually lose, or at least they should—you have the capacity. That is something that we have all embraced, and I hope the regulator allows that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, in the slightly unexpected but spirited exchange between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have to say that I incline more to the view of my noble friend Lord Deben on the merits of the case about around climate change. I am not remotely sceptical about climate change, the threat that it poses or the need to take urgent action to combat it. I am, however, sceptical about its place in this Bill and for it to be a strong consideration in the role of the to-be-established regulator of English football.

The reality, exactly as my noble friend Lord Evans just outlined, is that some football clubs are already more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others. All football clubs will have to invest in adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change, because there will be malign effects whatever is done. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they are already being experienced.

I also take the view, and have done for a long time, that businesses which value their brand and reputation have a commercial interest in ensuring that they get ahead of the curve on issues of this kind, because their customers—who, for these purposes, are the fans and supporters—care about these matters. People identify very strongly with their football clubs and with the values that they embody and represent. They want to see these institutions being successful, as obviously all football clubs intend, but they are very aware of the need for them to be responsible and to move towards their own zero-carbon position. I do not want this regulator to spend time and money—not their money but the football clubs’ and therefore the fans’ money—doing things that are not necessary, because all football clubs want to be successful, so they will be addressing this already.

[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.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

I say to the Minister that, in looking at each and every clause of this Bill—and we are only on Clause 1—it is not as if one side is talking this out. Far from it; the majority of amendments tabled to the Bill come from the Government Back Benches. The reality is that there is a lot of concern. There would not be hundreds of amendments down on the Bill unless there was real concern about how it is drafted. This Bill is an enabling measure. It is no more than that. We are coming to that in Clause 2. It is an enabling measure, yet it is longer than the Great British Energy Bill. We must pause at some stage in these proceedings to reflect that, unless we get this light-touch regulation right, and unless we recognise the authority of UEFA and FIFA, we will jeopardise the financial success of football in this country and the right and opportunity of our footballers, both now and in the future, to play. That is not to say that it will not go through. This will go through, so, if it is going to go through, let us at least get it right.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, absolutely nobody is going to support the idea of overregulation. I spent my whole career, however, in a highly regulated industry: broadcasting. The BBC was the result of a regulatory regime imposed over 100 years ago, and ITV was heavily regulated, with enormous benefits as a result. We have the best broadcasting system in the whole world, so good regulation makes things better. I agree that we do not want to see overregulation.

The strongest part of this Bill is that it tries to ensure that every club is well managed, and that is to be welcomed. Let us recognise that that has not been the general picture, and there is no club that I know of that has not been badly managed, including my own, at some point in its history. Somebody else gave the example that, for a few hours this weekend, Brighton were number two in the Premier League. That is absolutely 100% down to the fact that they have been exceptionally well-managed in recent years.

In my career, I encountered many boards of clubs at every level and, frankly, it was an extremely mixed picture. We name no names. Some of them I encountered were very well-managed, some were managed by rogues and many by people who had a bit of money—not enough money—and were attracted to football for the wrong reasons but completely and utterly lacked any ability to manage a club properly. The great strength of this Bill, in demanding proper boards and financial probity, will bring, I hope, a great improvement to the generality of English football down the leagues and have strong, competent boards wherever you look.

I cannot resist one short story. I know of a Prime Minister—I will not name who the Prime Minister was, but it is not the person you think that I am thinking of; it is somebody else—who was invited to a match and to have lunch beforehand. The Special Branch at Number 10 looked at all the other guests, and every single one of them had a criminal record. That is a true story. That is what we want to put an end to. We want good, strong boards and prudent financial management.

What is the justification for that intervention? It is all the things we have already mentioned. These clubs are not just normal commercial assets; they are deeply embedded in their communities; they have their own heritage; they have their own history; they are culturally important. That justifies appropriate and proportionate regulation and intervention.

Having said lots of nice things, I do have profound reservations about the mechanism for establishing fund flow down the pyramid, but that is a matter for later in our deliberations.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

With those questions to the Minister, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the two amendments that stand in my name in this group, but particularly to try to underline the importance—at this regrettably late hour—of hybridity in the Bill.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to pick up exactly the point that my noble friend on the Front Bench has eloquently started to unpack. It is my fault, but I had not thought about this aspect of hybridity until it was developed this evening. It seems that we have two mischiefs compounding on each other here. The Government are relying on secondary legislation to do something that could just as well be in the Bill, and the committee of which my noble friend is a very distinguished member—although whether junior or senior is not for me to judge—dealt with the Government’s purported reasons for not putting any of these things in the Bill in lapidary and devastating style. They knocked each of them down with casual ease.

The one reason, of course, that the Government did not put forward to the Committee, which the Minister—all praise and honour to her—has accepted as the principal reason, was that to identify the five top tiers in the pyramid in the Bill would have risked making it hybrid. However, the reason why we have a hybrid Bill procedure is quite specific. It is because, if you have a Bill that as well as having general effect has an effect on specific private interests, those private interests are entitled to a way of making their specific concerns directly clear to Parliament.

I remember 40 years ago, as a Whip in the other place, taking through the then Channel Tunnel Bill, which was a hybrid Bill, and a very Herculean effort it was, although it was well worthwhile. It was incredibly important that the private interests—many were affected by it—had the right to make their concerns known. Here we have one technique of putting something into secondary legislation which could easily be put in the Bill, and that is something which generally, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place as well, is generally deprecated.

Even worse is when the reason for putting it in secondary legislation is to suppress the ability of private interests—in this case, really important private interests, right the way down to the National League. There are way more than 100 clubs which, according to the Government, make up English football, which is an incredibly successful and important economic interest. We know, because the Government have said it, that those multiple private interests are the intended target for this legislation. So you have a parliamentary or legislative technique, which is to be deprecated in the first place, being used to frustrate a legitimate right of private interests, which have been identified by the Government as the proposed target for this Bill. Each of those two things on its own should be deprecated, but added together they should give the Government serious pause.

