Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving Amendment 51 on his behalf—and to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and then Amendments 71, 126 and 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham. To those final three, I have also added my name.

The amendments in this group seek to restrict some of the wider powers granted to the new independent football regulator in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendments 51 and 52 would alter the fundamental objectives of the regulator. As drafted, the Bill states that the objectives of the regulator include

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,

and

“to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”.

In essence, that is both a specific objective, directed at clubs themselves, and a general objective, which applies to English football as a whole. Leaving aside the important question of what constitutes English football—which we have already debated but not yet had much success in ascertaining—and indeed the question of what the Government mean by “financial soundness” and “financial resilience”, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham has sought through his amendments to probe the Government’s intention to set the regulator’s objective as being to protect and to promote. In place of those words, my noble friend proposes the alternative description,

“monitor and where necessary intervene”.

His amendment thus addresses the core question of how activist a regulator we want. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for underlining that point in his contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response both to the amendments and to that that core argument. That is, I think, what Members of the Committee have been probing in this group.

Clearly, as drafted, the Bill sets the independent football regulator an active objective to protect and promote English football. That objective is necessarily continuous and seemingly proactive. It could be taken by the regulator to require constant involvement, giving rise once again to the concerns that the Committee has raised about excessive activity and mission creep. By contrast, a lighter-touch duty to monitor the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football could allow clubs to get on with their ultimate objective of winning competitions without the overbearing and excessive involvement of this new regulator. I was struck that my noble friend’s amendment is explicit that the regulator’s objective would involve active intervention only “where necessary”. That is a helpful formulation and discipline when drafting legislation.

The question these amendments pose to the Committee, therefore, is whether we want an active, interventionist and potentially overbearing regulator, which might run the risk of getting in the way of our world-class football clubs; or a vigilant, diligent but ultimately careful regulator, which has a duty to stay its hand and intervene only when necessary. I have stretched from teeth to hands in extending the metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I agree that the regulator must have teeth and must be seen to have them. We would like to see those teeth bared from time to time, and to hear them gnashing but, like my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I would rather not see the scars from those teeth on world-class and highly successful businesses and clubs too often.

We have to strike the right balance to make sure that we have a regulator that commands the respect that it needs to, without biting too often and too damagingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on where to draw the line, both in the legislation and the words that we have, and on what the Government hope the Bill will bring about for the regulator.

Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, places a prohibition on the regulator from intervening in the internal financial affairs of regulated clubs. His amendment allows us to consider an important issue, on which a number of noble Lords touched. I know that my noble friend feels very strongly about the possibility of this regulator hampering the ability of clubs to operate as the successful businesses that they are at present, so I welcome his attempt to see whether there is a sensible way of placing some restrictions or limitations on the role that the regulator might play.

As I made clear from Second Reading onwards, we support the establishment of this regulator. We recognise that specific market failures have been raised and recognised, both by fans during the fan-led review and by the previous Government’s work, which helped to inform this Bill’s precursor. The ability of the regulator to have at least some role in regulating the finances of clubs will, I hope, allow it to attempt to address the problems that have been identified. However, we again want to make sure that it does not do so in a way that damages the successful businesses that they are.

Amendment 71 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and I put my name to it as well. It seeks to prevent the regulator from transferring funds from one private club to another. Mindful of the Government Chief Whip’s entreaties, I do not wish to repeat my noble friend’s argument, so I merely pose a question to the Minister: are there any circumstances in which she and the Government feel that a transfer would be appropriate? If there are no circumstances that she can envisage and set out, what are the problems with embracing my noble friend’s amendment?

I will also say something about my noble friend’s Amendment 126, which seeks to strike out Clause 16(3)(c). That provision of the Bill allows the regulator to require clubs to provide any “such other information”, as the regulator decides in its rules, when those clubs are applying for their provisional licences. Once again, those rules are not set out in the Bill, but are to be determined at a later date so, as clubs are planning their financial affairs for the near future and beginning their preparations for the licensing regime that will be ushered in once the Bill gains Royal Assent, they will not know what information they will be required to provide to the regulator. All we have in the Bill is a vague requirement that they must produce a “personnel statement” and a “strategic business plan”, but there is no further information here and paragraph (c) seems to allow the regulator to request anything that it may choose. That is a distinct lack of clarity for clubs, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on whether we can add to that clarity by being more precise.

Finally, Amendment 130, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would prevent the regulator from requiring information that is not specified in the Bill to be included in a club’s strategic business plan. The current drafting of the Bill grants the regulator a concerningly wide power to require clubs to include

“such other information as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.

This is yet another example of a lack of clarity in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting it. Where there is a lack of clarity regarding the regulator’s duties, there is uncertainty for the party that is to be regulated. It seems regrettable that the clubs should not get the clarity that they need about their duties under this part of the Bill but must wait until the regulator has published its rules in due course. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the kind of information requirements that the Government think that the regulator might be likely to include in its rules? Is that something that the Government have discussed with those who are preparing the regulator’s work in this area? Can she elaborate on this for the Committee’s understanding? I am grateful to her and to noble Lords who have spoken on this group.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is important to remember that Premier League clubs are already extensively regulated by the rules of the Premier League. The problem is that those rules are made by the 20 Premier League clubs themselves. They are also regulated, as all football is regulated, by UEFA. I gave the example a few moments ago of financial fair play. The virtue of the Government’s proposals surely is that the regulation will be by an independent person. That is what is required. The defects of all the proposed amendments in this group would be simply to confine the discretion of the independent regulator to respond to circumstances as they arise.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Markham, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for introducing this group. I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which reminds us of why we are here.

Starting with Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, I understand that their aim is to clarify that the regulator should only intervene where necessary and in response to substantial risks. I assure the noble Lord that this aim is already appropriately achieved by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said—and apologies if I paraphrase this incorrectly—this is about ensuring a sound financial basis for football. It will be for the regulator to identify risks to a club’s financial soundness or the financial resilience of the system and to act accordingly. It would be disproportionate and unreasonable for the regulator to intervene where it did not think that the benefits of doing so would outweigh any costs imposed. The Explanatory Notes to this clause make clear that, in the advancement of its systemic financial resilience objective, the regulator

“will identify, monitor and if necessary take action to mitigate systemic risks in order to protect the aggregate financial sustainability and resilience of English football”.

However, we reject the notion that the regulator should be able to act only once risks have become so severe that they substantially threaten the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned the banking crisis; the amendment under discussion could be argued to be equivalent to a financial services regulator noticing sub-prime lending and credit default swap trading in 2007 but not being able to intervene until Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. Instead, the regulator should be able proactively to mitigate risks when they are identified. We believe that “protect and promote” appropriately conveys this, to ensure a future forward-looking regulator. However, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this does not mean that the regulator will be placing undue restrictions on clubs, pre-empting risks that have not yet materialised.

Turning to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s amendment is at odds with the aims and objective of the regulator. It undermines the very intention of a Bill that had the support of all three main political parties at the election less than three months ago. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State in the other place has stated:

“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/24; col. 244.]


We are looking to set up a predominantly financial regulator. Stopping the regulator from taking any action relating to a club’s internal finances would defeat that purpose. The regulator’s statutory mandate is to deliver its objective; it will achieve these aims using only the powers given to it in statute, such as the licensing regime and the owners’ and directors’ test. The regulator would, therefore, not become involved in the club’s finances, unless it thought that the action would lead to it delivering its objectives. Its powers place clear limits on the extent to which it can require things of clubs.

--- Later in debate ---

So I hope the noble Lord will understand that, from that perspective at least—going far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the benefits of light-touch regulation—I have deep reservations about state regulation, or even state-influenced regulation. I do not think I have ever seen a Bill that applies to sport with some 125 pages and 98 highly prescriptive clauses detailing the way in which a regulator would work, or indeed the powers granted to the Secretary of State to influence and control a sport. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have genuine concerns. If we have state-influenced and state-controlled regulation through secondary legislation, and also on the face of the Bill, we will be in danger of finding ourselves in conflict with the UEFA regulations that monitor its competitions, FIFA’s regulations and the International Olympic Committee’s regulations, should we wish to submit for entry a team, either men’s or women’s, to the Olympic Games. That is what concerns me; I have a genuine reservation about it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I point out to the noble Lord that the whole point is that this regulator is independent. Obviously, it is influenced strongly by government decisions, but it is independent. Surely, many of the concerns that the noble Lord is expressing—as, indeed, is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—are answered by the appointment of a sensible regulator who will act in a proportionate manner.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.

Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.

So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.

I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would

“ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively”.

I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.

We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.

So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.

One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.

In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

We all know—it has been much debated in your Lordships’ House—that businesses require the maximum predictability and certainty. To expect major clubs to make long-term investments against the backdrop of a newly established regulator that may make decisions that almost certainly would be influenced by decisions made perhaps every year, or every few years, by the Government seems unwise in the extreme. I hope that the Minister will take this away and reflect with her colleagues in the department and ask whether it is wise to have this clause in the Bill—I certainly wish to probe whether it should be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest, having spent much of the past three months representing Manchester City Football Club against disciplinary charges brought by the Premier League.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, who has long been a friend of mine. She has unrivalled experience of being employed by Birmingham City Football Club and, for many years, West Ham United Football Club, and has achieved great success at both those clubs. I respectfully suggest, though, that here she protests too much. Clause 11(2) contains a very important restriction on what a football governance statement may do. It

“may not contain any policies that are inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or with the IFR’s objectives”.

The second protection is in subsection (6):

“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”.


Those are very considerable protections.

We listen to concerns that companies that own football clubs need long-term planning, but surely any company is subject to changes of government policy over the years. There is no protection whatever against those and the consequences thereof. I see absolutely no reason why football clubs should be protected by more than the three-year period stated here.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I start my comments on this clause, I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss a number of issues—they did not include this clause, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss other issues with her. My concern about this clause comes from the very first words of the Bill, which say that it is to:

“Establish the Independent Football Regulator”—


an independent regulator, not one circumscribed by a government Statement as laid out in Clause 11.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who said, if I heard him correctly, that this was unique. It is not. Sadly, my mind goes back to a previous occasion when the Government wanted to circumscribe an independent regulator. I remember the debate clearly, because the late and great Lord Judge made a massive contribution to it, scything through the then Government’s arguments about why they should have a Statement in relation to an independent regulator. The independent regulator to which I refer is encompassed in the Elections Act. The previous Government said, “Ah, we’ve got an Elections Act. We don’t really like what the Electoral Commission is doing, so we’ll put in a nice little clause which requires the Government to make a Statement”, which, in effect, circumscribed the Electoral Commission. What is fascinating about that set of circumstances, which Lord Judge and I—and the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—criticised comprehensively, is that the wording in Clause 11 is remarkably similar to that in Section 16 of the Elections Act. In fact, Clause 11(5) of the Bill is almost identical, word for word, to new Section 4A(7) of PPERA inserted by that section.

I said just now that people on other Benches spoke against the Government imposing some form of Statement on the Electoral Commission as

“‘not fit for purpose and inconsistent with the … role as an independent regulator’”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1604.]

We are talking here about the same wording. Those were words from the Liberal Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Labour Front Bench, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that

“this statement is unnecessary and the Government have provided no evidence for why it is needed … There was cross-party agreement that the commission’s independence is vital”.—[Official Report, 6/2/24; col. 1602.]

I could go on quoting the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rennard, making the point that a regulator is independent if it is independent, not because it is circumscribed by a set of conditions as set out in Clause 11. I recommend anybody to look at the relevant amendments to the Elections Act 2022, where the wording is virtually identical. The Government then wanted to circumscribe the Electoral Commission. I would not be surprised if the officials discussing this Bill when it was in draft under the previous Government said, “Oh, we’ve got a good basic tenet; we’ve even got a set of words which we can lift, virtually verbatim, and it’ll circumscribe the independent regulator”.

I opposed the Government’s imposition of that statement in the Elections Act, because I believed it circumscribed what should have been an independent regulator. When the then Opposition forced a vote on it, I sat where the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is now and abstained, because I refused to support the Government imposing on an independent regulator a provision which is virtually word for word that set out in Clause 11. I therefore strongly support the amendments and oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of this group of amendments. I particularly support those that would introduce a requirement for the IFR to consult those affected as it produces guidance. Consultation with key interested and impacted parties, particularly the leagues, is critical.

The IFR is an entirely new regulator operating in an entirely new regulated space with no real international experience to draw on. As I highlighted at Second Reading:

“The Explanatory Notes themselves acknowledge that football ‘was previously not regulated by statutory provisions’, and explicitly state that ‘the new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented’”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1850.]


