Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson]

Hon. Members are all waiting for it—this was going to be the moment that we were going to force a vote, but given that the Minister has put on record the fact that this will be considered an operational and match day issue for the regulator, so fans must be consulted on it and would probably have a veto, we are content that we do not need to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17 

Impact on regulator of changes in Government administration

“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”—(Mr French.)

This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr French]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We believe that new clause 17 is important, given the speculation that the Minister might soon be going somewhere else on a free transfer. On a more serious note, this is a sensible provision, given the legal requirements on the Secretary of State in the Bill. For example, there has been much speculation that if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were disbanded, sport, for example, would end up in the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which would mean a different relationship with the football regulator going forward. Therefore, it is important to include a review mechanism in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member suggests that we have not sided in any Divisions with the official Opposition; the record will show that we have.

[Mr French]

The last one.

[Max Wilkinson]

No, several.

I have been to many football matches at more than 50 Football League grounds, and every time I have attended with groups of people who have been in the pub until the last possible moment, forcing down an extra pint—or an extra lucky gin and orange, which was a tradition that a group of my friends used to have—before a game. They did that because they knew that once they got into the ground, they were subject to ridiculous rules that meant they were not treated as adults. These people were very much adults. They were drinking real ale and talking about cricket, sport and things they had done at work that week. They were not football hooligans. We know that the majority of people who watch football matches are not football hooligans.

These rules date from a bygone era when people were concerned that everyone who went to the football was a hooligan. The atmosphere in grounds these days is entirely different from what it was back in the 1980s and 1990s, when things happened that nobody would want to see now. We are drifting in the right direction, back towards standing in stadiums—that is positive—and we need to start drifting back towards a situation in which we treat football fans as adults and recognise that the current ridiculous ban means that people are more likely to be more drunk at football.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard that contribution from my hon. Friend and will be able to pick up on that in her comments. He is right to identify that such a distinction has been made in the Bill.

What does this mean? For example, will an hour-long Twitter poll on what a club should do be sufficient? We have seen how clubs have sought to use X in some quite funny ways at times, but on something as serious as this, we need proper consultation. Instead, does the Minister expect that clubs will engage in a full, proper and open consultation with their fans, such as one that includes a call for evidence, votes on different proposals and genuine engagement from the clubs themselves? Otherwise, this all risks just being for show, rather than real consultation.

Why stop at just consultation? If a proposed change is sensible, justifiable and supported by a club’s reasoning, why would the club not be able to win over the majority of its fans, if the fans agree it is in the best interests of the club? Why are the Government, in this Bill’s drafting, afraid of allowing fans to have a real and final say on these matters? This is not about allowing fans to micro-manage a club; it is about recognising that the symbols, colours and names of clubs are all held in trust, not owned in a transactional sense.

Football club owners are, in truth, temporary stewards. Their role is not to reshape the soul of a club but to protect it and hopefully strengthen it before passing it on. Far too often we have seen the reverse: owners who arrive with branding ideas and marketing consultants, determined to reshape the club’s visual identity to fit a certain commercial strategy, often with little or no understanding of the local footballing tradition in that community. Supporters have had to campaign, protest and plead to get what should have been theirs almost by birthright: a say in the symbols of their club. Does the Minister agree that clause 49, if limited to just consultation, risks becoming just a tick-box exercise, particularly in clubs without strong fan representation models in place?

There is a precedent for this kind of requirement. In Germany, the so-called 50+1 rule ensures that fans retain majority voting rights over key aspects of club identity and operation. In Spain, the socios model does so too. To be clear, we are not calling for full fan ownership, but we are saying that, on issues of identity, the final word should ultimately rest with the fans. Let us remember that this amendment would apply only to three specific heritage areas: the club’s official name, the badge—or crest, depending on how we want to describe it—and the home shirt colours. This is not about banning innovation or marketing altogether. It is simply saying that, when it comes to fundamentals, supporters should have a say.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We have seen in the past things such as the renaming of St James’ Park in Newcastle to the Sports Direct Arena, and other fans groups around the country have been furious when historic stadium names have been changed to sponsors’ names. Would the shadow Minister extend the sentiment that he is now expressing to those circumstances as well?

[Mr French]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and that is the point that we were discussing earlier with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. We were seeking clarification from the Government on how that would affect the consultation of fans on the relocation of stadiums or a change in their ownership. I agree that it is crucial that fans have a say in the naming and history of their ground.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) once fell foul of this when he attempted to change the name of the Dell to the Friends Provident stadium. Perhaps we might consult him on his learnings from that experience after we have completed this Committee.

[Mr French]

I am not sure how to answer that. How Members decide to use their time is a decision for them, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well. Without wishing to put off Government Members, the argument behind my amendment is deeply Conservative in some ways; it is about tradition, continuity and community. It is about respecting the past while also securing the future. It is about recognising that football is strongest when it listens to the people who love it most.

The clause is a step forward, and we think its inclusion in the Bill is important. Without our amendment, however, we are concerned that the clause will lack the legal bite required to safeguard the symbols that matter most to supporters. In truth, clubs that respect their fans would already seek that approval; the amendment would simply ensure that those who do not are held to the same standard. To be clear, no one should be able to change the name of Barnsley FC, the badge of Wigan Athletic or the home colours of Aston Villa without the backing of the very people who built the stands and carry the soul of the club every single week across multiple seasons.

I urge the Minister and colleagues across the Committee to back the amendment. Football’s future must be modern and well run, yes, but it must also be anchored in tradition, and the tradition belongs to the fans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that certain players have sought to do that through advertising and other financial arrangements. We are talking about clubs at the lowest level, and we do not believe that is a particular risk of this amendment.

One of the key failings of the football system in recent years has been the concentration of financial risk at the lower levels of the pyramid. Clubs overextend themselves chasing promotion, owners gamble recklessly to stay afloat, and supporters ultimately bear the costs when that does not work and when clubs collapse. The last thing we believe we should be doing is introducing a new statutory cost that could tip the balance for smaller clubs already running on the thinnest margins. This amendment is not about letting anyone off the hook; it is about recognising scale, and recognising the difference of scale in the football pyramid.

Will the Minister please commit to publishing a full impact assessment of the levy’s distribution before regulations are laid? Without that, how can Parliament be sure that the burden will not fall disproportionately on those least able to bear it? One of the justifications for the levy is to secure the regulator’s operational independence, which is a principle that we support, but independence should never mean insulation from scrutiny. If clubs are paying the regulator’s bill, they should at least know where the money is going and have confidence that it is not being wasted.

The Minister has maintained that football regulation cannot be one size fits all, and we understand that is her reason for leaving the wording of the Bill quite open-ended in places. Clause 53 is sound in many ways, but in practice it risks imposing an undue burden on the very clubs that the Bill is supposed to help—those rooted in their communities, run on small budgets and kept alive, more often than not, by volunteers, not venture capitalists. In that spirit, I will be pressing this amendment to a vote.

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Earlier in our deliberations—I cannot remember how many sittings ago—the Liberal Democrats made the case for extending the Bill’s scope to the sixth tier, the National Leagues. Effectively, we feel that helping those clubs up the pyramid would be useful, and on a cross-party basis, we have discussed support for the National League’s 3UP campaign, which we can take forward after Committee as a group of Members who are interested in football.