I sympathise with the Minister. She probably did not ask to be put in charge of this Bill and it must have looked like it was going to be quite straightforward, because my party’s Government mistakenly came up with the idea in the first place. It must have seemed like it would be a bit of a doddle to take it through; I am sorry for her that it has not turned out like that but, in every debate we have, something else comes up.

We are not playing games. We are talking about something really serious and important, which affects a lot of people’s lives and economic livelihoods. We are seeing more issues arise; as every layer is peeled away, something else emerges that gives us serious pause. So I urge the Minister to take this back to her department and colleagues and say that it is time to look at it again.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond on this group, I would like to say that I am absolutely delighted to be taking this Bill through Parliament. If somebody had asked me even six months ago if I thought I was going to have an opportunity like this, I would have doubted them, so please do not feel sorry for me in any form. I am delighted to be taking forward this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their amendments to Clause 2.

I will start with Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is the Government’s view that the current definition of “team” is sufficient and that the definitions in Clause 2 already work as intended. Which clubs are regulated will be determined by which competitions are specified in secondary legislation, as noble Lords have noted. If those are initially men’s competitions only, as the Government currently intend, only clubs that operate men’s teams will be regulated. Restricting the definition of “team” in statute to men’s teams would not only limit the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the women’s game into scope in the future if it were deemed necessary but send the wrong message to all those girls and young women who play football about the value we place on their contribution to the sport.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what would need to happen for us to see women’s football brought into scope in the future. As he referenced, the Government do not believe that the case for statutory intervention has yet been met in women’s football. It should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and self-regulate. If in the future it becomes clear that women’s football is suffering from a sustainability problem that the industry authorities have been unable to address, the Secretary of State will be able to conduct a formal review. This will of course include consultation with all appropriate parties. Based on that review, women’s football could be brought into scope.

Amendment 19 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, the amendment would significantly undermine the regulator’s ability to react to changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, questioned why we do not, for example, name the Premier League when it is obvious that it would be included. Names change, and we have seen the restructuring or naming of leagues, such as in 1992, when the First Division became the Premier League, and in 2015, when the Football Conference was renamed the National League. In such a scenario, failing to amend the scope in a timely fashion could result in the legislation becoming ineffectual and the regulator being undermined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am slightly confused because the noble Lord is going from being proportionate to now appearing to want us to bring in further—

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My noble friend just needs to know why. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying so, but that is not a satisfactory response. The problem here is that there seems to be no rationale other than saying it is reasonable and proportionate. On what basis? What is the basis for saying that? Why is the line drawn there? It feels completely random; you could just as easily draw it one up or one down. But if there has been a decision, and clubs up and down the country now have to prepare themselves for the likelihood that the Bill will go through and they will become regulated licensed entities, it is important to know why the line has been drawn in this place.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is for the examiners, not the Government, to decide whether or not there is hybridity.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

But it is for the Government to decide whether to incorporate something in a Bill that might make it hybrid. She has clearly taken advice which concluded that putting the explicit leagues on to the face of the Bill would make it hybrid. So there was clearly a decision based on that advice to exclude the specificity from the Bill and put it into secondary legislation. I repeat my noble friend’s question: why was that reason not given to the committee?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The primary reason, as I understand it—and it was clearly the previous Government who drafted the iteration of the Bill and the stage of the Bill that we are now at in our discussions is identical to the previous Government’s Bill—was that naming the leagues would mean that, if there was any change in the names of the leagues, there would be an issue in terms of the legislation, as I have outlined previously. I am happy to write to noble Lords on this point.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as declared in the register. This group of amendments includes Amendment 110 in my name which addresses a concern about potential political interference in football’s new regulatory framework.

The Bill creates an unusual—and, I believe, likely to be unnecessary—requirement for football governance statements every three years from the Secretary of State. This is not merely a question of frequency; I believe that the expectation created for this statement may raise questions about regulatory independence and broader international implications, which we have discussed in this Committee a number of times.

As I and other noble Lords have pointed out, UEFA and FIFA maintain strict provisions against state interference in football. We have already seen UEFA’s general secretary express serious concerns about various aspects of this Bill. In that context, we are obliged to ask whether creating a requirement, or even an expectation, for regular political statements about football governance risks providing these bodies with an additional point of leverage over English football’s development. UEFA has been clear that it is watching the implementation of this framework very closely, including in relation to possible scope creep and stepping over the line, so it behoves us to consider carefully the possible practical implications of such a mechanism and to question its necessity.

Every three years, the Secretary of State may make a statement about football governance. The Minister may say that there is no obligation here, and that it is just providing for the possibility. However, it seems inevitable that putting this expectation into statute creates a very strong likelihood that these statements will then be made. What will they say—that everything is fine, or are they more likely to look at more areas that the regulator can examine and then expand into, as we have seen with this Bill so far?

As the general secretary of UEFA spelled out in a letter sent to me last week:

“UEFA has previously shared its concerns about the creation of an Independent Football Regulator … as normally football regulation should be managed by the national federation. It is essential to ensure that the establishment of this structure fully adheres to the principle of sports autonomy, thus preventing any risk of political or governmental interference in the legitimate and appropriate functioning of recognised sports governing bodies. The IFR’s mandate must be clearly defined and strictly limited to the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets”.


Despite these repeated warnings, it seems reasonable to assume that the expectation of a football governance statement will create not just inevitable domestic pressure for political intervention but opportunities for international bodies to question the regulator’s independence. There may be a whole range of wider issues going on with international governing bodies at the time of the football governance statement—for example, negotiations on the football calendar or the future of competition formats. With these football governance statements, we seem to be creating an unnecessary risk that the statements, almost irrespective of their content, may be deemed to constitute political interference. English football will not be served well by such a dynamic.