A duty to consult on key areas, such as those set out by my noble friend Lady Brady, to ensure that unintended and potentially damaging consequences are avoided as the regulator begins its work and develops its guidance, is surely a no-brainer.

At our recent meeting with the shadow regulator, and in various responses from the Minister during Committee, the desire and expectation of the regulator to work in a collaborative and proportionate way have been repeatedly reiterated. Several amendments in this group simply put that consultative approach firmly and squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister can look favourably on them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too hope very much that the Minister and the department will look favourably on these amendments, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brady and Lady Evans. They seem to be absolutely essential for reasons of efficacy and to give confidence to those who will be regulated that they and others will be properly consulted. I would be very surprised to be told that the regulator would not intend to do so. If that is right, it is surely essential, as in other legislation, that this is put in the Bill so that there is no doubt about it and so that the confidence that is absolutely essential is promoted.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment about the bodies that will be regulated has a fair bit of common sense behind it. I am sure the Government will have done great work on consultation and making sure there is communication between the bodies that will be being regulated and the new regulator. If the Minister can tell us how this is being done, some of my worries will be removed. Also, stating where that information will be provided would very much help. If not, it has to be in the Bill somewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a little about Amendment 124, which my noble friend Lord Markham has outlined and to which I have added my name. I am sorry that we have not yet fully convinced noble Lords across the Committee in favour of it, but it might be helpful to clear up some of the confusions which have arisen.

We are proposing delegating these duties not to clubs but to competition organisers. In doing so, we seek to avoid the sort of confusion that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, has just highlighted about duplication in the regime. As noble Lords have pointed out, there are already football bodies which have a regulatory role—the Football Association, the Premier League, the English Football League and, indeed UEFA. They will retain many of those functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows well, Manchester City’s dispute with the Premier League is because of its powers to make some of the rules for the competition to which it relates. We are trying to avoid the duplication of regulatory functions. If an existing competition organiser has processes in place to carry out these functions effectively, why could the Secretary of State not direct the regulator to delegate them to these competition organisers and bring them closer to the clubs that are playing in that competition of their own free choice?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord emphasises that the purpose of the amendment is to allow for delegation of powers to competition organisers, not to clubs. But the noble Lord will know that the Premier League, which is a competition organiser, simply consists of the will of the 20 clubs.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has made some important points and, of course, everything I have said is based on the fact that those clubs will be following that. They are basic conditions that any organisation, not least a football club, should follow. All my amendments—I have studied them carefully—seek to make it easier to ensure that the clubs follow those procedures and that the uncertainties and vagaries in the current drafting of the Bill are clarified, making it easier and more efficient for clubs to meet their obligations as companies and football clubs in the professional leagues.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, posed a number of questions about the operation of Part 3 in relation to licensing functions. I will add one further question, to which I do not necessarily expect an answer today. Pursuant to UEFA regulations and delegation from the FA, the Premier League currently licenses clubs for the purposes of their participation in UEFA club competitions. I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club—I realise that some of the other clubs supported by noble Lords would not have an interest in this matter for various reasons. My question is: will this function of the Premier League be affected by Clause 15 or any of the other clauses in Part 3?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 168 and 169, which connect with some of the themes raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Moynihan. One of the most sensitive areas of this regime is the imposition of discretionary licence conditions on clubs. The purpose of my Amendment 169 is to say that the regulator can introduce such conditions only after being satisfied that the conditions would

“not be met by the club complying with all rules, requirements and restrictions which … will be imposed by a competition organiser”.

Essentially, this does not go as far as full delegation to leagues such as the Premier League—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the broad criticism of that—but would introduce in one specific area what might be thought of as a limited principle of subsidiarity for the imposition of discretionary licence conditions.

The main purpose is to ensure that the regulator observes the norm of good regulatory co-operation—with not just the Premier League but all the leagues—by looking first to the adequacy of league arrangements in response to specific problems that will be the most politically and competitively sensitive, before stepping in and intervening with club-specific conditions attached. Why? It is because subsidiarity is a good principle of regulation where it is not inconsistent with the application of the intent of the law; also, I believe that it will foster the habit of regulatory co-operation more generally—not just on discretionary licence conditions. It will avoid duplication and confusion in regimes, and it will equip the regulator with a bit more political protection when it comes to the charge of political interference, because it can say, “We’ve looked to the leagues to step in first before stepping in”.

In the case of the Premier League specifically—let us face it, that is where the rubber hits the road on this issue most of all—it gives it, first, a chance to maintain system-wide and league-wide governance integrity before club-specific rules arrive, rather than risking the intervention of the regulator, leading to fragmentation between clubs. Secondly, it allows differences in application, inside the Premier League, of the general IFR rules in ways that account for differences in risk, finance and strategy, which we have heard discussed many times in Committee.

An example is capital buffers. The regulator will want to require cash reserves, and in the case of the Premier League, you want to take account of those areas where there are genuine differences from lower league clubs—differences in player registration rights, meaning players are more liquid assets, for example. The Premier League could design league-wide rules that are sensitive to these different conditions. The amendment does not say that Premier League rules would trump regulator rules, but where there are concerns, the regulator would look first to the Premier League to modify league-wide rules that respond to the concerns before the regulator directly intervenes.

Another scenario might be an issue of liquidity management inside a Premier League club. This amendment would point to the regulator first looking to the Premier League to take steps such as enhancing its monitoring systems, developing new metrics, et cetera, before it goes to individual licence conditions. This, again, would ensure that the league could retain the integrity of league-wide rules, rather than Premier League clubs having individual regimes as and when they trip up over certain rules.

What if the regulator wanted to intervene with a specific club as a matter of urgency? It could still do this. What if the regulator thought Premier League rules were inadequate to the task and insisted on imposing a licence condition that cut across and undermined league rules? Ultimately, it could still do that too; in fact, it may think that was the right thing to do. But what the amendment would do is introduce a prior stage that looks to the leagues to make league-wide governance adjustment first. In the name of good regulation, that seems to me a sensible, limited amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, looking at these amendments, I think that a little bit of agreement is breaking out that certainty and getting things done quickly are required in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have made drafting suggestions on the hoof, and we are lucky to have him to fulfil that function for us, but something that clarifies and addresses the issues raised here would probably be helpful. If there is something that we have all missed and it is hiding somewhere, that is great, but we need those answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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


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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I always balk when I see a group described as miscellaneous, or even worse in this case, “misc”. On the failure to give new names to the groups that have been degrouped, it is always helpful to have a go at giving us a theme. But I am grateful to the noble Lords who have covered a wide range of very important issues in this group.

I wanted to say a few words about my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 332, to which I have added my name. A number of noble Lords raised in previous debates the concerning example of the delegated power for the Secretary of State to decide what and when a season is. I am glad we have had opportunity to discuss that on its own. This delegated power seems to be egregious. I am not quite clear why the Secretary of State should have a say on what constitutes a football season. I am not even sure why this delegated power is necessary—apart from granting the Secretary of State more powers over the game, there does not seem to be any particular advantage to her in granting herself this rather curious power. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I wonder whether UEFA has a view on this measure. Would it not regard the Secretary of State being able to intervene in the definition of a season as political interference? If the Government have had discussions with UEFA on this point, I would be grateful to know.

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Mann, actually got round to speaking to his Amendment 153 in this group, which relates to modern slavery—such are the pitfalls of a miscellany—but I wanted to highlight that one and congratulate him on bringing it forward. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that everyone has a duty to prevent this abhorrent crime. I was very proud to work at the Home Office when my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead brought through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has made large headway into cracking down on this abhorrent behaviour. Since then, both the Premier League and the English Football League have released an annual anti-slavery and human trafficking statement, as have all the participating clubs. As the Minister knows, I am wary of increasing the scope of the regulator, but I would be interested in hearing how she thinks this new regulatory regime will operate within the law that we already have to tackle modern slavery and what she thinks of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments on football agents. Whether they are more or less popular than lawyers, I will leave to others to decide—and indeed whether the existing regulation that is brought about by UEFA and others he mentions is, in this case, sufficient and not a requirement for further regulation, as we see in some of the other behaviours in football. I leave all these, and the miscellaneous other issues that noble Lords have raised, to the Minister to respond to.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare again my interest as counsel for Manchester City Football Club in recent disciplinary proceedings brought by the Premier League. I offer my support to Amendment 173A from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We discussed the principle of consultation on Monday evening. I repeat that, in my view, consultation with clubs and specified competition organisers is vital to ensure that they have confidence in the operations of the regulator. It is also vital to ensure that the regulator is operating, as he or she would want to do, in a fair manner. I very much hope that the Minister will give consideration to that and bring an amendment back on Report, in relation to Amendment 173A and earlier provisions of the Bill.

I am far less keen, I regret to say, on Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, which seeks, as I understand it, to remove from the Bill the discretionary licence condition relating to restricting the clubs’ overall expenditure. I suggest that it is important to see the limits of that power of the regulator, because Clause 22(4) provides that this discretionary licence condition

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

As I understand it—the Minister will say whether or not this is correct—the regulator would therefore not have the power, using the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to say, “You can’t buy a particular player for £50 million”, as that would be outside the scope of Clause 22.

It is not difficult to see that there may be circumstances —one hopes that they would be very rare indeed—where the regulator takes the view that its objective under Clause 6

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,

which is what it is there for, would be damaged if it did not have a power to restrict in exceptional circumstances a club’s overall expenditure.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am beginning to wish I had jumped up before the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because I have come to a similar conclusion.

For every success story in football, if you look you will find a failure. It is often the case when people come forward and buy themselves the dream team, then something goes wrong. You will find that especially in the lower levels. There are stories of those clubs, with Bury et cetera copping out, that have more expenditure going out on wages than they have coming in from revenue. If the regulator does not have the power to stop that speculative spending in certain circumstances, it is being denied a basic power over one of the biggest problems that has led to instability, particularly in the lower parts of the game. After some of the discussions we had on this, I really cannot see how we can support the lead amendment here and still have the central thrust of the Bill.

How will the regulator assess the slightly strange finances of investing in people who are always one trip away from being worth nothing? One accident on a training field and your principal asset is worth nothing. How is that taken into account and balanced, which would require a level of expertise? Does the Minister have examples of where information will be gathered to make a sensible assessment on this?

On speculative purchases, we have heard about deals with agents, et cetera, on other parts of this Bill; it is important to bear in mind how these are done. If the Minister has information on how that information will be gathered and those assessments made, I would be very interested to hear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says and look forward to further discussions with him on that point, but we feel that the regulator will be best placed to determine which persons are appropriate to consult.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sorry to keep on at the Minister about this, but can she really think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the regulator not to consult the competition organisers and the clubs in this context? If the answer to that is “Of course not”, let us put it in the Bill and make it clear.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I recognise the strength of feeling on this point and look forward to discussing this further as we proceed through the Bill’s progress in this House.

Amendment 173B is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, spoke to it in his absence. Its intention is to place procedural requirements around the regulator’s use of capital buffers as part of a liquidity requirement. First, I reassure noble Lords that the model of financial regulation is about making clubs more financially resilient.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, raised an issue that has been discussed previously in this Committee, where owners tragically die and the issues this can cause clubs, which is that clubs will have to submit detailed financial plans, including contingency plans. This could include what the club would do in the event of a financial shock such as the sudden loss of an owner.

If the regulator has concerns about the level of financial risk exhibited in a range of scenarios, it can place discretionary licence conditions on clubs in limited areas. That does not necessarily mean that owners will have to put funding in up front. If the regulator does reach for liquidity requirements, there are already safeguards. Indeed, the amendment seeks to require the regulator to have regard to a number of considerations, but in each case the Bill already requires this.

When assessing whether to attach the discretionary licence conditions needed to meet the appropriate financial resources threshold condition, the regulator will already be fully informed of the club’s financial position because clubs have to submit a financial plan, which would already include detail of any existing liquidity buffers. Consideration of proportionality and existing financial rules is covered by the regulatory principles in Clause 8(c) and (d). Again, consideration of the impact on competitiveness and investment is covered by the regulator’s duties in Clause 7(2). Therefore, this is all already accounted for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I do not want to deal with human rights. I have come here to deal with modern slavery. I disagree with the noble Lord. The problem is that Section 56 is voluntary and not mandatory. Consequently, companies are not obliged to follow what happens. In a 2019 review led by Lord Field of Birkenhead, of which I was a part, we picked up the fact that it was not mandatory. Consequently, if the regulator does not have to think about modern slavery, he would not have to look to see whether or not an individual taking over a club is making his money in a wholly inappropriate and extremely wicked way. Because it is not mandatory, it is important that someone else looks at it. If it were mandatory, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Is it the case that the reason it is not mandatory is that Parliament did not think it should be? Therefore, the question is: why should it be imposed in this context and not generally?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Section 56 says that it is utterly wrong to have companies that make money by exploiting people down the chain—consequently, it is wrong. But, for reasons I do not know but can guess, the last Government, who put in place this very good bit of legislation, presumably did not want to offend businesses. I understand that there are problems in making it mandatory but, if somebody is making money that they are going to put into a football club by exploiting other people down the chain, that is something we should not want our clubs to be involved in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 178, 185 and 199, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I thank my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for her contribution to the debate this afternoon.