This amendment is quite simple, as it is about extending the Bill’s scope to the sixth tier. It would give clubs in National League North and National League South the opportunity to apply for an exemption from the levy, were it to be extended to that level. Clubs at that level may well not have the capacity to take on the administration associated with regulation. Such increased financial protections for lower-league clubs—those in the National League and National Leagues North and South—would align with the principles of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

We recognise the numbers—although we Liberal Democrats now outnumber the official Opposition—so we will not press this to a vote. However, it is worth considering that, in future, we might end up in a situation where some of our bigger clubs start to try to negotiate on their own for their broadcast revenue. The Minister did not reassure me that that could not happen. As I understand it, we do not have legislation that would stop that. There is nothing in the game to stop that apart from Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City deciding to play together nicely.

Although we are not reassured, there is no point in forcing this to a vote. But we hope that the comments may be taken forward and taken into account by the regulator in future, and perhaps we will have this discussion again as and when those big clubs decide that they are going to kick up a stink and try to ruin the rest of football for everyone else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 56, page 46, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) In this Part, revenue received by a specified competition organiser is ‘relevant revenue’ if—

(a) it is revenue received as a result of the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches included in a competition organised by the specified competition organiser, and

(b) it is not revenue that the specified competition organiser distributes to a club by virtue of a team operated by the club being relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser.”

Clause 56 introduces the framework for the resolution process, which is a formal mechanism through which the Government’s new regulator may intervene to help to resolve disputes between football authorities, competitions and clubs in certain prescribed areas. The clause is important because it sets the boundaries of when and how the Government’s new regulator may be invited, or, in some cases, compelled to step into the room on issues that until now have been managed internally within the football pyramid.

We understand the intention behind this process. It reflects years of unresolved tensions in the game between different tiers of the pyramid, between governing bodies, and, most notably, between the Premier League and the EFL. Clause 56 and the following clauses in part 6 provide the bones of a system for dispute resolution, in the hope of reaching consensus where negotiation has failed. In principle, that has merit. However, we believe that the clause as drafted risks crossing a line—not into oversight, but into interventionism. It risks turning the regulator from a referee into a participant, and that risk becomes very real when we consider what types of decisions might fall within that process.

That is why I have tabled amendment 124, which would exclude parachute payments to the regulated clubs from the scope of the resolution process, as was the case in the Bill that the Minister supported during the previous Parliament. Clause 56 is not procedural, but foundational. It defines who can apply to trigger the resolution process, namely certain governing bodies and competition organisers, and what is meant by the term “relevant revenue”. In subsection (2), this is revenue received

“as a result of the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches included in a competition organised by the specified competition organiser, or…from any other source specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

In essence, the provisions allow disputes over financial redistribution to be brought before the Government’s new regulator, which may then facilitate a resolution or, in some cases, take further steps to impose one. The specific issue we have with the clause, which was introduced by the Government, relates to the parachute payments of financial support offered by the Premier League to clubs that are relegated to the EFL to help them adjust to the significant drop in broadcasting and commercial income. This is obviously an important point, given the wage bills and so on when clubs go down, but it is never far from being controversial. Some see the payments as being necessary to ensure financial continuity and competition in the Premier League on the way up, while others argue that they distort competition in the Championship on the way down, solidifying clubs as so-called yo-yo clubs that go up and down regularly.

Bringing parachute payments within the scope of the regulator’s resolution process, as clause 56 does, takes a significant step towards Government involvement in revenue redistribution among private members of the competition. That is not regulation; it is reallocation. In our view, it is an inappropriate function for a state-backed regulator.

The amendment does not oppose the resolution process in principle; it supports it, and in fact returns the Bill to what the Minister previously supported. Can she tell us what has changed, and why she felt the need to make the change when she previously had no issue with this part of the Bill? My amendment seeks to make sure that the Government’s regulator does not intervene in areas that are already managed by mutual agreement between competitions.

Parachute payments are, by their nature, a Premier League solution to what is often a Premier League problem. They are not imposed on the EFL or funded by it, and although their knock-on effects may be debated—I have my own views on that—they should not be subject to arbitration by a third party.

If we allow the Government’s regulator to adjudicate disputes over parachute payments, we risk setting a precedent that any form of commercial agreement, no matter how internal, can be referred for outside resolution. We believe that that would be a mistake, and would likely undermine the willingness of top-flight clubs to continue sharing revenue in any form at all. If the Minister starts this process off on the wrong foot with clubs and this is not done in the right way, we fear that resentment would set in from day one. With the top flight already questioning—

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. The amendment would prohibit individuals with a record of human rights abuses from club ownership. Our national game is a source of huge pride to our country and everyone in this room. It should not be exploited by individuals and regimes that want to launder their reputations using some of our greatest cultural and sporting assets.

Strengthening the proprietary tests for prospective owners and directors, with clear tests about human rights, would enable UK football to promote and protect what we know is special about our game and would promote and protect the liberal and democratic western values that we all hold so dear. It is wrong that we allow football to roll out the red carpet for despots. Let us consider a future in which the owner or potential owner of a football club is also the head of a state or a Minister in the Government of a foreign state that suppresses its own people or is involved in illegal military action, perhaps in a failed state. That owner is also clearly financially linked to activities that involve the plunder of that failed state’s mineral wealth. If that person were to be linked directly to such action, which breaches international human rights laws, would this Government, football and this country accept it? We think that we should not, and that is why we have tabled the amendment and the new clause.

[Mr French]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for explaining the objectives behind the amendment, which is aimed at preventing individuals with a record of human rights abuses from owning a club. My question for the hon. Member is about new clause 8(2)(b), which states that

“the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

In other words, it will have discretion to determine whether such conduct constitutes human rights abuses. Given we are talking about a football regulator, the obvious question to ask is about what qualifications the regulator would need to make such a decision. What information could they rely on? Would we be looking for Government involvement in that, given that that would probably provide the intellectual experience required? Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham think it might improve the new clause to include a route of appeal against such a decision, as a matter of natural justice, so we are seen to give individuals the right of appeal if they believe that they have been wrongly classified?

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Would this new clause preclude the owner or chairman, or some other executive officer or member of staff, of a football club from standing for election? I can think of one example: a former chairman of my club Southampton, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He stood for the Referendum party in the Cotswolds in 1997, shortly after he had become the chairman of Southampton football club, and he is rumoured to be joining those on the Conservative Benches soon. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would be against that sort of thing.

[Mr French]

I will try to stick to the footballing part of the question and not stray into the transfer market, which I believe opens today or tomorrow. When we have people camped outside Conservative Campaign Headquarters on deadline day, I will know that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has sent them there. In all seriousness, what we are looking to do is to talk about representations made by a club in an official capacity rather than a personal capacity. I think that there is an important distinction with what a person does in their own time. What was the party—the Referendum party? The hon. Member for Cheltenham is showing his age.

[Max Wilkinson]

Some would regard wearing rainbow laces for Pride as a political statement. In the hon. Member’s ideal world of football governance, would a club have to go to a referendum of its fans to work out whether its players and the club could wear rainbow laces for Pride, for example? Would that not be more pointless bureaucracy?

