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.