Among the detail of what a regulator may or may not look like, we spent some time noting para football and how it can change and improve lives, and almost change the world. I would imagine that modern slavery is something that we would want to try to impact. Major games, such as the Olympics and the Paralympics, have made strong commitments in this area, as well as around trafficking. Their success is up for debate, but surely football and sport should try to leave the world a better place, and so I believe that these amendments are important.

Briefly, Amendment 199 is about the ownership of clubs. We have debated Reading and Aston Villa at length. This amendment merely seeks to strengthen the owners’ and directors’ test.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I think a very strong case has been made this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Scriven, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson to require the regulator to assess whether a prospective owner of a football club respects and promotes the protection of human rights and prevents modern slavery.

I am very sympathetic to the principle. I am just concerned about the practicality. Is it really practical to expect that the regulator is going to have the expertise, time or ability to conduct a general assessment of whether a particular person—who may, for all I know, be based abroad—is generally respecting human rights and preventing modern slavery? This is going to take an enormous amount of time and money, and I fear that it would distract the regulator from the more day-to-day, prosaic functions that Parliament will be asking it to perform. I would be pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, how this is going to work in practice, because I am very sceptical.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Does the noble Lord accept that it already takes place for certain individuals and entities with regard to the regulations that I pointed out, and that the Government already have a system in place to do this for takeovers? The issue is that there are gaps, which is why it needs to be in this Bill, particularly around football and state entities.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I entirely accept that there are detailed regulations, in particular in relation to money laundering, but that is a far more specific area, where there is a government system and a whole army of people with expertise to assess those matters. The question is whether we wish to make it a function of the independent football regulator to have a whole department that is concerned with this. I see the force of the principle, but I remain sceptical about it in practice.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this is one of the best debates we have had in Committee to date. I am equally sympathetic to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the concern about the practicality of this, but none of that is covered in Amendment 200, which is in this group.

Let us just assume, hypothetically, that a state-owned entity acquiring a football club in England has an excellent human rights record and no problems with modern slavery. Under Amendment 200, it would be banned from owning a club in England because it is state-controlled. All the points that have been made are relevant and important, but Amendment 200, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is very specific and states that:

“No state-controlled club may be granted an operating licence”.


There is no reference to human rights abuses or to any of the important issues regarding the supply chain, which have been mentioned. It simply states that a foreign-owned, state-controlled company cannot own an English football club. If we pass this amendment, immediately we would then have to divest the Abu Dhabi United Group of its majority ownership of Manchester City and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund of its ownership of Newcastle United, to mention but two cases.

How have the Premier League and UEFA addressed this to date? They have focused on the word “control”. When the Premier League addressed the Newcastle ownership test, it received “legally binding guarantees” that the state of Saudi Arabia would not have control over Newcastle United in the event of any deal. However, the Bill goes much further. It grants powers to the regulator that are not just about control. An individual has to be considered who has

“a higher degree of influence”

over the ownership of a club. The control test that UEFA and the Premier League currently use, which is a tough test that takes up a lot of time and energy, is overridden by a requirement in this legislation—for the first time in sport—to test whether an individual has a higher degree of influence. There can be no doubt that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, as chair of the PIF, has a very high degree of influence over that board —he appoints it. Indeed, a Minister from that board has been appointed to be chairman of Newcastle.

If we go forward and accept Amendment 200 as it stands, what would we be saying to football, to Newcastle, to the Qataris—who might want to acquire a company, which there has been much speculation about, not least in this Committee—and to Abu Dhabi in relation to Man City? It would drive a coach and horses through the current ownership of the Premier League. It would be a very serious decision by the Government to take state control over who owns the football clubs in this country.

I say that because it comes down to the degree of state influence that is behind the regulator. The Government have said:

“Regarding the scope of the tests, we recognise the trade-offs involved, and are aware of the range of corporate structures behind clubs”,


and they specifically mention here sovereign wealth funds. They go on to say:

“We are designing the legal scope of the tests with these challenges in mind”.


They call them challenges, to be faced down at the request of government. We would have an open back door in the Bill if we accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, straying into foreign policy in a way that we do not currently do. We have plenty of legislation elsewhere on the statute book allowing the Government to intervene if they felt they needed to in a certain circumstance.

The Government have therefore further confirmed the scope of the regulator. To me, it is incredibly important that the regulator is not given so many powers as to require it to have direct influence. I lost an amendment on Monday night, when I asked for that at least to be defined and for consultation to go out to find out what “significant influence” means in this context. I think that is extremely important.

I have a question for the Minister. I cannot find an answer as a result of the debates we have had so far, but football needs an answer and probably needs it now. Is it the Government’s position that the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, should be able to own Newcastle United under the definition of ownership in the Bill? It is a very simple question, with a yes or no answer. If yes, why have Ministers deliberately constructed a Bill that will quickly put him through the ownership test of significant influence, and why did the Minister confirm on Monday that she wanted incumbent Heads of State to be tested? If no then surely the Government should say so, and we should have that as part of an open debate.

I hope that, if that question is answered this evening, there will be no doubt in future about what the Government intend, not least following the Prime Minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week and his offer to go to a football match with the Crown Prince. It is only reasonable for Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince to know whether he is expected to divest himself of the interest in Newcastle United or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests as detailed in the register. I support Amendments 187ZA and 187ZB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, which propose a sensible and very necessary adjustment to the presumptions under- pinning the ownership test.

These amendments address an important issue in the Bill, ensuring that the ownership process is fair, reasonable and aligned with best practices in other regulated sectors. As my noble friend has said, as it stands, Clause 32(5) means that if the independent football regulator fails to determine an application for a new owner or officer within a set timeframe, the applicant will be automatically treated as unsuitable. This is a really problematic approach. It assumes that any delay is the fault of the applicant or reflective of their unsuitability when, in reality, delays can occur for many good reasons. Quite often, they are entirely outside the applicant’s control or, indeed, the control of the selling club.

Simple cases can, of course, be done quickly, but acquisitions of football clubs can be complex undertakings. Applications for ownership done well involve a detailed examination of financial records, governance structures and regulatory compliance. Imposing arbitrary deadlines does not speed things up; it just risks poor decisions being taken on very consequential issues without all the facts. Indeed, taking time to get it right is in the best interests of all involved: the club, the fans and the broader football ecosystem. To penalise an applicant simply because the IFR runs out of time is neither fair nor proportionate.

The Premier League allocates significant resources to operate its own owners’ and directors’ tests. I have spoken to it about this issue and, of course, so has DCMS. It has told me that the league sees no benefit whatever in arbitrary deadlines and has explicitly told the Government that unless this is staffed and resourced intensively, the IFR will almost definitely hit the deadline in a range of cases. Of course, this will be compounded by the fact that the Premier League will be running its own process without a statutory deadline, meaning the IFR would be ruling people to be unsuitable for no good reason while the league would still be performing its test. This is a recipe for chaos and, I am afraid to say, litigation.

This presumption of unfitness if a statutory deadline is not met could have significant unintended consequences. Let us imagine a scenario where a club is on the brink of critical ownership transfer—perhaps its survival depends on transferring the ownership—and the only prospective buyer is deemed unsuitable purely because the IFR failed to meet its deadline. In the last Committee debate, the Minister said:

“Although the risk of clubs going into administration will be greatly reduced, it may still happen”.—[Official Report, 16/12/24; col. 54.]


For a club to go into administration because the regulator has not met its deadline would be unfair, and catastrophic for its supporters. Even if it did not result in immediate administration, it could leave the club in limbo, unable to secure necessary investment and potentially sliding into financial difficulty or worse.

This issue is not confined to the immediate impact on clubs. There are also wider reputational and practical implications for prospective owners and officers. Being deemed “unsuitable” by default could carry consequences far beyond football, affecting their credibility and standing in other sectors. That is not how a fair and just regulatory process should operate.

The amendments before us propose a simple but important correction. By reversing the presumption, they would ensure that applicants were not unfairly penalised for delays that were outside their control. Instead, if the IFR fails to make a determination within the specified timeline, the applicant would be treated as suitable by default. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, that is much more aligned with practices in other regulated sectors. For example, in merger control, if the Competition and Markets Authority fails to make a decision within the statutory time limit, the merger is automatically allowed. That ensures that the time limits are meaningful but that regulatory delay does not create unnecessary barriers or unfair outcomes.

It is important to emphasise that this amendment does not undermine the integrity of the ownership test. The IFR will still be able to make a determination based on the suitability of the applicant, but it will no longer have the ability, in effect, to penalise applicants or clubs because of its own delays. It would, in truth, be far better not have a timeframe at all, for the reasons I have outlined. However, if there is to be one, we must reverse the presumption and place incentives in the right place.

I hope the Minister will recognise the value of these amendments, and the much greater fairness and reduced risk they would bring to the process. It is a small but crucial change that will help ensure the ownership process operates in way that is both reasonable and just. I urge the Government to give the amendments the consideration they warrant.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this matter. It cannot possibly be fair to have a regulatory system in which, if the regulator does not perform and reach a decision within the specified time, for reasons that are not the responsibility of the applicant, the application fails. That is plainly unjust and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, says, it is contradictory to the approach adopted in competition law, where the regulator has short time limits and must comply with them. The alternative is to have a more open-ended system, whereby the regulator can take more time if it is necessary to do so in exceptional circumstances.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I will start with Amendment 180, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The regulator needs to know who a club’s prospective new owners and officers are before they can buy or join the club, so they can be tested.

Although clubs, owners and officers are required to pre-notify the regulator, there may be occasions where someone becomes an owner or officer of a club without having first notified the regulator. In these circumstances, it is vital that the regulator is notified after the event—precisely what this amendment would remove. That is because, if the regulator is not aware that someone has become an owner or officer, the regulator will not know to test them. This risks clubs having unsuitable owners or officers in place.

I turn now to Amendments 187ZA and 187ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will not deviate to talk about Leeds United at this point, although we always find reasons to do so in our general conversations. I am grateful for his comments and for those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Clearly, I think we come down to the issue of timely decision-making on the suitability of new owners and officers, and we recognise that this is important for clubs’ financial sustainability.

It is a fact that, without deadlines, we have seen league determinations drag on, unable to reach a decision. That is why the regulator will be subject to a statutory deadline when it tests the suitability of prospective new owners and officers.

We believe that Amendment 187ZA would undermine the regulator’s tests. It would require the regulator to deem an owner or officer suitable to take up a position at a club if the deadline had been met, and the regulator had otherwise been unable to make a determination. This means that it would have to approve an applicant it did not know was suitable.

Amendment 187ZB would then allow that owner or officer to remain at the club until such point as the regulator found them unsuitable. This creates very concerning outcomes. If the end of the time limit resulted in an automatic pass, this could incentivise prospective applicants to stall and withhold information. More worryingly, as I set out, it would also mean that new entrants were approved even if the regulator was not confident that they were suitable—which is something that we simply cannot have.

This risks owners and officers who should never have been allowed to take up positions at clubs in the first place to potentially do considerable harm to clubs, which is why the statutory deadline must result in an automatic negative determination if reached, because this is the only way to ensure that suitable owners and officers become custodians. If the end of the time limit resulted in an automatic affirmative determination, this would incentivise prospective applicants to stall, as I have already outlined. It would also mean that new entrants would be approved if the regulator was not confident, and I hope that noble Lords will understand that this is not an acceptable position to be in. That is why—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that the current wording of the clause means that the application fails even if the delay is due entirely to the incompetence of the regulator or the failure of the regulator to have an efficient system for dealing with applications? Surely that cannot be right.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s comment but I really believe we are covering our tracks in this. We are improving the situation where the regulator works to avoid the situations that he outlined. I will add that this also provides certainty to the industry and, most importantly, it will incentivise the prospective person to promptly provide information to the regulator to allow it to make its determination. With those comments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am sorry that we have not had a fuller discussion on that, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendment and I agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are significant factors which the regulator has a duty to highlight. Equality, diversity and inclusion are not named criteria in the fitness test, and I do not believe they should be. If an individual has behaved in a seriously discriminatory and harmful way that rises to the level of a criminal offence, and which results in a civil lawsuit or regulatory or disciplinary action, the existing test will capture this. We believe that this is the appropriate threshold. It would not be proportionate to require the regulator to assess individuals’ commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.