[Mr French]

We are not suggesting a referendum. We are saying that fans should be involved in the decision-making process. There is a debate around Pride and other issues, but that is not the point we are trying to make. We are trying to make sure that football clubs, wherever possible, stick to the game and that fans have a say. I have already said that we are not trying to bind clubs and prevent them from addressing initiatives that are often taken by the leagues rather than just individual clubs, but we are trying to ensure that fans have a say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I completely appreciate the hon. Member’s point. As he highlighted, clubs have done a lot of this good work themselves, so I do not believe that the Government or their regulator need to dictate on terms where clubs have that good practice already. My new clause tries to draw a line so that fans will have a say on any such issues and, in particular, on contentious ones. I do not personally believe that kicking racism out of football is a contentious issue. The vast majority of fans would absolutely support that, and have supported for many years the work that that campaign has done.

[Max Wilkinson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr French]

I am going to try to make some progress.

[Max Wilkinson]

I have a really important point about a referendum.

[Mr French]

Yes, okay.

[Max Wilkinson]

New clause 16 specifically says that the club must establish that there is support from

“a majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales.”

That is really difficult to establish. Committee members will have been in football grounds and heard a number of opinions expressed in vociferous terms from the stands. I challenge anyone to say that it is possible to establish that a majority of fans either support or do not support any kind of political statement that might be made by a club. I just do not think the new clause works.

[Mr French]

I am not sure what to say about that, but the hon. Member can have his say when the Committee votes on the matter shortly. He has stated his belief.

In recent years, we have seen clubs wade into contentious debates, sometimes with noble intentions, without any formal engagement with their supporter base. Whether we are talking about a statement on a foreign conflict, domestic legislation or ideological campaigns, such interventions can divide opinion and risk alienating the people who pay their money, wear the shirt and keep their club alive. Nobody is arguing that clubs should be barred from speaking on social matters, but they should be expected to act with consent, not presumption. Fans should not wake up to find their club being used as a platform for views that they had no part in shaping. The new clause would not restrict freedom of expression; rather, it would enhance democratic accountability in football.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

In my previous career, I headed up sustainability on ESG, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point. If she will let me continue, I believe my points will answer her question.

This country’s football clubs are not arms of the state. They are private institutions, many of which are more than a century old, with proud identities shaped by the local community’s traditions and values. Their job is not to issue corporate platitudes on diversity but to serve their supporters, compete on the pitch and conduct themselves with financial integrity. Mandating EDI reporting risks turning the regulator into a cultural enforcer rather than a steward of good governance.

Importantly, however, we must also consider the burden it will place on clubs, particularly those in the lower leagues. Our amendments go to the heart of an argument that has served us time and again during the scrutiny of the Bill: the risk of regulatory overreach and overburden. Clubs in League One and League Two, National League outfits and even some Championship sides already struggle with the administrative requirements expected of them, from audit processes to licensing compliance. Adding more politically motivated reporting requirements, particularly in controversial and contested areas such as EDI, risks deepening the strain without any justification related to the Bill’s primary purpose: football. Some may argue that football has a responsibility to lead on matters of social justice, but cultural change should not be imposed by statutory mandate. Real change, where needed, comes from within; from clubs taking action because it is right for them and their supporters, not because a regulator demands it as part of its governance tick-box exercise.

We can see that with Forest Green Rovers, a club that chose, of its own accord, to take a distinctive approach to sustainability, ethics and inclusion not because a regulator told them to, but because it aligned with their leadership values and the identity they wanted to build. Whether or not one agrees with their choices, the point is that they were made voluntarily. That is the right way to foster progress in football—through leadership and initiative, not through regulatory coercion.

As we discuss schedule 5 and the role of corporate governance statements in football clubs reporting, it is important to recognise the significant work already underway in the game on EDI—work that is being driven voluntarily and effectively by the FA, Premier League, EFL and National League without an overzealous and politicised regulator interfering. The Premier League has developed its own EDI standard, known as PLEDIS. It provides clubs with a clear, structured framework to improve inclusion both on and off the pitch. It is not a mere tick-box exercise, as we fear the Government regulator will be. It is a rigorous programme of three levels: preliminary, intermediate and advanced. Clubs must earn all of those levels for evidence-based progress and independent assessment.

[Max Wilkinson]

The shadow Minister referenced Forest Green Rovers, which is the rival club to my town’s club, Cheltenham Town. I have nothing against Forest Green Rovers. They have vegan catering, and many people view veganism as a political statement. That is, of course, a business choice that Forest Green Rovers made and it has served them well. Based on a previous amendment the shadow Minister tabled, would he suggest that the fans should have been consulted on the move from meat to vegan food being served in the grounds?

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that with a simple yes. They should have been consulted.

To date, 27 clubs have engaged with PLEDIS, and 18 have achieved the advanced level. Clubs such as West Ham United have demonstrated genuine leadership by embedding EDI principles deep within their organisation over multiple years without the need for Government involvement.

Beyond PLEDIS, the Premier League’s “No Room for Racism” campaign highlights a range of targeted initiatives, from supporting coaching pathways to enhancing representation among players and officials from diverse backgrounds. Premier League schemes such as the professional player to coach scheme and the coach inclusion and diversity scheme have supported more than 80 coaches into full-time professional roles. Meanwhile, thousands of grassroots participants benefit from programmes aimed at increasing access for under-represented communities in football, including the south Asian action plan.

Meanwhile, the English Football League has also taken proactive steps through its equality code of practice, which encourages clubs to set ambitious, measurable goals and recognise best practice through an awards system, with 10 clubs having attained silver status as of last year. The EFL’s community outreach includes programmes such as the Stronger Communities cup, which promotes social cohesion by bringing together girls from local communities and girls who have been forcibly displaced. The EFL Trust’s talent inclusion programme further demonstrates how clubs are creating pathways for young women from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that football’s future is open and accessible. All that work has taken place without the need for the Government’s regulator to interfere.

These efforts underline a key principle: real progress on equality and inclusion in football comes through leadership, commitment and initiative, not through bureaucratic mandates or additional regulatory burdens. Clubs are already stepping up in a meaningful way. That is why we argue against adding a new statutory reporting requirement on EDI in the Bill. We believe that this would risk distracting from the core purpose of the Bill—ensuring sound governance and financial sustainability within English football—while imposing burdens that may not add tangible value.

I urge hon. Members to recognise the existing achievements of football and to support my amendments, which would remove the unnecessary requirements for clubs to report on EDI action in their corporate governance statements. Fans do not attend matches to receive diversity statements. They go to support their team, share in the highs and lows, and pass on the tradition that means something to them and their community. They do so as part of a footballing community that is focused on the team they support, not the colour of a supporter’s skin, their religion or their sexual preference.

These initiatives reflect concerted efforts by the Premier League, the FA, the EFL and the National League to foster an inclusive environment in football. They demonstrate that meaningful progress on EDI can be achieved through voluntary, club-led actions rather than statutory mandates. What precisely do the Government intend that their regulator do with these EDI statements? Will they be assessed for adequacy and ranked against each other? Will penalties be imposed for perceived failure to meet EDI expectations? The risk is not just regulatory creep, but mission creep—the regulator may become an arbiter of social values rather than a guarantor of financial sustainability and good governance.

Let me be absolutely clear: we support inclusivity and fair treatment in football and beyond. Discrimination has no place in the game. Kick It Out and Show Racism the Red Card do important work, and we will continue to support that work, but not by putting extra burdens on clubs that are, in many cases, already struggling due to Labour’s decision to hammer businesses at every turn and twist.

Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—it is appropriate that you are chairing given that, as I understand it, the road to Wembley runs right through your constituency. I will say only that we support both amendments. The principles that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East stated apply, and more regular reporting will clearly help the regulator to hold itself and clubs to account. On whether it should be 12 or 18 months, I think the sooner it is done, the better, and then we can get on with sorting out the state of football.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—a half-time substitute in today’s proceedings. I will speak briefly to the amendment. I completely understand the objective that he is seeking to nudge the Government towards, which he explained well. The obvious question for the Minister is whether more frequent reporting—three years rather than five years—would mean additional costs. I await the Minister’s response, but I understand that the hon. Member is not seeking to press his amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I reassure the Government Whips that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I have not been collaborating, but we have clearly been speaking to the same fans’ groups, who are very supportive of the Bill. There is a very simple principle here: some clubs may struggle with the regulatory burden, as has, I think, been expressed by all Members during the discussion. The way of solving that is not to take the steps that the Conservatives have suggested; it is for the regulator to take a reasonable view on how it might support those clubs.

New clause 6 may well not pass, but I hope that the Minister takes away the message to work with regulators, so that the regulator, when it is set up, is in a position to support the smaller clubs that have maybe only a few full-time members of staff, or even fewer than that. We back the expansion of the regulator to the sixth tier as well; in those circumstances, it would be particularly important that such support was available.

[Mr French]

I am not sure whether that was the start of an official or unofficial coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, but we will see what the future holds.

[Max Wilkinson]

At least we won’t be in coalition with Reform.

[Mr French]

The Liberal Democrats might be in coalition with Reform? Is that what the hon. Gentleman said?

[Max Wilkinson]

No, but you might be.

[The Chair]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Application for provisional operating licence

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 16, page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (c).

This amendment prevents the IFR from requiring information from clubs in the other than the personnel statement and strategic business plan specified by the Act, when applying for a provisional operating licence.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.”

This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to open day 2 of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. On day 1 there was extensive debate about an issue that I am sure we will also get into today. We Opposition Members were keen to ensure that the Government’s new football regulator will improve transparency, help reduce costs to clubs and fans and stop political interference in football. It was disappointing that Government Members did not support those objectives.

Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that there are no conflicts with any of the regulations and rules of international footballing governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA. It clearly requires the Independent Football Regulator

“to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.”

As we know, UEFA has written to the Secretary of State to set out its concerns with the Bill. The letter came after the Government introduced the expanded version of the Bill. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to publish it so that all Members can have an informed debate about the risks that UEFA outlined. I will not go over that debate again—I might get a yellow card if I do. The amendment would require the Government’s regulator to exercise its functions in a way that avoids conflicts with the rules, statutes and regulations of international football governing authorities, especially FIFA and UEFA.

The amendment is designed to protect the regulator’s ability to carry out the functions that the Government have assigned to it without inadvertently triggering consequences that could seriously damage English football’s standing in the international game and, in the worst-case scenario, lead to English clubs being removed from the Champions League and—perhaps more seriously—the national team being banned from competitions such as the European championship and the World cup. Let us make no mistake: if the Government’s regulator were to exercise its powers in ways that contravene the established framework of global football governance, the ramifications would be swift and severe.

A particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football. As hon. Members might know, under FIFA’s rules, any form of what is deemed undue third-party interference in the affairs of a national football association can result in disciplinary action. That can include suspension of the football association itself, exclusion of clubs from European competitions or the ineligibility of players to represent England in FIFA-sanctioned tournaments such as the World cup.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCartney—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Turner. Let the record show that I am living in the past—perhaps not as far in the past as some Opposition Members. My concern about what the shadow Minister is saying is that the Opposition seem to be keen on setting a higher bar for football than they would for areas of general law when we are talking about interactions across national borders, with the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union in mind. Will he reflect on that?

[Mr French]

The Lib Dem spokesman makes an interesting comparison. As I said in the Committee’s debate on Tuesday, my focus is on football, and I am outlining with this amendment my concerns about the interactions of a sport with other international competitions. I will come on to explain why football in particular is interwoven with international principles. The majority of fans want to focus on the sport, rather than politics. I am sure that there are many more debates to be had on issues such as the ECHR in the rest of this Parliament. I will stick to football today, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

UEFA’s ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competitions. That risk is very real: it has happened before and can happen again. In 2006, the Greek football federation was banned from European competition. People might argue that I am trying to scaremonger, but I am trying to highlight that this is a real risk.

It is important to clarify what FIFA and UEFA mean by “third-party interference”. It is not a casual term; it is clearly defined in their statutes. It refers to instances where public authorities, including Governments or regulators created by Government legislation, exert influence over how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs. Examples include dictating the appointment or removal of club directors—which the Bill does—influencing the outcome of football disciplinary procedures and imposing governance models that conflict with internationally recognised standards.

Any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and national frameworks. It is therefore important that the IFR’s licensing criteria are complementary to football and created in full consultation with clubs and any other affected parties. Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a full voice in the development and implementation of those requirements? What consultation are the Government or their regulator currently undertaking on these regulations?

Let me be clear: I understand that the creation of the IFR in and of itself is on the borderline of what constitutes third-party interference. We are taking great care to help the Government to redesign a regulator that is fully independent of Ministers and professionally competent. However, in the absence of clear statutory guidelines to avoid conflicts with international rules, there is a risk, or perhaps even an inevitability, that the Government’s regulator may, at some point in the future, cross a line drawn by UEFA or FIFA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has suggested that that approach means that the Conservative party is happy being a rule taker, after all. Is that the case?

[Mr French]

I appreciate what the Lib Dem spokesperson is trying to do, but I point out that English football has been involved directly with the rules that have been made and continue to be made.

[Max Wilkinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr French]

I think I know where this is going, but go on.

[Max Wilkinson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which our FA has been involved in the making of those rules is a little bit like some other supranational organisations that we were a member of in the past—for example, the European Union?

[Mr French]

I would argue very strongly that when the English football team finally wins the World cup, it will get much more out of FIFA than this country would ever get out of the European Union.

English football does not exist in a vacuum, but the Bill acts as if it does. The global football ecosystem is fantastically complex, but the Bill is simple, clunky and—I am afraid to say—full of holes, which would potentially leave English football to drown among its international competition. I also fear that it will create even more legal cases, whereby clubs end up spending more time in courts than they do focusing on the football matches themselves.

To act as if we can disregard those international rules, or to suggest that a domestic regulator can impose conditions without reference to them, would be to invite precisely the sort of jurisdictional collision that could see English football punished because of the good intentions of Members of this House. We cannot just pander to the politics; we must be practical about the potential havoc that the Bill will wreak across the English football pyramid.

If FIFA or UEFA were to exclude English clubs or the national team from international competitions as a result of perceived third-party interference, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. As hon. Members will know, the Premier League generates more than £6 billion in revenue annually, with over £1.8 billion coming from overseas broadcasting rights alone. In fact, I understand that the Premier League is the first sporting competition in Europe to generate more from its international broadcasting rights than it does from its domestic rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The IFR may not redistribute revenue, income or any monies from one regulated club to another regulated club.”