My amendment would align the statement cycle with the other five-year regulatory timeframes in the Bill, reducing the frequency of these potential pressure points. However, this is about not just timing but protecting football’s independence while maintaining proper oversight. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how necessary these statements are.

Professional football requires long-term certainty for investment. In my long experience, stadium development can take up to 10 years to plan and execute. Academy investment needs at least a five-year horizon. Infrastructure projects require stable planning frameworks. Yet we seem to be risking the creation of a system where policy could shift every three years in response to short-term political steers, with each statement also potentially triggering questions about regulatory independence. I worry that these regular political statements could create permanent pressure for intervention beyond the regulator’s core purpose.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us the Government’s perspective on these important questions. What is the rationale for creating this unique pressure point for political intervention? How does the Minister believe that it will support long-term investment, especially given the international oversight concerns? What protections exist or could exist against scope creep through these regular statements? How will the Government manage UEFA and FIFA concerns about state interference in relation to this? I beg to move.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment, and to question whether it is wise for the Government to include this clause in the Bill. It says:

“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”,


and then it goes on. A Secretary of State can prepare a statement of anything at any time. It requires no statutory permission in a Bill to enable this to happen, but the effect of putting this in the Bill is, precisely as my noble friend has explained, to raise the spectre that UEFA, in particular, will see this as further evidence of political and government interference in football, which is a big concern for it. The Government have so far tiptoed around the edge of the concerns that UEFA has, but we know that the consequences for English football, if they go on to the wrong side of that line, will be severe.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Markham and strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We constantly hear that the purpose of the Bill is for the regulator to be agile, to be as light touch as possible and not to impose unnecessary additional burdens on football. Every million pounds spent on the cost of running the regulator, as well as the additional compliance costs for football clubs themselves, means there is less of the pie to be distributed under the redistribution parts of the Bill.

Surely one of the key ways in which we can do our best to avoid that cost burden being excessive is to avoid duplication. The reality is that the competitions, the leagues, already exercise a self-regulatory function—not regulating themselves but regulating the clubs that are members of the leagues. That is in their nature: there are conditions of belonging to those leagues that they rightly enforce, and they are going to be obliged to carry on doing that anyway. It is possible that not all of them have done that perfectly, and that not all of them will continue to do it perfectly in the future, but it is also possible that the independent regulator will not do its job perfectly. We should consider that possibility at this stage of consideration of this really important Bill, given that many clubs—not just the Premier League clubs but right down through the pyramid—have concerns about the costs, imposition and impact that creating the regulator will involve. When we move on to the next group, we will be looking at the really big, crunchy part of the Bill that covers the regulator’s operating licensing powers.

If we are to be sensitive to these genuine concerns of football clubs—which, by and large, have been pretty successful over the decades—this is a good way of showing it. If this amendment is passed and accepted by the Government and goes into the Bill, none of it says that the powers have to be delegated to any particular competition organiser; but at least giving the possibility of avoiding this overburden of new regulation, cost and impositions on something which is already very successful would be a very good signal for the Government to send.

I hope the Minister when she responds to this amendment will not rule it out out of hand but will take it away and say that we should now be looking for ways to address some of these genuine concerns. This would be a very good way of doing it.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which, on the face of it, sounds sensible, obvious, simple, light touch and low cost. I rise also to defend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for pointing out the blindingly obvious biggest bear trap of the entire Bill up to now: delegating the power of the regulator to the very people it is trying to regulate. It would seem to any right-minded person that this is the least sensible thing to do. Being concerned about the power of the regulator but trying to persuade us that it could give some of its powers up to someone else to help them along the way defeats the object of having the regulator.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, there are two groups which, if the Bill goes through and is enacted, will be subject to regulation. There will be the competition organisers, of course, but the biggest burden will be on the clubs themselves, and that should be our principal concern. If the competition organisers, who would themselves be overseen by the regulator, are able to discharge the regulatory functions effectively without creating a whole new panoply of compliance and enforcement mechanisms and apparatus, surely that is worth looking at and considering.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

There is some merit in what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I met Rick Parry and some people from the EFL this week and they are quite content with this. They do not see this as an onerous burden on them. They are looking forward to the regulator, a level playing field and a real chance for them to progress, so they are not going to oppose this resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The 20 clubs have competed to get into it. It is a changing 20, based on the ability of clubs to take part in that competition.

Similarly, it might be more appropriate for functions to be carried out by other competition organisers at other levels of football, if there are sufficient safeguards for them to do so in a way in which the Secretary of State feels is appropriate.

In our amendment, we have tried to reflect these safeguards to make sure that the same regulatory standards apply to the bodies to which functions are delegated. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 124 says that a function can be delegated only if the regulator is satisfied that the competition organiser would discharge the function with the same degree of stringency as the regulator itself and that it would meet the objectives established by Clause 6 and discharge the function with regard to the negative outcomes as outlined in Clause 7(2).

We are where are because there are elements of football which have not been good at self-regulating in a way that has pleased fans. More than one political party has been concerned enough to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House. Are we saying that we have reached a point of no return? If the competition organisers and other football organisations get their house in order and meet the standards set out in this Bill which the regulator is trying to do, will there never be a situation in which we will be able to delegate some of these functions back down to the level of competition organisers? This would mean a much more light-touch, organic form of regulation, which I think is what a lot of noble Lords in the Committee would like to see. That is the thinking behind the amendment and on which I would be interested in hearing an answer from the Minister.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Picking up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, particularly focusing on the Premier League, we have discussed in previous debates on this Bill the league’s concerns that the burdens of new regulation and compliance costs fall more heavily on smaller clubs than on big ones. Looking at the effect of this, my concern is how this amendment would operate if it were to be incorporated in the Bill. I would expect the Secretary of State to be looking in the first instance at the lower leagues, as that is where the pain will really be felt of imposing new burdens.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. It may also be in the lower leagues that we see the examples of better behaviour. The Secretary of State may then feel that it is right and proper to delegate some of these functions to the competition organisers for the clubs in the lower leagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 128, which gets to the nub of what the licensing regime should be looking at. It would require a personal statement to identify a club’s ultimate owner and that owner’s source of funds. It is really quite an important amendment because clubs, and fans in particular, have the right to know where the club’s money is coming from.