I will return to the point the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made regarding a blank cheque, and pick up on his Amendments 195 and 198. The Bill sets out a list of matters the regulator must consider when assessing an owner or officer’s honesty and integrity as part of the fitness test. Those are the relevant matters when assessing an individual’s honesty and integrity, and they are based heavily on precedent—namely, the Financial Conduct Authority’s fit and proper person test. However, as we have discussed before, football is a changing industry and the regulator must be able to adapt to this. Matters may emerge in the future that are crucial to assessing an individual’s fitness.

The purpose of the owners’ and directors’ test is to ensure that clubs have suitable custodians. That is why it is vital that the regulator be able to consider other matters. This sort of discretion is well precedented; indeed, the FCA has more discretion when conducting its fit and proper tests. However, we want to make it explicitly clear that it would not be appropriate for the regulator to add any matters which would allow it to determine an individual’s suitability solely based on their connection with a Government. That should not be what determines whether an individual is suitable or not.

Turning to Amendment 204 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nothing in the Bill prohibits an owner owning more than one club. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his comments on this issue. Concerns about multi-club ownership are to do with conflicts of interest and competition, which is why the leagues and UEFA have rules about multi-club ownership. Clubs competing in these competitions will be required to abide by any applicable rules.

Turning finally to Amendment 202, from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I agree that it is crucial that clubs be protected from unsuitable officers, which is why the Bill gives the regulator the powers to disqualify any unsuitable officer from being an officer at any regulated club, up to and including for life. That, I am sure noble Lords will agree, is a very strong tool that has powerful ramifications. It means that all clubs will be better protected from unsuitable officers, but it should be used carefully.

There are scenarios where the regulator must find an officer unsuitable—for example, if an officer lacks the requisite qualification, experience or training to take up that specific officer role at the club—but it should not automatically follow that they are deemed unsuitable for any officer role at the club. Indeed, there may be other officer roles that they are suitable and qualified for, but this amendment would ban that. It would mean that the regulator would have to disqualify them from being an officer anywhere. This we cannot and should not accept. That is why it is important that the regulator has the power to disqualify unsuitable officers but is not always required to do so. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Could the noble Baroness say something about the UEFA letter which expresses its views on the Bill? Will she assure the Committee that a copy of this letter will speedily be sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and a copy put in the Library so that we know what it says?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My understanding is that we will not be sending it, but I am sure there will be further clarification on this point.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can I ask why? This is a letter from the sports regulatory body that governs European football. Surely the Committee is entitled to know what its views are on the substance of the Bill we are debating.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am equally keen to sit down so that we can hear the Minister respond. I was party to the letter from the EFL and to the reply from the noble Baroness, who set out clearly the steps taken during these negotiations, and it is simply not true to say that over the past 12 months no progress has been made. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is a far more efficient, professional and collaborative way in which to make progress, and I very much hope that the Minister will echo that in her response.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the experience in litigation over recent years is that a requirement on parties to acrimonious disputes to mediate does often ensure a consensual settlement of disputes that seemed unable to be resolved—the formal process of mitigation. I declare, as I always do, my interests as counsel to Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings. I am a season ticket holder at Arsenal. I am interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is in the Caribbean; I had intended to go to the Emirates Stadium tonight to see Arsenal play Tottenham Hotspur, but I decided, on the basis of their recent form, that it would be far more entertaining to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and other noble Lords.

I just make two points about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I agree that they deserve close attention and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The first is on Amendment 297A, on the appointment of a mediator. The noble Lord proposes that the person to be appointed must have held high judicial office. I say to him that, based on my experience, the best mediators are not necessarily those who have been judges. A mediator is not deciding anything; a mediator needs empathy and the ability to build a relationship of trust with the warring parties. I therefore respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that he may want to think about that point.

The second point that I raise with the noble Lord and the Committee is on his Amendment 297F. If I have understood his scheme correctly, there is a mediation stage, then there is an arbitration stage and then the ability for either party who is dissatisfied with the arbitration to take the matter to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I point out to noble Lords that it is customary, where there is arbitration, that the power to take a matter that has been consensually arbitrated to a court or tribunal is very limited. That is the whole point of arbitration; it is to reduce the possibilities of further lengthy and expensive proceedings. The Arbitration Act, in most circumstances, limits the ability to go to court or to another tribunal thereafter to very specific and limited grounds. Again, the noble Lord may want to give thought to that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, during the Second Reading debate, I made a contribution in relation to this specific issue and I disagreed with some of my colleagues. I indicated that I had worked for many years as a negotiator on behalf of management, on behalf of some of the largest corporations in this country. I negotiated with trade unions. It is easy to talk about mediation, arbitration and swing arbitration, which is in fact what is proposed in this Bill by the Government, but they all tackle an issue in different ways.

I am impressed by the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I said at Second Reading that I was not averse to the proposal, but I wanted to see what the alternatives were. I will listen to the Minister with care, because I think it is important that one addresses the different forms of mediation and arbitration that are available to two sides, whether they are, in my case, management and trade unions, whether they are industrial organisations or whether, in this case, they are particular bodies that have an interest in coming to an agreement.

That is my observation, but I put one specific question to the Minister. According to press reports, the Chancellor is meeting regulators tomorrow to emphasise to them that they should prioritise growth. Given that so much of our debate has been about maintaining the growth of the football industry while tackling issues, I just seek clarification as to whether the shadow regulator has been invited to that meeting with the Chancellor. If so, is he going?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to Brighton and Brentford. I have spoken to the chair of Brentford and the CEO of Brighton. Both say that without the parachute payments—that safety net—they would never have invested in the players when they got promoted. If they were relegated without the parachute payments, they would have faced real financial difficulty. So it was the safety net of the parachute payments that gave them the confidence to invest in players, which then allowed them to have a strong enough team to stay up. I think that they would argue—in fact, they have argued this; it was in the letter that I circulated from the Brentford chairman—that the parachute payments were fundamental to their success in the Premier League.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Markham, on this. We undoubtedly have a very successful Premier League. Two questions arise from that. The first is whether the Premier League clubs have an obligation to provide some of their financial riches to clubs lower down the pyramid. It seems to me that the answer to that is undoubtedly yes. Those clubs, some of which are in a perilous financial state, are vital to their communities, and the pyramid is vital to the success of the Premier League, so they do have an obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, very helpfully, that he agrees.

If that is right, the second question is whether the amount of money that the Premier League should provide downwards should be determined exclusively by the 20 clubs of the Premier League. The answer to that, in my view, must be no, of course not. There must be an independent, qualified person who assesses how much is appropriate, in all the circumstances, for the Premier League to provide downwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the Minister that it was a good debate conducted in a good tone. I also thank the Minister for her helpful clarifying comments, particularly on Amendment 310 and the expert panel.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would like to make it clear that I think everyone agrees—I definitely do—that the Premier League should be paying over a share of its—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord says “everyone”; he might like to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I will allow my noble friend to speak for himself, but I do not think anyone is saying that the Premier League should not be paying some of its money over, most of all because the Premier League voluntarily believes that it should be paying large sums of its money over because it is critical for the health of the whole game.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I know we have had a busy and eventful seven weeks and we are almost there, if the noble Baroness will allow me just to finish. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which will be an extra cost to businesses of perhaps up to £5 billion a year. These are all issues that the Government have not taken into account. It is absolutely right and proper for us to make the reasonable request for the Government to look at the impact in the real world of these compliance costs, and I hope that the Minister is able to come forward with better news when we get to Report.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords have made a powerful presentation of concern, which I understand, about the financial costs of regulation. It is a short point. It really is. The question is whether the amendment is a sensible way in which to address this matter. I suggest that if there is to be a review of the financial impact on regulated clubs of complying with the provisions of the Act, the best people to conduct that review are the clubs themselves and the leagues to which they belong. They can collate the material, assess the costs and provide a report to the Government, which they can publish. Everybody will be able to debate it. It is all transparent. There is absolutely no need, so far as I can see, to have a specific provision in the Bill that addresses this matter.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there stands a contribution that does not know how tedious, time-consuming and expensive it is to write reports. Now we are putting on the same people, whom we have just said are going to be drowning in bureaucracy, another report for which they have to compile all the information and write. That was my view.

Although that is a simple point, it should be in the Bill because it is an underestimated threat of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister and the Government do not intend—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I started the evening feeling extremely cheerful, but I do not feel as cheerful now as I did earlier. As so often in the past, the analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was very pungent.

Unlike many who have spoken, I am a strong believer in regulation. I do not think that there is anybody else in this Chamber who spent many decades, the whole of their career, in the way I did. We are talking about how successful British football is. I worked in another world-beating part of Britain, its broadcasting system, plainly over many decades simply the best in the world and a regulatory achievement of all Governments over the best part of a century. So I am a very strong believer in regulation. My doubt is whether the scale of regulation that is imposed in this Bill is remotely appropriate. I worked in a world of highly effective but light-touch regulation and I am sorry to say that this whole dialogue illuminates the fact that we are in danger of creating a system which is overcomplex and bureaucratic and will stifle a highly energetic and brilliantly successful part of the British economy.

We need something that is highly effective but much more light-touch than this sounds at the moment. Yes, cost is important, and all those who emphasise the impact on small clubs are quite right to do so, but beyond cost is the impact that over-stifling regulation could have on the system as a whole. We have debated real issues this evening. We debated the quantum of flow down the leagues. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, made an impassioned and very compelling speech about parachute payments. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly emphasises solidarity. These are testing issues that need resolution. Of course, the quality of governance is much easier. It is about the world of compliance and financial prudence, which is a very important part of the Bill and can be done with a relatively light touch.

We have to get it down to something simpler and more effective. I come back to what I said earlier: the “state of the game” report should be analytically powerful and help to balance. I used the word “balance” earlier and balance is the right approach here on all these complex trade-offs. The last thing we need is binary: we do not need two proposals on the table and you choose one rather than the other on the toss of a coin. That is the quite wrong way to resolve the kinds of issues that have come up during the course of the evening. It is about getting the right people in the room, with the right kind of support, bound to come up with a solution.

So the Government need to think a bit harder about proportionate regulation. I say that not as somebody who is opposed to regulation but as somebody who strongly believes in it and has benefited from it through the whole of his career.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord makes a thoughtful and instructive speech. Is he saying from his BBC and other broadcasting experience that light-touch regulation can be achieved by legislative provisions, or is it a matter of attitude? What is it?

[Lord Birt (CB)]

It is a matter of creating the right institutions. In the golden days of ITV and Channel 4, it was the IBA—a relatively small but highly effective organisation. The noble Lord does not want a long speech from me about what it achieved as an organisation, but it was extraordinary. Obviously, the BBC has had 100 years as the most successful broadcaster in the whole world. The light-touch governance through BBC governors was powerful and impactful and it worked.

I am not suggesting that you just import those models, but we need something that is not stifling and bureaucratic, in a dynamic environment where people can get round the table and sort out these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am very grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I think it has been one of the best debates we have had in Committee. I particularly highlight the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, which is very relevant to the amendment. There is a huge difference in costs between light-touch regulation that is effective and appropriate and what he has identified in the 125 pages of this overcomplex and bureaucratic legislation —let alone the secondary legislation that will flow from it. If it becomes overcomplex and bureaucratic, it becomes expensive.

To get that balance right, which was an important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we need regulation. But football is regulated. The FA is the core regulator of both professional and amateur football in England. It has been absolutely absent from this debate. It has said nothing, to the detriment of its reputation as the national governing body of football in England. It is very sad that it has had nothing to say and no opinion. It is there to protect the autonomy of football and really should have come to the table and provided us with its thoughts. Indeed, I know that some noble Lords have written to the FA to ask it for a briefing on the Bill, and the FA’s response has been that it does not have a view on the Bill. We have no briefing. That is exceptionally sad.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does that not tell the Committee something about the lamentable quality of regulation that the FA currently provides?

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Without a shadow of a doubt. My criticism is of the FA and its inability to be the core regulator for a professional sport. Indeed, in an earlier intervention this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, alluded to the fact that we need this Bill because we need a regulator to oversee solutions that would occur. I would have intervened on him, if I had not been eagerly awaiting the ministerial response, to point out that the FA should have been first and foremost in that role. It is sad and regrettable that it has not been.