This amendment prevents the IFR from redistributing any funds from one club to another.

Again, it is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I promise that this speech will be slightly shorter than the last one—people will be pleased to know that.

Amendment 98 would make it explicit that the Government’s regulator should not engage in the practice of redistributing income or revenue from one club to another. This is a necessary and prudent safeguard and goes to the heart of how we preserve competitive integrity, protect private investment and ensure that the scope of the regulation does not veer into a form of creeping central planning in our national game. Nowhere in the Bill as it stands is it clearly ruled out that this new public body—run by an appointee of the Secretary of State, as we have heard—could compel the transfer of funds between clubs in the name of sustainability, redistribution or solidarity.

That is why the amendment is so important. It would place a clear statutory limit on the power of the Government’s regulator. It would ensure that the regulator could not, in any circumstances, divert resources from one privately owned club to help to subsidise another. It would preserve the principle that the money earned by clubs—through good management, fan support, on-field success or commercial acumen—belongs to those clubs, not to a central authority acting as some sort of financial equaliser. Although I am sure that hon. Members will say that that will never happen, it is important that we, as Members of this House, make sure that it never does. If Members believe that it will never happen, making this amendment to the Bill will not affect the operation of the Government’s regulator. There is no reason to oppose the amendment, other than political goal scoring.

This issue goes far beyond football; it touches on the fundamental principles of ownership, competition and economic freedom. As we have heard, private investment in English football has helped to transform the game. Whether in the Premier League or lower leagues we have seen owners, both domestic and international, commit hundreds of millions of pounds to develop stadiums, invest in training grounds, nurture local talent and grow their clubs responsibly. That investment has come in the expectation of fair competition and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s success. We all know that it has not always been done with the best intentions, but the Government have decided to bring in a regulatory sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. A small minority of owners should not be responsible for upending the entire English football system, which has stood and evolved over more than 100 years.

If the Government’s regulator is granted the power to override that and to redistribute revenues forcibly between specific clubs, that risks undermining the very conditions that made English football the most watched and commercially successful league system in the world. It sends a chilling message to investors that success may be penalised, ambition discouraged and financial reward diluted in the name of a central diktat. It would also, as I said when I moved amendment 97, demonstrate a total violation of the independence of English football from a Government regulator, which would assuredly constitute a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules, in turn leading to the expulsion of our clubs from competitions, as we have just discussed. UEFA states that mandating redistribution that affects

“the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us. We also fear that having a third party intervene in redistribution would likely prevent amicable solutions being found.”

It is not difficult to imagine where that could lead. A well-run League One club, generating income from smart ticketing and loyal fan engagement, could find its revenues skimmed off to support a rival that has been less prudent or less entrepreneurial with its fan engagement. A Championship club breaking even through hard decisions and local investment could be told that its television share will be trimmed to subsidise losses made elsewhere by a less prudent board or chairman. That is not regulation, but redistribution by bureaucratic diktat.

Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the redistribution of moneys in English football. Voluntary redistribution negotiated by clubs, leagues and the FA is a long-standing and respected feature of the game, but there is a profound difference between clubs choosing to support one another and the Government’s regulator imposing that from above, using statutory powers to shift money between private enterprises without consent.

[Max Wilkinson]

In some countries, television deals are struck directly between broadcasters and clubs. If that happened in this country in the future—were Manchester City, Arsenal or Liverpool to strike a direct deal—would we not end up in a situation where the regulator might have to consider redistributing directly from one club to ensure that the redistribution that the hon. Gentleman argues for can take place?

[Mr French]

I understand the Lib Dem spokesman’s point, but in my understanding, that would be the responsibility of the leagues. That is not what we are trying to block with this amendment; we are trying to block club-to-club forced redistribution. That is an important distinction, and I will come on to explain why.

I do not believe that this is a theoretical concern. The regulator’s objectives include financial sustainability. One can easily imagine a future regulator interpreting this objective to mean that it should balance resources across the pyramid, effectively redistributing funds to prop up weaker clubs. Without this amendment, nothing in legislation explicitly prevents such a scenario.

Some may argue that redistribution is needed to make the game fairer—I understand that point—but fairness in football has always been earned through competition, not imposed through central control. We must be very cautious about importing the language and logic of equalisation into a sport that depends for its vitality on aspiration, competition and merit. Sporting competition is a hill that I am willing to die on.

It is also worth noting that forced redistribution between clubs would create perverse incentives. It would reward financial mismanagement and punish prudence, and it would create a moral hazard where clubs are less motivated to balance their books if they believe that the regulator will require others to bail them out. That is not a path to sustainability; it is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse, disaster.

The principle at stake is clear: the role of the regulator is to set standards, ensure compliance and uphold integrity, and not to act as a central accountant deciding who deserves what. If clubs wish to strike revenue-sharing deals through their leagues, they may do so. The amendment draws a line: it protects club autonomy and supports continued investment in the game, and it ensures that the Government’s regulator—whatever its remit ends up being—respects the rights of clubs to manage and retain their own finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Clause 10 provides for what is described as a state of the game report—a new mechanism by which the Government’s regulator is expected to take stock of the health, direction and trends within English football. It is, in theory, a very valuable exercise for both fans and clubs. Done well, it offers an opportunity to review not only the financial condition of the game but its accessibility, integrity and future direction. But for the clause to serve its purpose, the report must include those issues which matter most to the people who sustain our national game—the fans that it purports to protect. That is why I wish to speak to my amendments 123 and 122.

Amendment 123 would require the state of the game report to include an assessment of the impact that the regulator’s activities have had on ticket prices. Amendment 122 is tabled in a similar vein, and would require that same assessment to appear in the regulator’s annual report as well. These are modest and reasonable proposals, but they are also very important.

The cost of attending football in this country has risen markedly in recent years. For millions of supporters, particularly those attending with children or travelling away from home, football is no longer the affordable pastime it once was—we have seen those protests in the stands and outside grounds on a number of occasions this season. While the causes are complex, it is certain that increased regulatory costs, compliance burdens and mandated structural changes may be passed on, directly or indirectly, to the supporter at the turnstile. If we are to create a regulator with statutory powers over finance, governance, and club operations, surely it is not too much to ask that we track the real-world consequences of those interventions.

[Max Wilkinson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is arguing that ticket prices are already going up anyway. Football clubs are raising their prices—in some cases, as fan groups have argued, in the case of Manchester United, for example, unnecessarily—and are discriminatorily against people who have disabilities. Certain concession tickets are being removed already. I wonder whether he might reflect on the free market as it currently operates in football, or whether that is failing already, so that the regulator actually is trying to solve some of these problems by ensuring that fans are properly engaged with on these matters.

[Mr French]

I absolutely understand the point that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats makes. One of the extreme examples, which he used, of Manchester United—if I remember correctly, the owner involved was one of the people who were coming out in support of a Labour Government before the last election, so it will be quite interesting to see what the Minister says about the behaviour of said advocate of the Labour Government in that regard. He makes an interesting point, because fans are being impacted by ticket prices; we all understand that. It is about, as I have consistently tried to say—it is a theme of our amendments—ensuring transparency about how the regulator is or is not impacting the game. We believe the amendment represents a fair and reasonable request—that someone marks the regulator’s homework so that we can understand the impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

It is not clear to me that Ashford Town (Middlesex) would be one of the clubs covered by the regulator. I am not sure what division they are in, but I do not think they are in the top five at the moment, although I wish them well in the forthcoming season and their efforts for promotion.

