Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, on the potential harms of overregulation, goes to the heart of this whole Bill. What we are discussing in this Committee is not just the role of a new regulatory body but the future of English football in its totality. The Bill introduces a complete overhaul of the entire system of English football. It creates an entirely new organ of state apparatus, which will no doubt introduce copious amounts of onerous rules and regulations that clubs and leagues will be forced to comply with—in addition to the already stringent rules that the leagues impose on clubs themselves.

The Premier League has a handbook on its rules and governance procedures that is 768 pages long. Contained within this vast document are reams of rules, regulations and duties relating to matters such as club finances, tests for the prospective owners and directors of clubs, the disclosure of relevant interests by club officers, requirements for directors’ reports, and so on. Under rule E.22, the league has the power to impose financial penalties, and under E.37 it can deduct points from clubs which violate those rules. All the things that the Bill seeks to address are already covered by the Premier League.

It is not just the Premier League that does this. The EFL already has an established financial regulation department, aptly called the club financial reporting unit, which monitors and ensures financial regulations that EFL clubs must abide by. The EFL can and does hand out penalties to clubs that fail to meet its standards. For example, in May 2023 Wigan Athletic FC was deducted four points, beginning the 2023-24 season on minus eight. That was because the club failed to comply with the EFL’s requirements that the club deposit 125% of its forecast monthly wage bill into a designated club account. In fact, in that season there were 15 disciplinary and enforcement proceedings against clubs by the EFL for breaching its rules. That existing self-regulation has clearly been effective. Despite some high-profile cases of failure, the vast majority of the time the current regulations do serve their purpose.

Since 2012, when the financial rules were strengthened, only six Football League clubs have gone into administration and only seven football clubs have been completely liquidated since 1945—these are remarkable numbers. Compare that to the finance industry, whose insolvency figures dwarf that of football. In the 12 months to September 2024, there were approximately 500 insolvencies in the financial services sector alone, according to the Insolvency Service’s official statistics. We talk about breakaway leagues, and yet we must not forget that the European super league was stopped in its tracks by the fury of the fans and the power of the current league regulators of football. Is that not a clear example of the self-regulation of the sport working very effectively?

It is not clear at all that self-regulation has failed. I put it to your Lordships’ House that English football is one of the great success stories of private regulation. The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions. They have robust mechanisms for punishing those clubs that do not act appropriately, and the evidence of the success rate of football clubs proves that that has indeed worked. So I ask the Minister: why strangle the flourishing industry that is professional football?

I also point out that that seems to be the view of the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park noted at Second Reading, the Prime Minister himself said at the recent investment summit that

“the key test for me on regulation is … growth. Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to inhibit or unlock investment?”

He went on to say that

“where it is needlessly holding back the investment we need … we will get rid of it … we will make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does”.

There we have it. The Prime Minister himself understands that regulation and overregulation are fraught with economic danger. If he realises the risks of regulation inhibiting investment in that arena, does he also recognise the risks of regulation and overregulation within football?

It seems we are suffering from, as Harold Demsetz termed it, the Nirvana fallacy. This is where people look at private solutions and seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real. If discrepancies are found, they deduce that the real is inefficient. Their usual yet unfortunate response is that the only possible solution must surely be more regulation, more rules and more state diktats. But when we are considering whether this new regulator will actually improve outcomes for football, we cannot merely have reference to the supposed limitations of self-regulation. We must look at what this independent football regulator will become.

For that, it is particularly instructive to examine the recent report on the Financial Conduct Authority by the All-Party Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. That report has found that the body that regulates the entire financial sector in this country is

“an opaque and unaccountable organisation”

that is

“incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.”

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, stated that the FCA was “complacent, conflicted and captured”.

Among the litany of failures that the report identified is one that is typical of regulators of all stripes: the culture of the organisation. The APPG found that the entire professional culture of the regulator was defective, and that

“errors and inaction are too common”.

The APPG has lined up a vast array of whistleblowers, who have shed light on the problems that the FCA faces. That report is backed up by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which points out that the FCA has been able to decide its own burden of proof and then levy fines running into billions of pounds, and all without proper accountability.

I will not reiterate the entire report for the Committee, but I was not surprised at all when I read it. The behaviours and the failures as described by the APPG are all too common when it comes to state-run bodies that seek to enforce their rules on to other private entities. They are too often encouraged to go further than necessary—mission creep—and then do not act when they are supposed to.

Why would this regulator be any different? Why would the independent football regulator break the mould and challenge these hitherto proven truths? I see no reason why the IFR would improve football in this country in any way. Previous state-run regulators have clearly failed, and I have no doubt that this regulator would potentially do the same. I therefore feel it is an absolute bare minimum to require the independent football regulator to have due regard to these risks of overregulation, as enunciated in my amendment. That should not be a contentious point.