I will briefly touch on other points that have been made. Of course, for the senior clubs in the Premier League this will be a burden, but less of a burden proportionate to the clubs that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I are worried about in terms of cost. UEFA compliance is onerous, for example, and much of the compliance that UEFA imposes on clubs will need to be replicated. Clubs will need to look at it carefully to see whether there is overlap. My principal concern has been one shared with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at an earlier stage in this Committee: how much is this going to cost?

The amendment purely looks to try to resolve that question. There is an argument that it would not need to come before Parliament but can simply be published by the regulator, drawing on information from clubs. Indeed, the regulator will have to do that, but given the huge scope in potential cost that ranges from light-touch regulation to invasive regulation, along with the length of the Bill and the associated costs, it is appropriate that Parliament reviews that. Whether that is after six months or longer—as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said—either way it is important. It is a one-off opportunity. After that, we will have the regulator reporting and the relevant reports coming towards Parliament.

The Minister, who has worked exceptionally hard and could not have been more helpful to Members of the Committee at all stages, said, having been handed a note from her Box—that has not been too frequent, which is to her credit as throughout this Committee she has relied very little on the Box for additional information—that the impact assessment has been based on similar regulators. There is no similar regulator in the world of sport, let alone the world of football. It is simply not possible to do that. The impact assessment is the reason I am so worried about the costs. It says:

“The proposed intervention is a bespoke, sophisticated and evidenced-based regulatory framework”.


The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will recognise that phrase. That is exactly the quality of advocacy I would expect from him on any occasion—bespoke, sophisticated and evidence-based—but I might suggest that it does not come particularly lightly on the purse.

As a result, the costs associated with having that regulatory regime might be very considerable, especially when the very same paragraph states that the regulator, in the view of the Government,

“will be legally prohibited from intervening in football … or commercial … activities, thus limiting the potential risk of deterring investment”.

That is exactly the opposite of what the Bill sets out to achieve. Therefore, if these figures are based on that statement, they are erroneous and illusionary. They are fanciful pipe dreams. We really need an opportunity, therefore, to review the costs of regulation for all clubs six months after the Bill has been enacted. It would be very helpful to Parliament to see what those costs are at that stage and to reflect on them. For the time being, at least, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 336 and speak to my further amendments in this group. Those amendments are all taken together: indeed, Amendments 336, 338 and 339 are consequential to Amendment 337. Amendment 337 seeks that the Secretary of State must consult UEFA on the provisions and impacts of the Bill and confirm to Parliament that they have done so.

We will all recall that the issue of UEFA’s views on this Bill has cropped up on many occasions throughout Committee. That is not because we are chasing false leads but because there are very serious concerns, raised most notably by my noble friend Lady Brady, about whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. The ramifications of its discontent, notably the disqualification of English teams and clubs from European competitions such as the Euros, are severe. I am sure that the Minister, or indeed the Prime Minister, would not want that on their conscience.

Of course, we do not fully know whether UEFA is discontented or in fact perfectly happy, because the Government still have not published the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Minister has still not responded to the letter sent to her by my noble friend Lady Brady on this issue. While aspects of UEFA’s letter have been seen by news outlets—Sky and the Times have reported on some of its contents—the full views of UEFA have still not been made public. The only sources that noble Lords, and indeed the public, have been able to see to understand UEFA’s opinions are those we have seen in the news stories. This is highly concerning. From those news outlets, we know that the Minister’s comments that UEFA is happy with the Bill do not show the whole picture. Sky news reported in September last year that the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State said there should be

“no government interference in the running of football”.

As I said earlier, it is disappointing that I am only able to quote that one line, which I found in the Sky news report.

What this demonstrates is that UEFA appears to still have concerns with this version of the Bill. The Government have indicated that their removal of the foreign and trade policy provisions has placated UEFA and that UEFA has no concerns at all about the financial regulations included in the Bill. I would like to be reassured that this is the case, but, alas, I have not heard anything that indicates this. That is why our Amendment 337 is so important. It would explicitly require the Secretary of State to consult UEFA on the provisions of the Bill and confirm that it does not have concerns before the Bill can come into effect. This will have to be confirmed to Parliament so that we are fully satisfied that there is no risk of our clubs being disqualified from the Euros or the Champions League.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Markham, on this. I find it quite extraordinary that the governing body of European football has written a letter to the Government relating to this legislation and yet we are not able as a Committee to see it and form a view. It is not my understanding that UEFA has specifically asked that the letter remain confidential. Indeed, it would be a very surprising attitude for the governing body of European football to take. We have discussed this on a previous Committee day, but I did not think we received a very satisfactory response. Could the Minister tell us whether UEFA has asked for its letter to remain confidential and, if not, why we cannot see it?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Markham, is it not rather disingenuous to suggest that UEFA might have some concerns with this legislation but is not willing to make them public? UEFA is not known for being shy and slow in coming forward when it is concerned about any aspect of football in any of its member countries, so I think we can be fairly certain that, if it had serious concerns—or indeed, any concerns—it would have made them public and we would know about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by responding to the amendments put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in this group, and I would like to thank him accordingly. We have not spent a great deal of time talking about some of the implications of the amendments, so I would just like to draw attention to those. The reason we will not be supporting Amendment 336 and the others in this group is that the changes put forward would severely hinder the setting up of the regulator and its ability to achieve its objectives as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

I emphasise again that my noble friend the Minister has stated that the Government have worked closely with and consulted with UEFA, FIFA and the FA throughout the development of this Bill and will continue to work with them as it progresses through Parliament, as indeed will the regulator once it is legally established, including through the FA’s observer role on the regulator’s board. This will ensure that no powers or potential actions taken by the regulator would be in breach of its own rules.

All I can say tonight is that we have debated this issue extensively on a number of occasions, and as my noble friend the Minister has set out previously, we are working with the relevant authorities to give noble Lords the reassurance they seek on the specific concerns regarding UEFA and FIFA statutes, ahead of Report. My response to the repeated requests about the letter has to be, again, that it is private correspondence and the Government do not share private correspondence with international organisations.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Baroness asserts that it is private. Have the Government asked UEFA whether it has any objection to sharing this letter with the rest of us?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I cannot respond to that point, so apologies for that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Minister write to me and put the letter in the Library?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I shall certainly take away the noble Lord’s comments, and I repeat the response that I have had from the department in terms of the letter we have received.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I just think that this is very easy; it could be cleared up a minute. If there is nothing to hide and no concerns, just release the letter. Then we can say, “That’s fine; there are no concerns. Fantastic”. No one will be happier than all of us. What has been clear through all the Committee days is that we are all here, up to whatever hour at night, because we care about football. We are all football fans here; we have all declared our interests and our various season tickets because we care about football. That is why we are going on about this.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I just make it clear that I am not making any conspiracy allegations of any sort; I am simply and purely concerned, as I would be in other contexts, about basic transparency. There is a letter from a very important regulatory body in Europe and we are not allowed to see it. It is obviously relevant to the Bill that we, as the upper House, are discussing. Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I think that the points are clear. We are clearly not going to get the resolution now. I think it will carry on as a running sore until the Government, I hope, put all our minds at rest. All the time that they do not, and all the time that they obfuscate, we will continue to be concerned because we know that, if UEFA is not happy, the consequences are, as my noble friend pointed out, pretty dire in terms of our clubs’ involvement in European competitions. I will withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I am sure that this will come back over and again.

--- Later in debate ---

So the Government should seriously think about accepting this notion of a sunset clause in good faith because if, in fact, all the things that many of us, not just Conservatives, are worried about are wrong, that is fine. But if we are right that this could destroy football as we know it, that is quite a big deal and the fans will never forgive you, no matter how often you say you have only done it for the fans. So for the fans, I think the Government should go for the sunset clause. It is not going to destroy their Bill, as has been explained, but it would be much more democratic and accountable.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that before Report the Government will carefully consider how best to ensure post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. That is the issue being raised here. There are many ways of achieving it and I would welcome the Government thinking about it and discussing with noble Lords who have been expressing concerns how it is to be achieved.

I also hope that, before Report, the Government will give very careful thought to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, earlier about the ways in which the Bill can be amended or implemented to ensure proportionate, light-touch regulation, which I think many of us around the Committee are concerned to achieve. It is a difficult thing to achieve, but it needs to be to be achieved and, if it can be achieved, I think that will alleviate many of the concerns that have been expressed in Committee.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goodman’s amendments and the principle of a sunset clause.

“The delegation of particular tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process by which a democracy … relinquishes its powers”.


So wrote FA Hayek in chapter five of his magnum opus The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Think of how much truer it is today than it was then. By one account, we have had a new quango every week since the election, and it is a one-way system. They are never undone, and they are not undone because of the dynamic that, once an organisation like that exists and is in place, its primary purpose becomes the defence of its own existence and its own budget. That is why we have sunset clauses at all. It is the only way in which, realistically, you can put in a hedge in case the calculation on which you passed legislation or created a quango turns out to be false.

In this case, it may or it may not. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, tells us that the legislation is terrifically popular and that the fans are demanding it and want immediate action; the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, says that it has been polled and everyone is in favour of it. That may be—I do not know, as I am not any kind of expert—and I am perfectly happy to accept the possibility. Equally, we should be cognisant of the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, cited: 20,000 people of the 2 billion who watch Premier League games is one in 100,000—someone will tell me if my maths is off. It may be that that is a self-selecting and unrepresentative sample.

It is certainly the case, as any pollster will tell you, that people are very bad predictors of how they will feel in a hypothetical situation. If people are asked for an opinion now, and polled in the abstract on whether they think there should be some regulation of football, they might think that it would be a way of preventing rogue owners driving clubs into bankruptcy and so it seems a good idea. But what happens if, two or three years from now, the regulator does what almost every other regulator in this country’s history has done and expands its remit well beyond the powers laid down and discussed in your Lordships’ House? What if fans are then looking at a regulator that is doing things that were never envisaged? There are regulators laying down rules on net zero and gender quotas—and we have already had demands for clubs to monitor the diversity of their season ticket holders and so on. Fans will realise that, hang on, this is not what they signed up for. What then will be the mechanism and check on this legislation?

The only way of doing that is to have some kind of automatic lapsing; in other words, to allow this House and the other House to come back and say either that the legislation is working, so it should be renewed, or that it is not working, so it should be allowed to lapse. This should not be a controversial proposal. I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of noble Lords on all sides who have argued that this is a popular and necessary Bill. If it is, they should have the courage of their convictions. If it is, there will be no question—for all the reasons that my noble friend set out at the beginning—but that the regulator should remain in operation or that the Minister will keep it that way.

We must allow for the possibility that we may have got this wrong. It costs very little and would satisfy all sides. It is something that ought to be able to command consent in this Committee and beyond. I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as declared in the register. I begin by welcoming the positive engagement that many of us have had with Ministers and the department since Committee. It is clear that the Government have been listening and are responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and the Bill team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialogue we have established will result in a more effective Bill, which of course is our job here in this place.

I rise to strongly welcome Amendment 14, the Government’s proposed inclusion of a new duty on the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balanced and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated throughout this process, and which I know the Government genuinely intend. This is a very positive development. The new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. Its inclusion is an acknowledgement that, to ensure that English football remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the game’s ability to continue to grow and succeed.

This is an important way to frame the approach of the regulator from the very beginning, but I hope it will also have specific practical benefits. For example, the new duty should help to prevent the IFR adopting an overly risk-averse or restrictive approach to financial regulation which could otherwise limit football clubs’ ability to invest and innovate. It should also serve as a significant check on any regulatory decision around the flow of Premier League funding, ensuring that determinations on financial distributions remain balanced and proportionate, and avoiding unintended harm to the commercial strength and international competitiveness of the league.

In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator will approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future, not just fix the issues of the past. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is more to do, and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout Report, but I am happy to offer my support for this amendment. I believe a growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has said. I too have greatly benefited from the constructive engagement of the Minister and the Bill team, and I am very grateful to them for the time they have taken and the listening they have done to the concerns that were raised during Committee. I should declare my interests for today. One of my areas of practice is as a barrister of sports law; I represent Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings —and I am a supporter of Arsenal Football Club.

I have one lawyer’s point on Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. His proposed new Clause 1(1A) and (1B) would put on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State and the IFR, in exercising their functions, must have regard to the purpose of what will be the Act. That is entirely unnecessary because one of the basic principles of modern administrative law is that powers conferred under an Act may lawfully be used only to advance the objectives of the Act. That has been the law since the statement of Lord Reid in the Padfield case of 1968. It would be unfortunate if this Bill included something that is otherwise implicit in all legislation; it would cast doubt on Bills that do not include such provisions.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise merely to add my support to what has been said, and to commend the Government for having been on a journey to recognise some of the points made in Committee, which, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said from the Front Bench, was some two months ago. I hope I will not be thought ungracious if I simply comment that it was mildly irritating for us to be criticised for submitting this Bill to the scrutiny that we did in Committee, and to be accused of filibustering, when the Government were all the time listening to what we were saying and moving in the direction we were advocating.