This is prompted by things that have happened to clubs in the past, when it has been quite clear to the outside world that clubs do not have the means—because their owners have failed to provide any detail or background on their own finances, despite having given assurances—to identify where their funding is coming from. I cite the case of Dr Tony Xia, who became the owner of Aston Villa back in 2016. He was approved as an owner by the football authorities, yet it later turned out that he had neither the money nor the resources. The club ended up just a week away from being unable to meet its tax liabilities.

Following the 2021-22 season, a survey of 92 clubs looking at data on wages and cash reserves revealed that many clubs, up to a senior level, were very close to not having the reserves that would ensure that they could meet their liabilities, pay wages and so on. Some clubs are very good at this—West Ham United is one of them and, apparently, Plymouth Argyle was one of the most financially secure that season, along with AFC Wimbledon and Tottenham Hotspur.

If we are seeking transparency through the licensing regime, it is clear that we will need to understand who the owner is, where their funding is coming from and how much that will kick in to ensure the safety and security of clubs for the benefit of their fans.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have a concern with the whole of this part of the Bill and the way in which operating licences will be required and the adjudication made upon them. This part of the Bill is nine very dense pages of text, backed by three or four schedules. At various stages, it includes such dark phrases as:

“An application must be accompanied by … such other information and documents as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.


I used to be a lawyer, a long time ago, and I am reasonably accustomed to reading Bills and Acts, but when I start to read through this part of the Bill I can feel my lifeblood draining away. What of the owner or board of a small club looking at what will be required of them?

I noted that in the Minister’s winding up of the last debate she said that well-run clubs have nothing to worry about, which was meant to be reassuring. It does not matter how well-run a club is; it will have to comply with all this, and it will have to set itself up with lawyers, consultants and accountants to draw up a strategic business plan. A lot of clubs will not have a strategic business plan. That does not mean that they are badly run, but they will have to prepare such a plan. A strategic business plan is a document containing the proposed operation of a club: its estimated costs, how those costs are to be funded, the source of such funding and other information as may be specified by the IFR. That does not get done spontaneously or arise automatically.

The reality is that this is a very demanding regime intended to be put into law and enforced by the new regulator. I wonder whether there has been sufficient consideration given to putting in place a halfway-house system of regulation. Think about how companies are regulated: it is a requirement that, if you set up a limited company, designed to limit the personal liability of owners of the company, it is registered with Companies House. By law, certain listings are required and a certain amount of information has to be made public, including the filing of accounts. However, you do not have to get consent from a regulator to set up a company; you just have to register that it is in existence and subject to the laws that apply to it.

As we know, the state of football is pretty strong, stable, vigorous and successful compared with football in other, similar jurisdictions to ours. Have we given sufficient consideration to whether it might be good to take time, before we require small clubs up and down the country—which are not necessarily finding it easy to get through from week to week, month to month and year to year—to submit to this horrendous set of requirements just to get a licence to get on to the field of play in the first place, before they even set about winning a match, to go back to the drawing board and construct a regime that would require clubs to register in the same way that a company is registered, subject to rules and requirements for disclosure and transparency, and to changes being registered. That would reduce hugely the burden on clubs and would start to introduce the kind of consistency which, for reasons that I totally understand, is being sought.

I oppose the whole of Part 3 and its accompanying schedules—I am not even going to think about the plethora of regulations, guidance and further verbiage that will come out of it—standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient for me to say a few words on this. Primarily, I am drawn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for the reasons he gave. We have heard that this is a wonderful, successful league. Bits of it are but, unfortunately, those are the bits at the top. Most of the cultural capital, I am afraid, is in the less glamorous clubs with less successful balance sheets.

We have a situation where we want to maintain the whole of the football structure: five leagues. This has proven to have—let us say—attracted financial irregularity; I think it was described as “chancers and fantasists”. We have to do something to stop this or we will start to have more disasters that mean something to the fan base.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, starts to address this. I hope that the Government are far more in tune with that amendment than with some of the others in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

It is nice to have a little fan club.

My amendment may be making the ultimate pedant’s point, but the Bill says that a relevant thing that cannot be interfered with is the name of a team operated by a club. My amendment refers to the name of the club itself. Is my point covered by this? I do not know. If it is, tell me where and I will be terribly happy.

The main point is that we will be still talking about who a fan is this time next year unless the Government make a decision and come up with something solid. It affects how the regulator operates and who they exclude. The Government may well have to decide who they are going to offend, but please let us do it, because otherwise fan involvement will mean nothing.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

I would like to make a short point, but it is an important one that has barely got a mention. Football clubs have a very strong interest in consulting their fans. The fans are their customers. The truth is that, if you look across the gamut of clubs all the way down the pyramid, the composition of those fan bases will be very different. Broadly speaking, the higher up the pyramid you go, the more dispersed the fan base will be. Famously, almost none of Manchester United’s fans actually live in Manchester.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

Do you think I should get up and answer that?

[Noble Lords]

No.

[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—

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

Woolwich Wanderers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think that is an informal one from fans of other north London clubs. But clearly the names of clubs do matter, and we would be interested in whether the Government agree with that.

Given the time, I will address the other amendments in this group as a whole. They attempt to require clubs to consult a whole host of different supporters’ organisations, community trusts and fan groups. I share the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough that, if clubs are required to consult numerous different groups—chosen through various methods and representing countless, and often competing, interests—it will be difficult for clubs to know to whom they are to listen. What opinions will they have to take on board and whose interests will win out? There is also a concern about whether this could lead to divisions forming among supporters’ groups of differing views, as they seek to influence the activities of a club in a manner that they would like.