[Mr French]

I am not going to guess what league that club is in, but I am sure they are brilliant, whoever they are. I will not seek to offend anyone’s club by not knowing what league they are in. But the fundamental premise of the argument that the Liberal Democrats are making is that this amendment would give bad owners, if we can describe them as that, a get-out clause to blame the regulator for decisions that they are making. I think that is the argument, and the hon. Member is nodding, but this amendment would, if anything, help to shine a spotlight to stop them making that argument, because they can do that regardless of the amendment. We know that a regulator will come in. The Labour party has a huge majority; the regulator is coming, so the same owners, using the same principle he has just argued, could still make that argument, regardless of this amendment, because they know that they will have extra duties. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that fans and ticket prices are at the heart of the reporting that we see in the future, as Members and as fans as well.

[Max Wilkinson]

We are seeking to avoid the guarantee that what has been described will happen. As I have said, I think it will be impossible for the regulator to know, so it will be putting a finger up in the air and saying, “We think it has been 50p per ticket in League Two” or in the National League, and it may be £1 per ticket in the Premier League. But the regulator will not know. We cannot know now; it will not know in the future. Only the people who own the football clubs will be able to say, and it is obvious what they will say; we will be giving them a get-out. We strongly oppose this amendment, for those reasons.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am a member of the Robins Trust at Cheltenham Town.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I will. It depends on how long we go on for today.

In all seriousness, the Government have not been specific in this clause regarding their key definitions, and have clearly left open the door to scope creep by the regulator and the Secretary of State, whoever they might be in the coming weeks and months. That should concern all Members who value Parliament’s role of holding the Government to account, regardless of political affiliation. That is why I tabled amendment 132, which would clearly specify the leagues that are to be classified as a “specified competition”. That would ensure that, should the Bill pass, the Secretary of State, whoever they may be, could not unilaterally decide that they wished to expand the regulator’s scope without first consulting Parliament.

Without the amendment, the Secretary of State could, without oversight or accountability, decide that they wanted a particular competition to be included, and for the clubs involved to face the costs of that decision. We know that representations from the women’s game highlight a desire not to be included, but the Bill as it has come from the Lords would allow the Secretary of State to bring the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super League 2, the FA Women’s National League North and the FA Women’s National League South under the regulator’s control. It is also unclear why the Government have drafted the Bill to specifically reference consulting the Football Association but not other bodies such as the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. Will the Minister please explain why that is, as the question has been raised with me, and I suspect with other Committee members?

It is important to clearly define what competitions will be under the regulator’s scope so that the wider football world can understand the direction of travel for clubs and leagues, which will ultimately impact long-term investment and budget decisions. Uncertainty is not helpful for clubs or fans, and the regulator will already impact clubs and leagues in different ways, let alone if the Government expand their reach further. Unsurprisingly, the Government do not like the amendment, as it would remove powers from the Secretary of State to decide which competitions are under the scope of their regulator. We know the Government are a big fan of scope creep, but we want to prevent it, and to ensure that any attempt by the Government to add more trophies to their cabinet is subject to the approval of Parliament and the democratically elected representatives of fans in our constituencies.

On the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I will listen to his arguments carefully but in my experience the last thing that clubs at that level need is more red tape and costs that will stifle their growth. The amount of paperwork that the Government’s regulator will likely require of every club is a concern. For smaller clubs, it will mean a shift in focus from what happens on the pitch and from fans to form filling—bureaucracy over the beautiful game. I can see what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do—even if, true to form, it is not very liberal—but it would create more costs than rewards. Yes, there is an exemption from having to pay the levy, but it will have to be applied for, so the clubs would still be liable to pay the levy, alongside other costs the regulator will put on them, until the application was approved, which will likely take time.

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We were clear on Second Reading that we supported its aims, although we believe that it should go further—on the scope of the competitions covered, for one example. We also agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about financial redistribution; he made some eloquent points. I am not sure that they were entirely in line with what his party was arguing on Second Reading or in the House of Lords, but there we are.

Our amendment 74 is clear. It extends the scope of the Bill to cover the sixth tier of English football. We all remember what happened to that tier during the covid pandemic: many clubs ended up on the verge of bankruptcy and needed bail-outs. The need for financial sustainability does not end at the fifth tier. To push back against the point made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I should say that we would see the football regulator taking a light-touch approach, as in the outline aims of the Bill, and there would also be an exemption for clubs in the sixth tier because many are run by volunteers with perhaps one or two members of staff, not all full-time.

We believe that when clubs come up from the sixth to the fifth tiers—there are many ambitious clubs in the non-league sector—it is really important that those also build in a financially sustainable way. We believe that including them in the Bill will help them become financially sustainable as they make their way through the football league.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Yes, we also have Portsmouth.

This rivalry—the kind of blend I mentioned—is obviously true of my own family: half blue, half red. To be clear, that is only in football terms, especially as the current Government continue to use the famous Millwall “No one likes us, we don’t care” chant as political inspiration. That rivalry will be reignited next season, as the mighty Addicks have been promoted back to the Championship, where they will play Millwall twice. Hopefully, both will be battling it out for promotion to the Premier League—Millwall, of course, just missed out on the play-offs.

On a more serious note of regulation, it has not only been on the pitch where the fortunes of both clubs have differed significantly in recent years. So I was not just rambling on about fans for no reason; there is a clear point about ownership linked to all this.

[Max Wilkinson]

I was enjoying it.

[Mr French]

Great.

While Millwall fans have enjoyed the success of international ownership through the Berylson family and the late John Berylson, who tragically passed away, those who support Charlton Athletic next door have endured a series of damaging ownership disputes, including periods where it was unclear who truly was in control, or whether those individuals had the long-term interests of the club or its supporters at heart.

It is precisely that kind of instability that schedule 1 is designed to prevent, even if we must highlight that it will not be bullet-proof against an owner taking bad investment decisions that fans may not agree with—both today and in the future. However, there is a gaping loophole in this legislation, which shows either the Government do not understand English football as part of a delicate international eco-system, or that they admit the regulator will not be able to live up to the hype that many Labour MPs are suggesting. I would happily give way to the Minister if she can answer this crucial question now: do the ownership tests also include multi-club ownership structures? I shall carry on.

We are seeing an increasing number of ownership groups acquiring stakes in multiple clubs—often across leagues and even countries—raising concerns about conflicts of interest, sporting integrity and transparency, but also about the effectiveness of the Government’s regulator. A clear example is 777 Partners. As hon. Members may know, it is a US-based investment firm that recently attempted to take over Everton, despite already holding controlling interests in clubs across Europe, which I understand to be Standard Liège, Hertha Berlin, Genoa and, further afield, Vasco da Gama in Brazil.

As far as I can see, there is still no mechanism in the Bill—which is why I have asked the Minister to comment on this—to allow the regulator to properly assess the cumulative risks of such widespread, multi-club control. In such instances, if one of those clubs runs into financial difficulty, it will surely draw resources away from others. That is the risk I am trying to highlight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

How might the shadow Minister compare the relationship between the IFR and the Government with the relationship between the BBC and the Government, for example?