I would merely comment that a number of us across the House advocated in Committee that an obligation to pursue growth in English football should be a key part of the purposes of the Bill. That was rejected by the Government at the time—almost contemporaneously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer using her bully pulpit to advocate that all the other regulators should be doing precisely what we were proposing.

We welcome the conversion and the journey, and we hope that more concessions will be made towards making the activities of this regulator less damaging than seemed to be the danger in the way the Bill was originally constructed. There will be more for us to discuss on that subject later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have spent some seven days discussing the detail of the Bill, and I think this is probably the first time I can rise and say that I actually agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. It is true that football has the power to do an awful lot of good. Many clubs—not just West Ham —actually do an awful lot of good in their community. The Minister has tabled Amendment 32, and my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have added our names to it, because this is one of the issues that we have discussed with the Minister and have mentioned in this House.

I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work that Bolton Wanderers does in the community. Suffice it to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair who not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the overnight sleep-outs for charity and other such activities. It is a mark of the level of commitment that many of the people who run football clubs have towards their communities and it is something that we should appreciate.

There is sometimes an accusation of sportswashing when clubs make big gestures, but an awful lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. In this context, it is particularly important in terms of men’s mental health, because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way.

Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues, and for the amendment she has tabled, which I am very happy to support.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I commend Bolton Wanderers and West Ham on what they do in and for their local communities. There are many other clubs which do likewise—I know about Arsenal and Manchester City.

I too very much welcome government Amendment 32. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says what he says. I respectfully suggest that his amendments are overregulation, which we all wish to avoid in this Bill. Government Amendment 32 suffices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is consequential. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much-appreciated constant support for all Members of your Lordships’ House, not least me, regarding meetings, letters and her engagement on the numerous issues that are relevant to the Bill, which already this afternoon has been improved.

My amendment recognises that English football operates successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs the Champions League. This summer, FIFA hosts the first Club World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available. Chelsea and Manchester City will compete for the trophy in the States. They do so for one reason: FIFA and UEFA recognise the Football Association as the sole governing body for all rules and regulations governing football in England. That is why the FA has a veto over any rule change in the constitution of the Premier League. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association, meaning that the FA has control over the men’s and women’s Great Britain Olympic football teams. All England’s professional football teams are members of the FA. The English Football League, made up of the three fully professional divisions below the Premier League is self-governing, subject to the FA’s sanctions. In another place, David Newton, giving evidence to the committee, stated that

“the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football”.—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 14/5/24; col. 63.]

Like every other league in England, the FA Premier League comes under the jurisdiction of the FA and must submit its rules each year for approval and sanction. However, this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this Bill, which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA. Sadly, as drafted the Bill removes the FA from the face of football regulation in England. Its 13 mentions in the 124 pages are mostly definitional: the company number is there in one reference; the FA is referred to as the Football Association in a couple of others; it is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise, it is purely an organisation that is consulted without any authority, without any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, the one recognised governing body of football in this country, feels. The FA is given one power, on page 40, in Clause 49(2), which is its one power in the whole Bill:

“A regulated club must not change the name of a relevant team operated by the club unless the change has been approved by the Football Association”.


That is the one name-changing power in the Bill.

UEFA has never hesitated in making clear that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the Football Association as the sole governing body for football in England, in accordance with the UEFA and FIFA statutes. UEFA stated that legislation that

“compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”

would be non-compliant with these statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned last year that there should be

“no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding”

the national governing body

“from Uefa and teams from competition”.

UEFA’s statutes do not permit it to recognise the primacy of a state-licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand its core powers to a government-appointed regulator which conflicts with UEFA’s regulation. This was well covered in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said:

“I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. 761.]


She referred to the letter, which she said was a private letter from UEFA, and there was no intention for it to be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out during the debate, the letter

“is obviously relevant to the Bill … Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1236.]

We heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from DCMS. A request was made to the DCMS freedom of information team, and the reply to James Wild MP reads as follows: “We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act. We regret that we were unable to respond to your request because it exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request would be over the statutory limit, because this would take considerable resources, involving many staff across the department. UEFA is a key stakeholder across sport and is engaged with the department on a regular basis”.

It would take some imagination to work that into a script of “Yes Minister”. Consider if every country established its own regulator without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and, in essence, challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards.

This amendment, recognising that the FA is in no way part of the proposed legislation that your Lordships are considering, would protect English football and our clubs. In many ways, it is a growth amendment. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep, the amendment lies comfortably in the Bill. If I and my colleagues are right, its place in the Bill provides a protection against mission creep, which none of us wants to see. I therefore hope that the House will support us, and I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.

It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.

Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.

I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.

The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I had been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up to this group. I now feel myself in much more comfortable territory—under attack and revisiting the issue of international competitions.

I understand the intent of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like once again to reassure your Lordships’ House that these amendments are not necessary. At the very least, they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; at worst, they attempt to create an issue that does not exist.

I would be a brave and foolish Minister if I proposed legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing with the Secretary of State, just last month—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday—that the Bill, as drafted, does not breach UEFA statutes.

The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. I know that there have been requests to see the letter that UEFA has sent to the Government that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote to UEFA, following the conclusion of Committee, asking whether they would be content for me to release the letter, but they replied that they would rather that communications be kept private. It is important that I respect this request to ensure that the Government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders.

I turn to the issue of the FOI. This is—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on what a freedom of information request should state.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As if I planned this seamlessly, I was just coming on to the FoI request. In my view—this is not what I got from the Box note—this is a lesson on how to get an FoI request rejected, unless rejection was actually the intent. I hope the Benches opposite will bear with me as I explain. The FoI request referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson, was an extremely broad request for all correspondence ever to the department from UEFA. In the response, the requester was advised to narrow his request to a particular timeframe for the department to be able to respond. In my humble view, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but, clearly, the responder may choose to accept the advice from officials.

Turning to the specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, lose the opportunity for future litigation, I am afraid that, rather than protecting English football, his amendments would have serious unintended consequences. The amendments would see a regulator established by an Act of Parliament in this country take a position of deference to a private international organisation. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament but leave English football in a very weak position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day in Committee, that the Bill compounds the problem of UEFA’s and FIFA’s ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. While I do not accept that that is currently the case for the Bill, amending current drafting, to fix in statute that the regulator must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, would surely create such an issue. The result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the regulator and, in turn, for English football as a whole. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting one: hybridisation being caused, in effect, by naming some clubs, or rather the structures. The main thing here is that we want the Bill to progress. Any danger of hybridisation is something that we want to avoid. Thus I shall be resisting these amendments.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the defect of imprecision is unfortunate, but it can be cured by secondary legislation, which is far preferable to the serious risk that the Bill would be hybrid.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group. It is an issue that we have discussed at length throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. I for one thank noble Lords who suggested that it would be helpful if we could progress the legislation so that we get the regulator in place.

On Amendments 6 and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, again, the noble Lord may be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist. There is no doubt as to which competitions are in scope of the regulator’s regime at this point, and which will not be. By delegating this to secondary legislation, we are following the precedent established by other similar sport-related legislation. Without wanting to seem ungracious, this includes the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be very familiar with, as he was the Bill Minister in the other place during its passage.

The approach that the Government are taking is both reasonable and the result of extensive, evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future- proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.

The Government’s intended scope for the regulator is well known; it has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this Government and the previous Government, which has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes to the scope in future would be based on clear evidence and proper consultation as part of a published Secretary of State assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of the power is set out on in the Bill. Any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

On Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many Bills, including the Media Bill, which I note he was the Minister for. To future-proof this legislation, regulations have to be able to be made in a timely way; getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings could undermine the Government’s ability to keep the regulatory framework up to date and ensure that it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the perceived issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.

As I set out in Committee and in our memorandum, the policy intent being the top five tiers of men’s English football has never been in doubt. Throughout the development of the policy over the past three years, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on this scope. This amendment would serve no purpose other than to delay the implementation and effect of the regulator. It would be set up, incurring a cost, but unable to act while crucial regulations establishing its scope were bogged down in years of process.

I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime and will not take up your Lordships’ time further relitigating this issue. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.

My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.

Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.

From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.

How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.

Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.

As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.

Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.

The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.

My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.

Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.

I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions

“a higher degree of influence”,

and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.

In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to

“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,

but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from

“a higher degree of influence”

or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.

--- Later in debate ---

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, when you talk to fans about this Bill—and I am rather sceptical of many elements of it—they say, “I really want this Bill because I am determined that we are going to have ticket prices brought down”. That is the main thing they say. They say that they do not want any of this “nonsense”—maybe not the word used—around EDI or net zero and all that sort of stuff. As one of them said, “I want ticket price cuts, not bloody carbon cuts”. I thought that they had a point. As the Minister is very keen that we should be led by the fans on this, I suggest that we reject these amendments, because I can assure noble Lords that, in the fans’ priorities, it is not top; in fact, it is not relevant at all.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, many clubs do what they can to promote the environment, and that is all well and good and I totally support it; what I do not support is Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. What the noble Baroness is seeking to do is to impose on the IFR a duty to exercise its functions in a way that is compatible with the Climate Change Act. If the Climate Change Act already imposes duties on everybody including the IFR, this is otiose and unnecessary; if the Climate Change Act does not impose duties in any event on the IFR, I am very doubtful indeed that it is appropriate to use this legislation, which is concerned with many other topics, to impose such a duty. In my view, it is not necessary to put this in the Bill.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes a substantial point about why in law it probably will not really help, but in spirit I am with it.

More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, made an important point about fans not being able to afford to watch football. I have been amazed for a long time, probably about 20 years, that working people in particular, with perhaps two children, might visit two games a week. I do not know how they afford it. It has always been, generally, a working person’s game—it is not a class issue, but I think, generally speaking, it has been—and it has inelastic demand. By that, I mean that it is a tribal thing: we cannot explain the reason that we get excited and depressed about football teams. I am hoping that Sheffield Wednesday will win tonight; I will be depressed, I will be—

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 18, because it addresses in a very clear manner one of the main concerns which was expressed across the House in Committee. The concern was that the new regulator should operate with a light touch. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it is not a phrase that is used in legislation, but we all know what it means—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will come back to the noble Lord in a moment.

The concern that was expressed repeatedly in Committee was that the regulator is operating in the context of a highly successful business that brings billions of pounds of revenue into this country every year and provides enormous amounts of pleasure and excitement to billions of people across the world—although the pleasure is not experienced at the Emirates Stadium if you are watching Arsenal on every occasion you attend a home match. Furthermore, in recent months this Government have expressed in other contexts a concern that regulators should not be a barrier to growth. There is, then, a vital need to put in this Bill a clause that requires the regulator to have regard to the need to exercise the very extensive powers that have been conferred only if it is really necessary to do so.

I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because earlier this afternoon, in an earlier group, he expressed concern about light-touch regulation. He asked whether it really means “being asleep at the wheel”—that was his phrase—or acting only when a disaster occurs. I do not understand light-touch regulation to mean anything of the sort. It means, in the present context of a highly successful industry, being aware of the equal or greater danger of overregulation which could damage this very successful industry. There is—to use a sporting metaphor, which I hope is appropriate—a real danger of own goals by the regulator wherever it comes on to the field of play.

The Minister was sympathetic to this concern in Committee, and she undertook to go away with her officials to consider this important point. I am genuinely grateful to her and the Bill team for the amount of time they have spent discussing this issue with me and other Lords. I am very pleased that she has tabled Amendment 18, which adds this new regulatory principle to Clause 8. Under the amendment, a priority would be given in the Bill so that the regulator must

“have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.

Amendment 18 will make a considerable improvement to the Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for having listened and acted on this important topic.

The Minister today confirmed that the purpose of Amendment 18 is to clarify the intention for this regulatory regime. There are different views about that across the House, but she has clarified that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regime will be implemented and exercised with a light touch. I think that we all understand what that means, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is not appropriate or necessary to include that phrase in the Bill.