I am concerned by what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said about football clubs picking the people who sit on their fan groups. That sounds like having a House of Parliament entirely dominated by the Executive—but that is for another Bill. The concern about this one is the old adage that too many cooks spoil the broth; that is, if we tried to have too many people vying to influence the views of a club, it would be difficult to differentiate the differing sounds and, perversely, fans’ voices would be drowned out in that cacophony. So a simpler approach might be required for fan engagement.

Trying to have a better answer to the question of who fans are, as we have said previously, runs to the heart of all this. But I agree with what my noble friend Lord Maude said: clubs are well advised to take on board the views of fans. They listen to them because they are the lifeblood of the clubs, and they make their views known pretty volubly.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I have some concerns about what the noble Lord advocates in this amendment. He advocates setting up a central fund in one of his other amendments, and the purpose of that is not clear, unless it is to provide a mechanism, in effect, for redistributing the levy funding the operation of the regulator, presumably from bigger and better-off clubs to smaller clubs. That will dilute the incentive that should exist for the regulator to constrain its size, cost and degree of interventionism because of the effect on smaller clubs.

This comes back to the sense that the rich, big or better-off clubs are somehow there to be plucked in terms of the redistribution of funds down through the pyramid—already, 16% of the revenues of the Premier League goes down into clubs through the pyramid. My concern throughout the consideration of the Bill has been that, if the regulator is set up in too large a manner and exercises its powers as regulators have an inbuilt tendency to do—they increase their scope and degree of intervention—that will have a cost.

A primary aim of the Bill and of setting up the regulator is to “improve” the distribution of money down through the pyramid, but the more the regulator does, the larger it is and the greater the extent of its activity, the less there is to distribute. If it is not strictly controlled, it will become self-defeating. If the purpose of the central fund that the noble Lord advocates is, in effect, to increase that degree of redistribution from bigger clubs to smaller clubs, as it seems to be, the effect would be to exacerbate the concerns that a number of us will have about the direction of travel and the inevitable tendency for a regulator of this kind to increase its scope, size, interventionism and, inevitably, cost.

I have given notice of my desire to oppose that Clause 53 stands part of the Bill, on the basis that the power to impose a levy will damage football. If the Government are so concerned to have this regulator, they should raise the money for it themselves and not have the regulator able, in a very uncontrolled way, to impose a levy—potentially very large amounts of money, as the impact assessment makes clear—on the very activity of the sport that we love, inflicting damage on it that would run counter to the intention of the Bill.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to put the noble Lord’s mind at rest. Most regulators are financed by the industries that they regulate, and the noble Lord knows that; he knows a lot about regulation. Given that there may be, from time to time, a need to strengthen the capacity of clubs lower down in the pyramid to operate, comply with regulations and all the rest of it, it is not unreasonable for the IFR to have the ability and capacity to exercise a levy.

The Premier League is generating considerably large sums of money and, although the distribution down the pyramid looks extremely generous in raw number terms, it is worth being reminded that some 92% of the revenue generated ends up being maintained by the Premier League and those five clubs in the Championship that receive parachute payments and the rest. There is a lot of money here, and we need to make sure that the regulator has the capacity to intervene in a way that is entirely fair. Later amendments deal with some of this issue, but we should have that at the front of our minds when we consider this.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, it is probably important to remember that a lot of this is about making sure that we preserve our football league. If a different Government had not intervened, we would have a European Super League and the Premier League would not be there. That is what happened.

We must remember that the preservation of those top five leagues is intrinsic to the Bill. If we want that to carry on, some money will occasionally have to be raised to support their structure so that it is more stable. The noble Lord’s amendment is reasonable. There may be a reasonable answer about why it does not have to go in, but I agree with the concept.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

What the noble Lord says is simply not the case. When the European Super League was proposed, what stopped it from happening and what made the clubs drop it like a red-hot potato was the fact that the fans reacted with fury. Admittedly, the rather populist Prime Minister of the time responded to the fan fury by uttering threats, but it was not the politicians, the Government, your Lordships’ House, the other place or a fantasy regulator who stopped it; it was the fans who stopped it, and we should have absolutely no illusion about that.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Maude of Horsham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group cover a wide range of issues relating to the backstop. While I understand the intentions behind many of these amendments, I fear that they collectively risk making an already contentious and divisive mechanism even more complex and counterproductive.

I respect that Ministers believe they have designed a balanced mechanism that places incentives in the right place, but I think what we will come to unpack is that that is wholly mistaken. I believe this Committee will see that this backstop has not and will not incentivise industry-led agreements, which is supposedly its overreaching policy purpose. I believe we will see that it will not result in a balanced, pragmatic solution that will be good for football.

It will instead drive posturing, game playing and the development of extreme and damaging solutions. We will see that this backstop is legally untested and uncertain, and it could sink football and the regulator into a legal and political quagmire that could drag on for years. Worst of all, we will see that this backstop has already poisoned, and will continue to poison, the well of football bodies’ relationships, when we all need to work together for our continued collective success.

I will briefly address some of the amendments in this group. The proposal to expand the scope of the backstop to include multiple parties all at once—for example, the National League, or potentially the FA and, even in the future, the women’s game—is concerning. This risks creating division where none currently exists. The Premier League, far from being at odds with these stakeholders, has made intensive and carefully considered efforts to support them, just as it has with the EFL.

Just a few months ago, the Premier League announced a £12.6 million package for the National League system over three years, a substantial increase on previous arrangements. For the women’s game, the Premier League has provided significant financial assistance, including a £20 million interest-free loan to help the new Women’s Professional Leagues Limited in its formative years.