[Mr French]

That is a well-made point. I have said in previous public comments that the BBC is an important example of how this can go wrong. I thought that the Government might have learned from that because, whatever the merits of the candidate, he or she—I will be less specific than to talk about individuals—has been marred by affiliation, in some cases probably wrongly. That is the point that I am trying to make. Every decision, going forward, could easily create a situation in which the same accusation will be—[Interruption.] No, it is not about double standards. I am making the point clearly that every decision on something as important as this—the first time that the country has established a regulator for a sport—will be marred by accusations of non-independence.

[Max Wilkinson]

I have a lot of sympathy with the point that the Opposition spokesperson is making, and the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East earlier. The problem is that we know that the Conservative party has, in the past, appointed lots of party members, donors and activists to public bodies. Therefore, although I have some sympathy with the point, I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps on weak ground when making this argument.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I will say that, though the Liberal Democrats like to avoid this point, they were in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, so some of those decisions would have been made by—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dartford want to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I am not trying to have it both ways. I am talking about football and the Bill in front of this Committee. I have answered questions openly and willingly, where others might have ducked them.

[Max Wilkinson]

What about Ofqual?

[Mr French]

This is turning into whataboutery whinery, and I fear that I am already testing your patience, Sir Jeremy. I am trying to stick to the Bill in front of us, and why we tabled these amendments. We can have a lot of whataboutery around different regulators. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned Ofwat.

[Max Wilkinson]

Ofqual.

[Mr French]

Ofqual. I will stick to football.

I will reiterate what we are trying to do with the amendment: any political interests and political donations made by the prospective chair of the board must all be declared as part of the appointment process and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That is important because, if we are to value the role of this House in making informed decisions, we must have the appropriate information. I do not believe that asking for political donations to be registered and declared transparently is unfair—it is not. It is to do with decision making by this House.

I have already put on the record that I believe that what has happened in recent months has been a great discourtesy not only to all Members of this House, but specifically to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That Committee sat to make its decision on the nomination of Mr Kogan by the Secretary of State yet, at that point, at the time of the meeting, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—that the Committee did not know of the donations to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, not until they were disclosed in the live Committee hearing. Regardless of the political arguments that people might want to make, and of the whatabouteries again, that is not fair on right hon. and hon. Members of this House. They were not provided with that information to do their work, which is the valuable work of Select Committees of this House.

Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Louie French and Max Wilkinson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

When I first read the amendment, I assumed that it would apply to somebody who owned a stake in a broadcasting company: a famous podcaster or someone who owned a famous podcasting outlet, for example. I understand why that might be a conflict of interest, but if it is somebody who is commenting on whether a penalty or a refereeing decision was any good, I do not quite understand how that would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps the hon. Member can enlighten me.

[Mr French]

That is a fair question. We know how the media works. How can I put this? There is a desire for certain people to make certain comments that might be controversial. Our concern is that such comments could undermine the regulator straightaway. With the amendment, we are trying to be as clear as possible and avoid a headache down the line for the Government, so that the Bill not only covers interests such as shareholdings but ensures that no conflict of interest could arise from working for the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The structure of the regulator is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, so I will not drift too much because I have already been yellow carded by the Chair, to use a football term. However, we have made it quite clear that we are trying to limit the size of the regulator because we are already concerned, and that question about costs is one that I want to ask the Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will come on to this shortly.

The Opposition have been clear that we will not oppose the Bill for the sake of opposition, but like many fans and clubs up and down the pyramid, we are worried about how these bills will be paid. A regulator of this scale, with powers of licensing, enforcement, business model oversight, owner scrutiny, fan engagement mandates and financial analysis, does not come cheap, yet nowhere in the Bill do we see sufficient transparency or constraint on how big this body might grow to be, including how many people it may hire or how heavy-handed it may become. That is our concern regarding scope creep.

Let us not forget that the Football Association already exists, the EFL has its own monitoring tools and the Premier League already has fit and proper tests and financial regulation. This new regulator risks not only duplicating existing efforts but adding an entirely new layer of complexity, cost and compliance for clubs, particularly those already operating on a knife edge. The smaller clubs that are already struggling will, in a cruel twist of fate, be the clubs that suffer the most. When they are forced to divert resources away from their academies, community foundations or stadium improvements to pay for the regulator’s levy, it will be fans who feel it first and the Government who will deserve the blame.

Looking forward, what is the projected headcount of the football regulator over the next three years? What is its estimated operational cost in its first full year? How much of that cost is expected to be recovered from clubs? Will the Minister provide exemptions for smaller clubs or those in financial distress, or will this be another flat levy that hits the lower leagues the hardest?

Good governance in football is vital, but so is affordability, restraint and remembering that every pound extracted from the system is ultimately paid by someone—the fan in the stand, the father and daughter already paying £90 to sit in the upper tier of some Premier League clubs, the lifelong fan who travels to away games week in, week out, and the dedicated fans who create their own podcast to discuss their club’s trials and tribulations. There are lots of podcasts out there, and I could recommend a few. On a more serious note, they are the ones who will suffer, and they are the lifelines that clubs will lose. We are already seeing fans protesting ticket prices in the streets and the stands. We are concerned that the burdens from extra reporting will increase the cost for those fans.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am a new Member and I was not here for the previous iteration of the Bill, brought forward by the previous Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether the regulator his Government proposed would have been entirely staffed by volunteers? How it was going to be funded? Was there any kind of levy proposed? Please forgive my ignorance.

[Mr French]

I am happy to answer that question. I think it is quite clear. The comparison is drawn and it is argued that this is the same regulator as before, but it is not. We clearly have different political opinions about what regulation might look like and how big it might be. These are the questions that we are trying to tease out. We are trying to put a cap in place because we are concerned that what is being proposed in the Bill will significantly increase the size of the regulator and its cost. These are the key points the amendment is designed to draw out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, if he has concerns about the cost of the regulator, will support it.

It is clear that the Government’s Bill for the regulator is not about lowering costs for fans or improving the experience of football. It is about Government control and intervention into more aspects of our lives. By limiting the number of employees that the Government’s regulator can employ, as those across the industry have suggested, we can make sure that fans are protected and clubs not over-burdened with new costs and regulations, because in football, as in politics, promises are easy but the bill always comes due.

[Max Wilkinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to make two quick points. First, it seems to me that the previous Government were going to impose extra regulation, and there would have been a regulator that probably would not have been run by volunteers. By the logic we have heard today, the Conservatives previously proposed some kind of increase that they worried would put up ticket prices. I do not agree that that is necessarily going to happen.

Secondly, one of the first things that my local club, Cheltenham Town, said to me after I was elected, was, “Please support the Football Governance Bill, because that will make our club more sustainable.” Then I spoke to the Robins Trust, of which I am a member, and it said, “Please support the Football Governance Bill.” If the club and the fans are both saying, “Please support the Football Governance Bill,” it is my duty as their local Member of Parliament to take their word for it that they think things will get better as a result of the Bill.

Cheltenham Town is a League Two club; sometimes, in a good period, they are in League One, but these are not people who are burdened by the concerns of billions of pounds, as at Manchester United. Ticket prices at Cheltenhm are about £20—I think I might be able to get in for £20 for some games. Price sensitivity is probably an issue for Cheltenham Town fans and the club, and they tell me I should back this legislation, so I do not know why, based on that and having heard the arguments made by the shadow Minister, I should change my mind, because there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed between the previous regulator and the newly proposed regulator. The opinions of the club that I serve are entirely clear.