In the light of what the Government have brought forward and what the Minister has said, I do not intend to press my Amendment 19—although I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for adding their support to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The issue is whether there would automatically be a “state of the game” report simply because of a request to trigger the process. Once a “state of the game” report is in existence, it may or may not be necessary for it to be updated if somebody triggers the process. In our view, the automatic triggering of an updating of the “state of the game” report is disproportionate. There would already be a report in place. We absolutely intend for a “state of the game” report to be in place before an initial process is triggered. Clearly, it would have to be written within the relevant timeframe in the legislation.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

May I suggest to the Minister that five years is an awfully long time between “state of the game” reports? That may be the defect here. The game can and does change immeasurably within a period of five years. Perhaps the Bill team and the Minister could consider, when the Bill goes to the other place, whether it might be more appropriate to have a more regular update on the “state of the game” report, perhaps every three years.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will take that point away and return to this issue with noble Lords. My view is that it does not necessarily need to be more frequent, but we can discuss that further.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 31 and to support Amendment 33 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The amendment seeks to remove the explicit reference to EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—in the Bill by way of a compulsory obligation in the independent football regulator’s corporate governance statement.

I do not wish to rehearse the arguments made in Committee, when the Minister, I gently suggest, did not fully engage on this issue. I am nevertheless grateful that her letter of 15 January to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea—who, incidentally, has done excellent work on this issue—was more helpful and at least tried to put forward a partial rationale for this part of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, this is an additional duty and encumbrance from the Bill put forward in the last Parliament. To that extent, it does not have the support of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

I want to say at the outset that it is important to treat everyone in football with fairness and equity; I believe that is good business as well as morally the correct thing to do. That is why we have a strong existing regulatory and legislative regime in this country, to ensure compliance with the basic tenets of decency, fairness and equality. But I oppose the compulsory and draconian imposition of an EDI obligation on football clubs for a number of reasons. It is heavy-handed and diverts resources from excellent existing community engagement initiatives that have developed organically over the last few years in grass-roots football. It is costly, bureaucratic and divisive, and I believe it under- mines community cohesion. It will impose unnecessary costs on a majority of smaller clubs whose financial health is precarious, and on which the onerous provisions will weigh heavily.

It will encourage diverse and divisive litigation and the intervention of third-party groups such as Stonewall, and will result in cases such as that of the football fan Linzi Smith, banished from Newcastle United Football Club for expressing her own lawful and reasonable gender- critical views online and questioned, in my opinion, in a disgraceful Orwellian fashion by Northumbria Police, for which it was forced to issue a belated and grudging apology. These proposals will chill free speech, cause the proliferation of ideological training schemes and undermine women’s sex-based rights in their workplace.

The Minister prays in aid a study by McKinsey into EDI and improved corporate decision-making but, as she knows, McKinsey’s 2018 study Delivering Through Diversity has been comprehensively critiqued and discredited by Green and Hand’s March 2024 paper published in Econ Journal Watch, which demolished its empirical evidence base and methodological assumptions, specifically on reverse causality, narrow focus, opaque data, quartile bias and global versus US scope of the research. Other academics, such as Alex Edmans of the London Business School, have similarly echoed Green and Hand’s robust and rigorous refutation of McKinsey’s studies. It is noteworthy that the Minister does not in her letter, or previously in this House, reference any other generic EDI research in respect of its efficacy, nor any on football specifically or wider sport. Perhaps she will address this issue in her later remarks.

There is a reason. Green and Hand’s headline finding was that EDI policies did not harm profitability, but there was no evidence that it helps it either—a rather important issue, given that the Wall Street Journal estimates that, globally, businesses will spend $15.4 billion on EDI next year. Where is the evidence that an EDI duty will, as the Minister has stated, “make clubs more sustainable” and ensure “good corporate decision-making”? Really?

The penny is finally dropping. Last week, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority ditched their plans to impose costly and bureaucratic diversity and inclusion regulations on the financial services sector, which the FCA’s own impact assessment estimated would cost £561 million to set up and £317 million in recurring annual expenditure. The fans and wider public agree. In May last year, Policy Exchange found that, by 50% to 14%, people agree that businesses have become too concerned with taking political positions on contested issues, while 75% of people believe that companies should prioritise hiring on merit, regardless of race or gender, rather than hiring to create a diverse team. Of course, they are right: 40% of Premier League footballers are non-white—on merit.

I assume that both the Prime Minister and his adviser, Morgan McSweeney, read those polls and media coverage too. I am heartened by reports today that the most senior leaders in government are considering prioritising growth and economic prosperity rather than overregulation and virtue signalling, and are giving serious thought to ditching the IFR. Perhaps the Minister will offer her views on that issue.

Does anyone really believe that fans clamoured for the mandatory reporting of data on race, gender and sexuality when Bury FC went bust in 2019? The proposition is ridiculous. We need to trust our football clubs to do the right thing within our current laws. Regulation for regulation’s sake will only hasten the demise of our world-beating football success story. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, puts his case very high. He says that this is draconian and heavy-handed, will lead to ideological training schemes and is even Orwellian. His case is simply not made out. The EFL in its briefing to noble Lords says on corporate governance:

“The EFL supports the inclusion of equality, diversity and inclusion provisions within the corporate governance code of the Bill. The EFL’s equality code of practice is already mandatory for member clubs and this approach is a logical extension of existing arrangements that will ensure high standards are maintained”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, has just said, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has spoken up for the women’s game from Second Reading all the way through the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving the amendment today on her behalf. We touched on this a little when we were looking at the thorny question of putting in the Bill the types of competitions, leagues and so on that would be covered, where we ran into the problem of not wanting to make this a hybrid Bill, but we were interested in the consultation that would be needed if the women’s game were to come under the scope of the Bill and the regulator. So I am grateful to the noble Lord—and the noble Baroness, in her absence—for returning to this today.

I shall speak to my Amendments 36 and 95, which have been put in this group. My Amendment 36 seeks to ensure that the regulator has power to restrict funding from sources that it deems

“harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom”.

This is intended as a slightly softer approach to the duty now removed from the Bill to have regard to the foreign and trade policy of His Majesty’s Government, which we discussed during our first day on Report. Rather than providing for the regulator to consider the Government’s foreign and trade policy, my amendment focuses on conduct it considers harmful to our national interest, allowing the regulator to interpret that as it wishes and, crucially, independently from the Government of the day, as we know that UEFA and others are very anxious that it should.

My Amendment 95 reflects some discussions that we had in Committee in which there was cross-party support. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Watson of Invergowrie, spoke at that point in favour of the suggestion that the Secretary of State might make regulations for Part 3 to come into effect only at the end of a relevant football season, rather than partway through. Clearly, there will be burdens on clubs that will have to comply with the new regulatory regime and it would be easier and simpler for them if they were able to do so at the start of a season. So I have brought this matter back in the hope that again it will receive some cross-party support. It is intended as a constructive suggestion and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I will add just two comments, the first on Amendment 35 on the women’s game. It is plainly at a very sensitive stage of development and we would all wish to encourage that development. My concern is that including Amendment 35 might perversely deter some clubs from investing in women’s football, and that would be most unfortunate indeed.

In relation to Amendment 36, to which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, just spoke, this is an exceptionally vague provision: the idea that the regulator should have power in relation to discretionary licence conditions where there is

“conduct which it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom”.

This would be very difficult to apply and would lead to all sorts of probably legal arguments on what this means. In any event, it is a power that would be given on the basis of reasonable suspicion. That is most unfair to the clubs concerned, because there might be a reasonable suspicion that is not justified. As always, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer, partly in sports law, acting in particular for Manchester City in current disciplinary proceedings.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling amendments, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester for moving, in her unavoidable absence, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I welcome in particular the opportunity to discuss the women’s game and to set out the Government’s position on it, not least in relation to this Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was keen to have a debate on the women’s game and frustrated that we did not have one at earlier stages, so I am sorry that she could not join us. However, I hope that I can give all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the women’s game the assurance that the Government really do want to see women’s football in this country thrive.

Recent years have seen incredible growth in the sport, catalysed by the amazing success of our Lionesses. I know that all noble Lords are hugely proud of their achievements. We understand why there is an interest in ensuring that women’s football is accorded some of the same protections that the Bill would deliver for the men’s game. As someone who was not allowed to play football at school, I am delighted that my nieces take it absolutely for granted that they are, so this is an area that I personally want to see grow and thrive.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester spoke passionately in favour of the women’s game. We agree with the independent review of women’s football that he noted, and which was expertly chaired by Karen Carney. As my noble friend stated, that review recommended that the women’s game should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and govern itself. So, while there are some shared features, the problems facing women’s football and men’s football are not the same. The Government are in regular contact with the Women’s Professional Leagues Ltd. We are confident that it will be able to implement the structures, processes and regulations to drive the sport forward. Where appropriate, this can involve taking learnings from the men’s game and the regulator.

I reassure my noble friend that, as with all regulation, the scope of the regulator will be kept under review. As it is not intended in the first instance for the regulator to cover the women’s game, the “state of the game” report will consider only matters in scope of the regulator. However, if appropriate in the future and following proper consultation, the regulator’s remit could be extended to include women’s competitions via secondary legislation.

To expand slightly on why we are not at this point intending to regulate the women’s game, it is by its own admission at a different stage from the men’s game. It is still in a start-up phase, needing significant investment and growth to achieve its potential. The men’s game, by virtue of being a more mature commercial product, has no issue with growth or investment. Its issue is that it spends unsustainably, accumulates debt and cannot keep the massive revenues that it raises within the game. Therefore, neither the Government nor the women’s football industry believes that statutory regulation is the correct approach to helping women’s football at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alluded to issues that might be prevented. I will refer to the specific example of Reading Football Club. I do not want to assume that the noble Lord was referring to it as an example of where the regulator might have helped. Currently, the women’s game is not intended to fall within the regulator’s initial scope, so the regulator could not have directly prevented funding to Reading Football Club Women being cut. However, importantly, it would have been able to address financial problems at the men’s club, which may have averted the issue. So it is an indirect benefit, potentially. It would also have had access to information that it could have shared, only in certain specific circumstances, with the authorities in the women’s game. This might have allowed them to identify and react earlier to an issue and protect the women’s team. So we are confident that the authorities responsible for governing the women’s game will be able to implement the appropriate protections to prevent a future similar scenario to that which happened in Reading.

Amendment 36 would allow the regulator to stop a club accepting funding that it reasonably suspects to be harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom. I know that protecting football from wider harms is important to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as it is for us all. I agree with the intent and thank him for his engagement on this. However, it is not for a football regulator to judge what is harmful to the interests of this country; indeed, this is what the UK’s financial sanctions regime is for. If there is an oligarch or bad actor with connections to a hostile state acting against UK interests, they can be sanctioned. That would automatically stop a club receiving funding from the party in question. Sanctions can be imposed for a whole range of reasons, including in the interests of national security.

Beyond this, the Bill already provides protections against wider harms. The owners’ and directors’ test, for example, will look at the fitness of a club’s owners and officers, including sanctions, and whether the individual has been prevented from entering the UK. This seeks to protect English clubs from unsuitable owners or officers. In conjunction with the power to restrict funds suspected to be connected to serious criminal conduct, this will help to ensure that clubs are protected from harm.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his Amendments 38 to 41 and his continued engagement on the Bill. I have written to the noble Lord on some of the points he raised on discretionary licence conditions and the commitments in lieu process, and I am happy to lay a copy of this letter in the House Library for other Members of your Lordships’ House to access as well. As I outlined in that letter, we feel that it is appropriate for competition organisers to have a formal opportunity to intervene on a financial issue if they could achieve the same goal in a more effective and less burdensome way. This commitments in lieu process encodes the light-touch and collaborative approach that we have discussed at great length in your Lordships’ House.

The Bill as drafted allows clubs ample opportunity to make representations about proposed financial discretionary licence conditions. As part of ongoing supervision by the regulator, clubs will be made aware of what potential action the regulator may take to improve the clubs’ standards. However, if a competition organiser proposes a commitment that the regulator believes would solve the issue in a quicker, more effective or more proportionate manner than the regulator’s proposed licence condition, the club should not be able to veto this.

I turn to Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. We understand the intention of this amendment, and we agree that the regulator should avoid any burdens or disruptions that may be associated with mid-season licensing of clubs, including the risk, albeit remote, that licences are refused mid-season. As currently envisaged, once the regulator is set up, it will make rules around how and when clubs need to submit their applications. The noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the entirety of Part 3 being commenced until the period between seasons. For example, if the regulator were ready to start preparing clubs for licensing in September in a given year, it would have to wait until the following May before it could do so. We want clubs to be able to prepare their application and engage with the licensing process early to avoid a rush and high burdens in the relatively short window between seasons. This amendment would prevent that.

By contrast, if commenced properly, there will be a substantial onboarding time for clubs, and the regulator will not have to process 116 applications in a short space of time. The noble Lord’s intention of avoiding mid-season disruption can be achieved through a careful commencement of Part 3. We intend to delay commencing the Clause 15(1) requirement on clubs to have a licence until all clubs have had the necessary opportunity to obtain one.

On Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand that the noble Lord’s view is that the Secretary of State guidance on significant influence and control is integral in providing certainty for the industry, and that it must be produced in a timely manner. That is why, last week on Report, I committed

“that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control”.—[Official Report, 11/3/25; cols. 626-27.]

I would like to reiterate this commitment and reassure the noble Lord that it would be superfluous in this instance to make this amendment. Additionally, I remind the noble Lord that the House made its view on the definition very clear when it voted against Amendment 7. I hope he will agree that it would be an inefficient use of the House’s time to discuss this issue any further and will take reassurance from the commitment I have already made.

I turn finally to government Amendment 37. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns regarding consultation requirements and discretionary licence conditions. We are making a change to the consultation requirement that the regulator must satisfy before submitting a request to the Secretary of State, to amend the scope of discretionary licence conditions. We were confident that the previous drafting would have captured clubs and competition organisers, but we have listened to concerns across the House about this not being stated explicitly. Therefore, we have brought forward this amendment to put this beyond all doubt and address those concerns. As a result of this amendment, the regulator will now be required in legislation to consult all regulated clubs and each specified competition organiser in this process.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 55 and 56. I received a satisfactory reply on the four amendments from the previous group, which I submitted to the Government and the Minister. I also submitted Amendments 55 and 56, but I did not quite get such a full support for them, so I think it is worth explaining to the House what they are—plus a slight history lesson.

The Minister’s statement in the debate on 16 December 2024 set down the clear intent that the regulator should have primacy ahead of all competition organisers:

“I want also to stress that the regulator will not stop the leagues imposing their own competition rules so long as they do not conflict with the regulator’s regime”.—[Official Report, 16/12/24; col. 40.]


The then Government’s consultation response document noted:

“The Regulator will set the legal baseline for regulation in areas within its remit. There may be scope for industry bodies to layer on top, but the Regulator would coordinate with these bodies to ensure that any additional rules were supportive of the regulatory approach and objectives. This means that industry bodies will need to be receptive to working with the Regulator to potentially streamline and adapt their existing rules, to allow for a coherent regulatory landscape that minimises burdens on clubs”.


However, this is not reflected in Clause 55(6), which requires only that the competition organisers “consult” with the regulator. That is not what was previously said.

Through discussions on the Bill, we have seen that the level of co-operation of competition organisers has varied, so it is not satisfactory to rely on their good will to resolve regulatory conflicts. Indeed, recent Premier League consultations have resulted in a legal spat with the Professional Footballers’ Association, the EFL, the Government and FIFA, and various disputes with the Premier League executive. The proposed amendments aim to ensure that the regulatory system is clear and coherent and avoids the confusing overregulation of rules. The IFR can act as an important safeguard.

We have seen a number of recent legal cases that have demonstrated deep flaws in some of the competition organisers’ approach. For example, the Premier League lost a case to Leicester City, where Leicester was held to be a member of neither the Premier League nor the EFL, due to poor and contradictory drafting of Premier League rules. That was a report from the Appeal Board.

Of even greater concern, the Premier League rules on associated party transactions were found to have been illegally introduced to advantage one set of clubs over another, and to have abused a dominant market position. As a result, three years of those rules were held to be void, as though they never existed, and there are more damages claims to come. These rules came about because of rushed processes. The panel noted that they had not been subject to proper analysis or examination before introduction:

“There does not appear to have been any discussion or analysis as to how such an exclusion would affect the effectiveness of the PSR, and the principle of sustainability of club finance which underlies the PSR”—


the profit and sustainability rules in competitions. That was from a judgment in favour of Manchester City, which additionally found that:

“Nor was there any evidence that the PL had in fact carried out any analysis as to the impact of the shareholder exclusion on different clubs and to seek to justify such an exclusion”.


Many of these difficulties have come about because of the inherent conflict in the regulated entities—the clubs—being the ones that set the rules. Clearly, the independent regulator will be able to act on that. It will act effectively to regulate the financial sustainability of English football and undermine its entitlement.

The proposed amendment is targeted at financial and business regulations; it leaves sporting regulations completely untouched. It is of no benefit to anyone in the game for there to be rushed, ill thought-through or illegal market regulations, from whatever source. It will benefit all to ensure that the IFR can act with quality checks on future attempts by competition organisers when they attempt economic market regulation. The Premier League has clearly demonstrated that it is not good at economic market regulation; in doing so, it has ended up costing the Premier League and its constituent clubs tens of millions of pounds in legal fees and dislocated activities.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to Amendment 52 on consultation. As noble Lords will know, Clause 54 requires the regulator to consult persons including all regulated clubs before making, amending or replacing levy rules, and consultation is a vital component of fairness. However, Clause 54(2) says that this obligation

“does not apply in relation to amendments to or replacements of levy rules if the IFR considers the changes to be minor”.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, is absolutely right: it is not for the regulator to determine whether changes are minor; it is for those who are potentially adversely affected. Consultation on matters that the regulator may consider to be minor is no great impediment. If the changes are in truth minor, as perceived by the regulated clubs, the consultation will not take very long and will not involve any great effort by the regulator. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 52 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words, because the whole House acknowledges that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is trying to be constructive here. He, with his colleagues, has produced some incredibly detailed amendments, and that is partly what concerns me. I am not saying that there is no merit in his approach, but I think that some of the conditions are potentially overburdensome.

Will the Minister remind the House of the purpose behind the backstop? As I understand it, the backstop was there to encourage parties to come together, discuss the situation and try to reach agreement. That is so important, because we have had the absence of agreement in recent years because, I think, of the stubbornness of one party.

I therefore worry that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his colleagues are overprescriptive. He mentioned several of the problems that exist in football today, such as the level and unsustainability of players’ wages and the need for stadium improvements. All are relevant and important to those of us who are concerned about the future of football but, if we are going to be prescriptive about what comes in at that last stage, we may get into difficulties. I hope that the “state of the game” report, which he mentioned and which is extremely important going forward, will deal with some of these issues.

I would like to agree with the noble Lord that all of football is two sides of the same family, but I am not sure that that has been the experience of the last few years in the negotiations between the Premier League and the EFL. It certainly is not a balanced debate or discussion in terms of their powers. I understand the noble Lord’s wish to have levels of arbitration, but we must be careful not to cause delays or take the pressure off parties to come to an agreement between themselves.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend Lord Birt’s series of amendments and thank him for the time and effort that he has devoted to producing them. I also thank the Minister, the Bill team and the Secretary of State herself for the amount of time that they have devoted to discussions with me and many other noble Lords on this complex topic of the distribution of revenue and the resolution process.

I entirely support what has been said today by my noble friends Lord Birt and Lord Burns and by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas: a formidable forward line—the Pelé, Messi and Bobby Charlton of this debate. I will add a response to the concerns that some noble Lords and perhaps the Minister have about these amendments, which have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and are in the briefing to noble Lords from the EFL. There are two main concerns that need to be addressed.

First, there is a concern that we have agreed that the Bill is to be light-touch regulation when we have a complex series of amendments here—and they are complex. My response is that the distribution of revenue and the resolution process are complex matters. We are addressing the distribution of millions of pounds, which is vital to the financial stability of clubs outside the Premier League, and this money is to be extracted from Premier League clubs. The mechanisms for that process have to be effective and fair. They need to set out how this is to occur in detail and by reference to what substantive principles. As has been said, with all due respect to those who drafted this Bill, the current provisions lack proper detail on evidential basis and procedures that are adequate to ensure a fair result, and they do not contain the substantive criteria that are required. Yes, we could regulate this important matter in a much simpler manner, but the detail is absolutely vital in this context to ensure efficacy and fairness.

The second criticism that has been made is that expressed by the EFL in its briefing document. The EFL is worried that the Birt amendments will result in an invasion of lawyers—as they put it, “in particular, expensive lawyers”, God forbid—who will be briefed by the Premier League. The EFL says that it will not be able to compete. As the EFL has expressed this concern, it needs to be addressed in this debate.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House has indeed been a game of two halves—there are more puns coming, I am afraid.

We began our deliberations on the Government’s version of the Bill in November. At Second Reading, I joined the Minister in the thanks that she has just given again to Dame Tracey Crouch and all the fans who contributed to the fan-led review that initiated this process and set out our support for principles including conserving the heritage of football clubs and protecting against rogue owners. At the same time, I highlighted some of the concerns that we had about the changes that the Government had made to the Bill compared with the one in the last Parliament. I am sorry we were not able to persuade the Government about all those concerns, but I am very glad that, thanks to the careful deliberations of your Lordships’ House, the Bill will indeed go to another place in a better state than it started.

I know there was some criticism of the length of time taken in Committee; we certainly seemed to go into injury time before the first half of the match was over, but I do think that some of the cries of “Foul!” were unfounded. Both in Committee and on Report, the majority of amendments came from beyond these Benches, and I am glad that we found areas of consensus even amid the debate and disagreement.

I am grateful for the in-depth knowledge and passionate engagement from noble Lords right across the House and the generous engagement and time provided by the Minister, particularly between Committee and Report, and the many meetings she had—I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sports made themselves available for meetings as well. We are grateful to them all, and I am pleased that we secured some two dozen important concessions on the Bill.

In particular, my noble friends Lady Brady, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Moynihan secured a new duty to protect the growth of English football. My noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, consistently raised the importance of having light-touch regulation, which I am glad to see reflected in the changes to Clause 8. My noble friend Lord Markham and I also pushed for the interest rate the regulator might charge on unpaid levies to be capped; we are pleased that the Government accepted that.

I want to give particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Brady, who cannot be in her place today but who, as the Minister said, missed a number of important fixtures of her own club to scrutinise the Bill. She brought her extensive and first-hand experience of the commercial workings of football clubs to highlight some of the issues in the Bill. While it is unfortunate that we were not able to persuade the House to protect parachute payments from the redistributive backstop, I know that my noble friend will continue to highlight in your Lordships’ House and beyond how important they are for the financial sustainability of the whole football pyramid.

I would also like to highlight the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, from the Benches opposite. They probed many areas of the Bill with a perceptible love for the game and secured important amendments, particularly to create a register of interests for those appointed to the new board and expert panel.

I am pleased that the Government saw sense and removed the power of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of the “football season”, which always struck us as an unnecessary power. Of course, I am particularly grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their considerable engagement with the College of Arms and me to ensure that the Bill avoided the incorrect use of heraldic terms. I am sure that this was not an issue that the noble Baroness and the Bill team thought they would be spending quite as much time on, but I am very glad that we got it right. I hope that, when she receives her own grant of arms, the noble Baroness will find a way to record this legislative monument in her heraldic achievement.

Finally, there was welcome vindication of the hard work of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who argued throughout for the need for post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; he was joined by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are glad to see the five-year statutory review that the Government have added. It may prove to be particularly important because, despite the many improvements that your Lordships have made to the Bill, a number of areas remain that we have not been able to resolve.

My noble friend Lord Moylan ably led the charge on trying to ensure that the regulator will not fall foul of UEFA or FIFA rules; I am sorry that we were not able to persuade the Government or the Liberal Democrats of the merits of his rather modest amendment. My noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward raised the cost of compliance; we remain concerned about that, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood, who highlighted the impact that this could have on ticket prices. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who was joined by an impressive team of his noble friends on the Cross Benches, for their hard work in trying to improve the backstop mechanism; I hope that the Government will continue, as I am sure they will, to engage with noble Lords on this matter, as they said they would as the Bill heads to another place.

This post-match analysis and focus on areas for improvement should not distract us from the considerable progress that we have made together. I am grateful to all the noble Lords whom the Minister highlighted. I am particularly grateful to my teammate—my noble friend Lord Markham—who saved me from describing football terms inaccurately, to the excellent Jamie Tucker from the Opposition Whips’ Office, and to the Minister, the Bill team and her excellent private office. I am sure that the Minister has spent longer on the pitch than she anticipated, but she can pass the Bill to her colleagues in another place much improved thanks to her patient and generous engagement with us all.

As I said at Second Reading, my knowledge of football does not compare with that of other noble Lords. It has always bemused me how a truncated icosahedron kicked around a pitch for 90 minutes can arouse such passion and anguish. We have seen some of that during our debates on the Bill, but, as the referee’s whistle blows, I think that all sides can look back with some satisfaction and say, “Good game”.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I too thank the Minister, the Bill team and the Secretary of State for the exceptional level of engagement that they have shown in relation to the concerns and interests of noble Lords around the House. It has resulted in a much better Bill, which is of course the function of this House.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their comments.