I hope that the Minister can give me cast-iron assurances that the regulator will be ever watchful of the damage that it could very well inflict on football clubs and leagues. I ask her to guarantee absolutely that the IFR would be a light-touch regulator and not delve into the minutiae of each club’s finances and everyday operations. I want her to reassure the House that not one penny of a club’s income will be wantonly redistributed to another club, which would be tantamount to asking one private business to give its own earned assets to another private business. As I described last week in Committee, that would be a moral hazard. This is a matter of profound principle that I simply cannot disregard.

For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that this is a poorly drafted Bill. It was poorly drafted under the previous Administration, and it is worse now—but at least we have the opportunity to address its worst deficiencies and improve it in Committee. I hope that the Government and this Committee understand the dangers of the path that we are heading down, and that all possible efforts should be taken to shift us away from the constant move towards more regulation and to protect our nation’s proudest cultural export from the ever-encroaching arms and dead hand of the state.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak for the first time today to support my noble friend’s amendment, because it is important to set this Bill in context.

I, for one, am not in favour of the financial regulation in the Bill. I have a degree of support for many of the amendments that came out of the Tracey Crouch review, and the propositions on fan-led change are reasonable for the Premier League to consider. What worries me is that we are introducing—the only country in the western world to do so—the imposition of regulatory control over one of our major sports. Even countries such as Russia and China, which have sports laws, recognise the overall authority of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and UEFA. They do so in recognition that they would not be able to host or to participate in their sporting events if they did not accept that overall authority.

On the first day in Committee, it was clear that the Government were not prepared to countenance putting the important rider in the legislation that we would do nothing that would threaten the role and playing of our clubs in European competitions and the World Cup—and, if we include women’s football, in the Olympic Games too, but that is a matter for a latter amendment. I am concerned about the imposition of regulatory control, being the only country that does this, because, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, this does not in any way generate growth. On the contrary, it proposes a whole series of measures that will restrict the competitiveness of the clubs in the Premier League, which, in turn, will mean that the waterfall of financial support that comes through to all professional football in this country is lessened, not increased.

I speak from the position of somebody who has had the privilege of being involved in sport for 30 or 40 years. When I was interested in becoming a Member of Parliament, I wanted to go to Moscow as an athlete for the Olympic Games. Had we legislated that the athletes could not go, I would not have been permitted to go. As it was, I led a campaign for the athletes to go against the boycott that my then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly supported. I felt that, under the autonomy and independence of sport and the vital principle that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be political pawns, it was right for the competitors, who wanted to go, to compete in Moscow, however much they may have opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as indeed I did. I recognised that to use sportsmen and sportswomen as the only way to demonstrate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was wrong, when people could buy tickets for Aeroflot in Piccadilly and go to watch the Bolshoi in Leningrad, and while trade and diplomatic relations continued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that a lot of this detail is being worked out by the shadow regulator. I can ask for that detail. I cannot give the noble Lord explicit clarity on that tonight but I will endeavour to get a clearer answer for him before the next sitting. That may, however, not include the level of detail that he requests.

To return to the amendment in question, the duties in Clause 7 are fairly novel for a statutory regulator. These bespoke duties acknowledge the specific market features that are key to the continued success of English football, such as investment and competitiveness.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The Minister just referred to competitiveness. Some 14 clubs in the Premier League are multi-club ownership structures. Will the regulator be able to take into account the financial strength or otherwise of other clubs in the ownership structure of those 14 clubs? For example, with Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS at Manchester United, in providing a licence to Manchester United, will the regulator take into account the financial strength or otherwise of Nice and Lausanne—two other clubs which INEOS has an interest in—or is the regulator specifically and only to look at the English clubs? If it is the latter, is there not a risk of capital flight away from Manchester United in those circumstances if, for example, a significant bond was to be required by the regulator to be put up for Manchester United?

[Baroness Twycross]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

18: Clause 2, page 2, line 28, after “a” insert “men’s”

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 covers the issue of the scope of the Bill, and particularly women’s football. The Clause 2 stand part debate will focus specifically on the concerns that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised for the consideration of your Lordships.

As regards the women’s game, I seek clarification from the Minister. There is, as noble Lords know, a delegated power in the Bill that allows, at any time in the future, the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the Bill and include women’s football. At present, women’s football is not covered, mainly because of the future of women’s football review, which recommended that women’s football be given a chance to self-regulate. However, it noted that the market shares some similar problems with the men’s game, and, given that the policy intent was that the regulator should not regulate women’s clubs—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I am mindful of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not here. She and I, and others, have an amendment specifically addressing the issue of the place of women’s football. Would the noble Lord withdraw his amendment this evening so that the noble Baroness could at least be here to take part in that debate? I know it is very close to her heart and I am trying to save us from having two debates.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I appreciate that. I will considerably curtail, so I do not need to come back to repeat what I have just said, and simply put a number of very brief questions. Unfortunately, that was not of my doing, as the noble Lord knows, and the powers that be will no doubt look rather more closely at future amendments to make sure that there is no overlap.