[Max Wilkinson]

We have a fundamental disagreement here on the Bill and the need for regulation. It is clear that the Conservatives have decided that they will now not support the concept of a football regulator. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision. It is also legitimate to point out that that was not their view until a few short weeks ago. It is also legitimate for me to point out that both the club I represent and the fans are telling me that I should support the Bill.

I hate to make a point about political ideology, but sometimes I do. This perhaps is one of those instances when we just have to let organisations decide for themselves. My understanding is that traditionally that has been a Conservative thing. Someone sets up something or there is an existing business, and the Conservatives might say that that organisation can make decisions for itself. The next amendment is about salaries, and I will probably make the same point. Sometimes we just have to let organisations make their own decisions and let the market decide.

[Mr French]

If we follow that train of thought and bring it back to what we have been talking about today, which is a regulator, does the hon. Member believe that such a hands-off approach to a regulator is common sense, given the issues of regulation that we now see across our country—issues that the Liberal Democrats often campaign on—which call into question the expanded powers that regulators have failed to act on. Using that same philosophy we should try to ensure at this point in time that this regulator does not end up in the same bad place as regulators in other parts of our economy.

[Max Wilkinson]

The shadow Minister makes a persuasive point, but I still do not understand why it is right for politicians to say, before a regulator has even been set up, “You may have no more than x employees.” I shall end there.

[Melanie Onn]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to address some of the points about the costs. I fear that as we discuss each amendment we run the risk of disappearing down quite a few rabbit holes and losing sight of the Bill’s principle and purpose.

Everyone will have received the submission from Fair Game, a collaboration among the smaller clubs that are concerned about the football pyramid as a whole. Fair Game’s biggest concern is not the potential for runaway regulator costs, although it is important that the costs are proportionate. Nobody is saying, “Let’s have a cast of thousands,” but the shadow Minister has failed to provide any workings-out for his number in respect of the scope and size of the organisation.

The fundamental issue for clubs is not the costs of the regulator and the economics of the bureaucracy. The issue for them is how little the smaller clubs get from broadcasting and attendance, and the fact that the football pyramid is entirely broken. If we fail to remember that in each debate, we will fail to assess and address the points that are being made up and down the country. The shadow Minister keeps referring to the costs of premiership clubs, but the majority of areas around the country do not have premiership clubs; they have clubs in the Championship and below. Those clubs are struggling to make ends meet and to keep going year by year, and they are seeing extraordinary disparities in the entirety of the financial system.

It is worth referring to the disproportionate spread of the costs. The broadcasting deal controlled by the Premier League is worth £3.2 billion, of which 88% goes to Premier League clubs and 70% goes to clubs in receipt of parachute payments. The remaining 5% is then split between the next 138 clubs. I would say that clubs’ futures and costings rest on issues that relate to that, not on the costs of setting up a regulator. If we continue with the argument of not wanting the associated costs, we will not have a regulator. We cannot have one free. It comes down to the fundamental question of whether we do or do not want one. The Opposition currently seem to be going down the route of saying, “We don’t want one.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

My first Southampton game at the Dell was in 1993. Southampton lost, predictably, to Manchester United. My grandparents and father took me, and playing at the back that day was a man called Kevin Moore. He was one of the greatest headers of the ball that the Football League has ever seen. He would regularly be seen rising above the level of the crossbar and heading the ball downwards into the goal. He did so in the Zenith Data Systems Cup final—that is a reference for the spotters among us.

Kevin Moore is one of a number of footballers whose case has clearly established a link between heading the football and dementia. To balance things up with my friend from Portsmouth over the way, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, there is similar evidence in the case of Portsmouth legend Ray Hiron. The Portsmouth News has done a wonderful public service for us all by reporting on that. Kevin Moore’s brother Dave, told the Daily Mail that

“Kev had great spring and he absolutely loved heading footballs”.

Kevin talked about how he would go to the back of Blundell Park in Grimsby with his friends and head the ball, which was apparently on a string tethered behind the stand. He probably gained a lot of aptitude for heading a football by training like that, and it definitely made him more successful at playing the game as a fierce centre-back. However, it clearly had an impact on his health in later life, and he died in a nursing home aged just 55, which is a tragedy.

Kevin Moore and Ray Hiron are not the only ones; Chris Nicholl was another Southampton legend with a Grimsby Town link. There are also more famous names such as Jeff Astle, Nobby Stiles and, more recently, Dean Windass. They are legends at their clubs and across the country.

What has been clearly established is that heading a football does an awful lot of harm over time to the brain of a human being. We accept that this is possibly outside the Bill’s scope, and we also accept the numbers in the room. However, I rise to speak to amendment 1 because it is really important that, as part of these debates on football regulation—when we are talking about billions of pounds sloshing around the football system—we understand that we could do so much with a tiny proportion of that amount to ease the pain and suffering of these footballers’ families.

Let us face it: the families of Kevin, Ray, Dean, Jeff, Nobby and Chris are around and speaking today, and there will be more families in the future. While it is very unlikely that we will be able to solve the issue with this Bill, it is important that every Member of Parliament with an interest in football takes an interest in this issue. We simply must push to get justice for the families of the footballers we have heard about today, and for those whose family member might suffer the same difficulties in the future.

[Mr French]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving amendment 1 so that we can have an initial conversation about this very emotive and important issue facing ex-players, and about the campaigns on these well-known health challenges. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot be part of these discussions because she is a Deputy Speaker, but I have agreed to meet and listen to the group in the Southampton area.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the new clause we have tabled on player welfare, as we believe there are strong links to the arguments made on amendment 1. I will park those for now, as I am conscious that I am close to a red card following my initial yellow card—I will not go too far on that, Sir Jeremy.

Clause 6 defines the core objectives of the independent football regulator as

“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs… to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football…to safeguard the heritage of English football”.

Amendment 1 seeks to add another subsection that would clarify this particular issue, and I understand the arguments that have been made.

We have already engaged with some of the leagues on this issue, and I draw the attention of the Committee, and of anyone listening at home who may be seeking assistance and support on this issue, to the funds that are available. I am not taking a particular position; I just want to highlight the existing scheme to support former footballers in this regard, as I think it is very important for those families around the country. My understanding is that the scheme was set up in 2023 by the Premier League and has distributed over £1.4 million to date. If this Bill Committee can achieve anything, we will be performing a good public service by advertising that the fund is available for ex-players to ensure those families can get the support they desire.

I will return to our player welfare new clause, but my understanding is that the drafting of the Bill, however well intentioned, does not look to include either the PFA or the LMA, both of which are key stakeholders in how we protect the rights of footballers and managers, who are under a lot of pressure. I think we all recognise that as politicians, because we have a lot of pressure placed on us in our duties in the workplace. With an increasing fixture list, as clubs look to add more fixtures to be more commercially viable, there is broader concern about player welfare. That is why I am keen to have that debate later in our considerations.

It is key that once this football regulator is established—and we know that it will be established—it considers the welfare of players. It is important that it does that with the bodies that represent both players and managers. I look forward to debating this further, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for moving the amendment for discussion.