These are examples of proactive, voluntary agreements that demonstrate collaboration rather than conflict. This set of amendments would encourage all stakeholders to start competing, simultaneously claiming the Premier League’s revenues, fracturing relationships and introducing adversarial dynamics where none currently exist.

This is not the way to build a sustainable and co-operative football ecosystem. Indeed, I will make a prediction: it is far more likely that the National League will seek to trigger the backstop in relation to the EFL, which does not provide any financial support to the leagues below it. The idea of the IFR triggering the backstop mechanism independently is particularly troubling. The purpose of the backstop, as described in the Bill, is to act as a last resort when the parties fail to reach an agreement; it is not supposed to be a front- stop. Allowing the IFR to bypass this voluntary process would undermine its very purpose and disincentivise genuine negotiation.

The idea that any change—not even a reduction—in revenue received by one party could automatically trigger the backstop is, frankly, unworkable. Revenue distributions in football are dynamic and fluctuate according to complex interrelationships. The amounts change every year, almost always upwards. A mechanism that automatically treats any change as a potential trigger would, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, be absurd. It would trigger perpetual uncertainty, which is the last thing that football needs.

Finally, and more positively, the suggestion that the IFR could impose its own settlement deserves careful scrutiny. I have tabled my own, slightly different amendments to that effect, which will be debated in a later group. I fully agree with noble Lords that the binary mechanism in the Bill is unworkable for football. However, with respect, I am not sure that this particular amendment would place incentives in the right place. To allow the IFR to impose its own settlement only where both parties’ proposals are inconsistent with the IFR’s objectives would allow parties to offer unrealistic proposals. It would mean they could anchor with a very extreme demand, knowing that the IFR would be forced to step in and create a compromise. This would further entrench division.

What is striking about the amendments in this group is that they demonstrate a fundamental dissatisfaction with the mechanism in the Bill from all sides of the House, as well as the main competition parties involved. The Premier League has raised serious concerns about the divisive nature of the backstop, while the EFL has, I believe, inspired the amendments in this group. It too sees significant flaws in the process as designed. This really should give the Government significant pause for thought.

Let us not forget that English football’s success has been built on collaboration and solidarity. UEFA has made this very point about the deficiencies of the current Bill’s mechanism. A backstop requires thoughtful, proportionate regulation that respects the autonomy of its stakeholders. These amendments, and indeed the existing backstop mechanism, would disrupt that delicate balance. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on whether the backstop as designed is fit for purpose. It should be fostering co-operation, not driving division. If that requires revisiting the mechanism, we should do so without hesitation. Football’s future really does depend on getting this right.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to pick up one particular word that my noble friend Lady Brady raised: divisive. There is no doubt that this Bill has turned what was intended to be a backstop—a last resort or nuclear option, however it was described—into something that can be used pre-emptively. Some of the amendments proposed tonight—which would make it more aggressive and interventionist, and more able to be used pre-emptively—have behind them the sense that this is bound to be aggressive, antagonistic and adversarial. I want to contest that.

The truth is that, wherever a club is in the pyramid of English football, it has an interest in the whole pyramid being strong. There is no benefit to the Premier League in keeping lots more money to itself and weakening the rest of the pyramid, because it depends on the pyramid; its strength is drawn from all the way through the pyramid. It is really important that we try to take ourselves away from the sense that there is a finite pie of limited size and so we should work out how to enable different parts of it to get more for themselves.

English football—the whole pyramid—has seen tremendous growth. It had the huge challenges of the pandemic, but it survived and came out strong. As we have repeatedly said, the Premier League is not just the most successful football league in the world but the most successful sporting league in the world. The Championship is the sixth most successful and richest league in Europe. It is strong and it will grow more, but it will not do so if the whole mindset behind how this is constructed just puts one set of interests against another. The aim should be to ask how we grow the pyramid further and encourage the different parts of it to work together and see the mutual benefit, to make two plus two add up to five, rather than—as I fear the danger is in how this is constructed—add up to three. I urge the Government to take this away and look again at how it is constructed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

With respect to the Minister, it was not just a random individual; it was a really significant player in the whole scheme of what we are talking about here.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s point, but if the EFL triggers the backstop or makes a proposal in bad faith, it could end up worse off if the Premier League’s proposal is more reasonable, so this does not encourage the EFL or Premier League to be confrontation or divisive. I am sure we will come back to this at a later stage, probably this evening, but definitely when we come back in the new year on Report.

I am really happy to sit down with noble Lords and talk this through, but I will continue to use my speaking notes for some time and then, I hope, give some reassurance that we are considering this carefully. I am always happy to meet with noble Lords, as is the team that has been working on this. As noble Lords are aware, a number of the officials working on this have been doing so right the way through from the fan-led review, so this is a really good example of the consistency of advice both to this Government and the previous Government, notwithstanding the fact that not everybody here liked the Bill’s previous iteration.

To return to my speaking notes—although I am fairly sure I have got slightly out of order now—we think that this approach encourages future collaboration. We might need to agree to disagree on that point and come back to that debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 263 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, which seeks to exclude parachute payments—the financial lifeline provided to relegated clubs—from the definition of “relevant revenue” under the backstop. This amendment is essential to addressing the profound risk created by the current drafting of the Bill.

Parachute payments are not just a feature of football finance, they are a key part of the scaffolding that delivers the competitiveness, the investability and the financial sustainability of the English football ecosystem. Without them, relegation would become a financial free-for-all—a cliff edge that would devastate many clubs and their communities. Parachute payments are designed to manage the significant financial shock of relegation, where clubs can lose enormous amounts of revenue almost overnight, yet their overheads stay the same.

I speak from some personal experience here. At West Ham United, we have known the daunting realities of relegation. Without parachute payments, the response in 2011 would have been wholesale disinvestment, a disorderly fire sale of players, job cuts, and a complete halt to critical investments in infrastructure. That is exactly how clubs start to spiral. Parachute payments do not come close to eliminating the pain of relegation but they provide some breathing space to make difficult but measured adjustments.