I simply ask the Minister one question: what specifically would need to happen for the women’s game to be added into the proposed regulatory framework? I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others, to explore in more detail questions surrounding the ownership of clubs, which regard both women’s and men’s participation as equally important, and therefore the fitness of directors tests, et cetera. To assist the process of speeding up matters in your Lordships’ Committee this evening, I will not ask any further questions on that but will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to consider that in greater detail.

I turn to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is absolutely relevant to Clause 2—unless the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has identified a further group of amendments that we can tie this in to. Clause 2 is really important, because it gives the Secretary of State significant powers through secondary legislation. As the Minister knows, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is a highly respected Committee in this House, and we have a senior member of that committee present this evening. I declare an interest, having served on that committee.

There was real concern that the meaning of English football as defined in Clause 2 was left unclear in the Bill. We covered that briefly at an earlier stage but, to cut to the point, their comment was:

“The policy intent has always been that”


the clubs in scope of the regulator’s remit

“should currently be the top five leagues of the men’s English football pyramid only”.

Given that, it is somewhat concerning that there is so much scope given to change that in secondary legislation, without the opportunity we would have of considering the benefits, or otherwise, of any significant changes to the Bill, which would be really significant. Therefore, it was not surprising that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:

“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.


That is a fairly powerful point for that committee to make in the context of this Bill—indeed, of any Bill brought before your Lordships’ House.

The committee continued:

“The current system of leagues works well. If it were enshrined in primary legislation, it could still work well and, if it ceased to do so, the primary legislation could be amended. Primary legislation is constantly being amended”


to be

“fit for purpose”.

So I very much hope that the Minister will take careful note of the advice offered by that committee. It is very rare that we would ignore that committee or reject the most important recommendation that it has made. It makes a very strong point there. This is an enabling Bill. Clause 2 gives wide-ranging remits to consider the inclusion of women’s football to the Secretary of State—not, by the way, to the regulator. Equally, it is clearly a Bill about the men’s game, which brings forward clear primary legislation on the role of the regulator in the context of the men’s game.

That being the case, I see no reason why this legislation should not be very clear about its purpose and not leave it open to secondary legislation, which gets far less attention in your Lordships’ House. We know that from both sides of the House, whoever has been in Government: it is easy to slip through secondary legislation. We cannot deal with it clause by clause; we either accept it or reject it and we do not have a Committee stage on it.

The two powers vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 2 are of such importance that I very much hope that the Minister will take away the points I have just raised and give further consideration to putting the Bill’s intent clearly within it, rather than leaving it to future secondary legislation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I will be happy to discuss these matters further—even in person—throughout the Committee stage and future debates. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept these amendments and hope that Amendment 18 will be withdrawn. I beg to move that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for her response to these points, I am more convinced than ever that having a probing amendment that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill has been borne out by the exchanges that we have had this evening.

First, there are clearly too many powers that have gone into secondary legislation and those powers delegated to the Secretary of State now have a completely different light on them. The question of hybridity is absolutely relevant. If we do not know what we are talking about within the Bill because it is potentially hybrid, and we cannot put on the face of the Bill the government plan—which, incidentally, was the same as the previous government plan—to enshrine the top five leagues of the men’s game in legislation, then we have a serious problem.

My concern is amplified by the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clearly unaware of the exchanges that have taken place this evening or, indeed, of any briefing that could have been given to the committee by the Government; it clearly did not happen. So it is not surprising that in its report it stated:

“It is not clear why a monopoly granted by secondary legislation would be less significant than one granted by primary legislation”.


The answer to that is quite clearly one of hybridity.

Therefore, in not pushing my amendment this evening, I nevertheless request that the Government write not only to members of this Committee but to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, setting out in some detail their response to the exchanges that have taken place this evening, so that these issues can be addressed with clarity. Frankly, it is not surprising that, without that clarity, the committee commented:

“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.


The committee does not make comments such as that flippantly but it would make them in the absence of a full understanding of the reasons behind the Government’s position as to why they have not put the top five leagues from the men’s game in legislation. That applies to Amendment 19 as well as Amendment 21.

I very much hope that in my not pressing Amendment 18, the Government will take it away and give due consideration to what has been said this evening and write to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with an updated view. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.