Yet this Bill places the very existence of parachute payments on the table, making them a part of the binary backstop process that pits two competing visions of football finance against one another. This is an intolerable risk. The EFL has been explicit that its proposal in this process would be for massive reductions in parachute payments, based on the argument that the financial gap between the Premier League and the Championship should be closed. But this argument fundamentally misunderstands the problem. The central issue here is not the gap itself, which reflects the commercial realities of two very different leagues, but whether clubs can transition effectively between those levels, between those two leagues.

Here the evidence is clear. Parachute payments work. If they did not exist, you would simply have to invent them. Crucially, parachute payments do not lock up promotion opportunities. Look no further than the examples of Luton Town and Ipswich Town from each of the last two years. Well-run, innovative clubs have every chance of success in the Championship, which is a highly competitive and appealing league.

Parachutes are not a significant distortion but a significant stabiliser, providing clubs with the tools to manage transition responsibly and sustainably. The EFL’s proposal is essentially to level down the Premier League to meet the Championship; to stretch out the bottom half of the Premier League. But that would destroy the top-to-bottom competitiveness that makes the Premier League the most watched and admired league in the world. Enabling such a proposal, as this Bill now does, expressly privileges the Championship over the Premier League. That is an astonishing position to take. It risks reducing the quality of the game at the top of the pyramid and undermining the ability of clubs to compete both domestically and internationally.

Let us also consider the impact on investment. Investors are rational. They are drawn to football because of its structures, parachute payments central among them, that provide clear pathways for responsible investment and sustainable growth. Without parachute payments, the Championship clubs become less investable. Why would anyone seriously invest in a club that cannot make the financial journey to the Premier League without risking complete collapse on relegation? The logic of the previous Bill was that, if there are challenges with parachute payments—challenges that the Government’s state of the game review may or may not identify—these can be addressed through increased solidarity payments. The exclusion of parachute payments in the previous Bill meant that the very existence of parachute payments was not placed at risk. It recognised the critical value of parachute payments to protect their role in managing these vital transitions. But now parachute payments are suddenly on the table. It is a hugely significant change of policy.

I know that the Minister would prefer that I should refrain from pointing this out, but the process by which this expanded backstop mechanism has been introduced has been alarmingly inadequate. As we know, the Secretary of State held just one 30-minute meeting with seven hand-picked Premier League clubs between July and October. The backstop was one of the many things that were discussed at the meeting, but at no time during the meeting were we given any warning that this decision was even being considered, let alone added to the Bill. Those seven clubs wrote to the Secretary of State following the meeting, which was five or six months ago, and we still have not had a reply. We also know that UEFA explicitly advised Ministers to reconsider the previous mechanism before parachute payments were even included. But, instead of narrowing the scope, the Government have significantly broadened it. I ask again: why? Parachute payments do not create financial irresponsibility. They are its enemy. They do not distort competitiveness; they enable it.

If you are Championship club newly promoted into the Premier League, you need to know that you can invest in your team to give you any chance to be competitive and to stay there. Clubs invest when they are promoted only because they know that they can rely on the parachute payment to cover some of the investments they have made in order to be competitive in the Premier league. Those investments are almost always in transfer fees and players’ wages. Clubs need that parachute to cover those things if they are relegated. If you do not have a parachute payment to soften the blow, you know that you cannot make the necessary investment in your team and in transfer fees when you get into the Premier League to try to stay there. You know your team will not be competitive enough, because you know that, if you are relegated without a parachute payment, you will face the real risk of administration.

Parachute payments help soften the blow. Without them, you cannot cut your overheads in any way, because there is no cause to terminate players’ contracts—that is part of the PFA agreement. So this means that, if you get promoted into the Premier League knowing you cannot contribute to the competitiveness of the Premier League—the idea that on any day any club can beat any other—you are going to affect the competitiveness and the global appeal of the Premier League, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, but, most of all, you are going to damage your own club.

Parachute payments do not reward failure. They allow clubs to recover, rebuild and stay financially sustainable. Frankly, I think that is the whole purpose of Bill. So I urge the Government to reconsider and to protect the stability of the football ecosystem, protect the ability of clubs to manage the transition between leagues responsibly, and protect the investment in both the Premier League and the Championship, which make English football the global success story that it is today.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Brady, who speaks with passion and deep expertise. I support this amendment.

I suspect I am not the only football supporter sitting in your Lordships’ House who had never heard of parachute payments until I started to get my head around the Bill. It took me a little time to get my head around the concept. I have listened very carefully to, and interrogated, the arguments for it, and understand them. The essence seems to me that it is simply a fact—an irrefutable fact and not readily to be changed—that there is a huge gulf in the financial rewards that come to a club in the Premier League compared with one that is in the Championship. One might regret that, but the only way you could possibly change it would be, as my noble friend said, by levelling down and reducing the competitive tension that there is in the Premier League.

The arguments that my noble friends Lord Markham and Lady Brady made about how parachute payments can narrow the gulf between Premier League and Championship are powerful and compelling. But the truth is that, without the ability for clubs that have been promoted to invest to become competitive, you would not have the competitive tension within the Premier League that is part of what makes it so successful. We have said repeatedly, but it bears repeating, that the Premier League is the goose that lays the golden eggs that reward the rest of the pyramid. If we damage that, we inflict damage not just on the Premier League but on the whole of English football, and that is what we have to be incredibly careful of.

There is a high degree of mobility within the Premier League. I say this with regret as a supporter of a club that is always regarded as in the top six but is languishing —temporarily, I hasten to say—in 10th. It is, as we know, the hope that kills you, not the despair. Nottingham Forest were promoted two or three seasons ago and are now fourth in the Premier League, in a Champions League spot—there is strong mobility. Could they have done that without the confidence to be able to invest and to grow the team and the players? This is part of the magic of it, and to suggest that this is somehow a game and a racket and that it should be put in jeopardy is not to understand the magic of a degree of competitiveness that exists in English football all the way through the pyramid.

This is something that the clubs and leagues have themselves come up with, and it is something that works. The idea—frankly, this thought applies to quite a lot of what the Bill is about—that what has worked and been proven to work will somehow suddenly be improved by the introduction of a state regulator might turn out to be true, but all the evidence of history suggests that it will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I find my noble friend’s arguments very persuasive, and I will ask just one question. I do not know what the answer is, so others who know much more about this will correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that no one made the Premier League make the already unprecedentedly large distribution from it down to the EFL. There was no regulator or Prime Minister threatening legislation that forced that to happen. It was because the Premier League saw it as in its interest to have a strong pyramid. It did not see this as “us against them”; it wanted competition within the pyramid but not between the segments and the different layers. I therefore question the idea that you somehow have to force a better distribution when it is plainly in the Premier League’s interest—and the way it has historically behaved illustrates that it understands that it is—to commit, through a voluntary agreed distribution, to the money trickling and cascading down through the pyramid. That illustrates that this is not necessary.

The danger is that the money that is creamed off by the regulator to sustain it—and is drained off from the clubs to comply with its demands—will mean that there is less to distribute. That money is already efficiently and pretty fairly distributed by agreement, so I am persuaded by my noble friend’s arguments that this part of the Bill is not only unnecessary but potentially very harmful.

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 271, 307 and 316 in this group. My noble friend Lord Maude is right: the Premier League’s distribution outside our ecosystem is the highest amount of money of any other sporting competition in the world, and no regulator has forced the Premier League to do that.

My amendments seek to embed principles into the backstop mechanism. My aim in doing so is to ensure that it operates in a way that is proportionate, legally defensible and fit for purpose. At the heart of the amendments lies a simple but critical idea: any intervention by the IFR on this issue must be guided by clear, fair and transparent principles.

The backstop mechanism in its current form lacks sufficient criteria to direct the IFR in exercising its powers. It dictates that the IFR must choose the proposal that is “more consistent” with its principles. But what are those principles? The first is to “advance the IFR’s objectives”, and we have already discussed at great length how nebulous those objectives are. The second is not to place any “undue burden” on the parties’ commercial interests. The third is to ensure that relegated clubs have a one-year transition for any changes to parachute payments. That is it. There is no other guidance for the regulator in making this enormous and binary choice. This is quite incredible, and it creates huge risks, not only for the clubs and the leagues but, more importantly, for the very integrity of the regulatory process itself.

Let me begin with a fundamental principle of protecting property and contractual rights. It is vital to understand that the revenues subject to redistribution under the backstop are not collective funds but revenues generated solely by the Premier League and the Premier League clubs. So the backstop is not a neutral act; it is interference in the property rights of Premier League clubs only.

Under Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the Human Rights Act—A1P1—any interference with those rights must therefore be justified on clear and compelling public policy grounds, and adhere to principles of proportionality and necessity. There are concerns that this crude mechanism, with so few transparent criteria, is legally challengeable under A1P1, even more so now as a result of parachute payments being included, and that is not a good thing; it is in everybody’s interests for this backstop to be legally defensible. But without robust principles to guide the IFR’s decision-making, any determination risks being challenged, leaving the IFR open to judicial review and the entire system mired in uncertainty and delay.

A1P1 case law also emphasises the principle that less intrusive measures must be considered before more significant interventions are imposed, so this is also enshrined in my proposed amendment. The backstop mechanism, as drafted, establishes a binary process that compels the IFR to choose between two competing proposals, but it provides no framework for the IFR to tend towards the least intrusive option, particularly in relation to respecting the Premier League’s property rights as the sole funder of financial redistribution. That is a very dangerous oversight.

Without explicit guidance to the IFR that it should tend towards the least intrusive measure, particularly in its treatment of Premier League revenues, there is a real risk that the backstop could lead to legal overreach. Including this principle in the Bill would provide the IFR with a clear steer, reflect the unique role of the Premier League as the funder of any distribution order and ensure that the mechanism operated in a way that respected property rights.

The principle of good faith is another cornerstone of these amendments. The binary nature of the backstop mechanism incentivises brinkmanship rather than genuine negotiation. These amendments seek to create a framework that rewards constructive engagement and discourages posturing. Without this principle, the backstop risks becoming a tool for division rather than collaboration.

Another critical safeguard in the amendments is the requirement that any backstop decision must not force clubs into breaching their own league’s or UEFA’s existing financial rules and covenants, including profit and sustainability rules or the IFR’s own licence. A sudden and drastic redistribution could reduce Premier League clubs’ revenues, which in turn could destabilise their own business plans, which in turn leads them to breach the profitability and sustainability rules in their own leagues. That would lead to fines, sanctions or even points deductions for Premier League clubs. It would be a remarkable irony if a mechanism intended to promote sustainability instead penalised clubs for failing to meet their own financial obligations.

Finally, let me address the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude, which would ensure that the backstop could not be used as a first resort. The IFR must first regulate clubs in the EFL to ensure that they are financially responsible and not conveniently reach for the Premier League’s revenues before it has even sought to impose those controls. If the IFR cannot deliver sustainability through its own regulatory tools, what confidence can we have in its ability to manage a redistributive mechanism fairly or effectively? My noble friend’s amendment rightly prioritises the use of all other tools before triggering the backstop.

These amendments would provide the IFR with the steers that it will desperately need to navigate one of the most consequential issues in football. Without these amendments, or something very similar, the backstop risks sinking into a legal and political quagmire. We should all be aligned in preventing that outcome, so I hope the Minister will listen carefully and sympathetically to these arguments.