Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Nick Timothy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I declare my interest as an Aston Villa season ticket holder and therefore speak as somebody experienced in the highs and lows of football. I refer not to the FA cup semi-final on Saturday but to the moment in 2018 when Villa almost went bust under Dr Tony Xia.

To own a football club is to respect one’s responsibility as a custodian of an important community institution. That is something, despite some of the speeches we have heard, that most owners respect. We cannot debate the Bill without acknowledging the extraordinary success of English football, because the premier league is the greatest show on earth. It is broadcast to 189 different countries, and nearly 2 billion people follow the league weekly. The revenues that football accrues are invested not only in top talent but through the divisions and in grassroots facilities overseen by the excellent Football Foundation. The New Croft in my constituency, for example, is home to Haverhill Rovers, who just became champions of the Thurlow Nunn league first division north, and incredible all-weather pitches that host more than 50 teams of different ages and abilities.

What is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix? The Government say that the new regulator will protect and promote the sustainability of English football. The examples given to justify regulation are Bury and Macclesfield Town among others, but the experience of those clubs shows the power of community and supporter activism. Bury was rescued by a supporters’ group, and Macclesfield by a local businessman. Both are going concerns today.

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently point out that Bury FC were allowed to collapse. They were expelled from the league and they lost their football share. I know acutely from my own family experience that supporters continued to gather at the gates every Saturday because of that drumbeat of a ritual that had meant so much to them and their families. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about community, so surely he agrees that that can never be allowed to happen again.

[Nick Timothy]

Of course, I agree that Bury was a very sad incident. The right hon. Lady mentioned 60 clubs, I think, that had gone into administration. My point is that I am not aware that any of them collapsed to the extent that they are not going concerns or not participating in league or non-league football. We know from the examples of Bury, Macclesfield and AFC Wimbledon that it is possible for clubs to come back. Supporter activism is not the only solution.

[Peter Swallow]

rose—

[Nick Timothy]

I will happily give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps he can name one club of the 60 who are no longer live, and no longer participating in competitive sport.

[Peter Swallow]

I am genuinely astonished. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that a football team can be stripped to its very bones, and can limp along, barely alive but still being called a football team, and that should be good enough for fans. Is he genuinely suggesting that we should not have any more hope or ambition for the community clubs that make our towns?

[Nick Timothy]

What the hon. Gentleman just said about Bury football club is rather insulting to the fans who have kept it going. Of course it is a football club. Supporter activism is not the only solution when finances go wrong. When Villa were in trouble, we were quickly bought out by new owners. Such is the draw of English football that new owners are almost always ready to step in and invest. Even Birmingham City managed to find new owners two years ago.

We are told that we need a regulator to stop travesties such as the European super league, but again that is wrong. Those English clubs that were tempted by the super league backed off as soon as supporters made their views plain. The real motivation for the super league was European envy of the premier league, but we risk the strength of that league with this proposal.

We are also told that we need a regulator because football finances are unsustainable. Everyone knows of the issues caused by the leveraged buy-out of Manchester United by the Glazer family. There is action that the sport can take to prevent such cases, but debt itself is not necessarily a problem. Spurs have borrowed to invest in their new stadium, for example, and many owners are willing to invest more in their teams but have been blocked by financial fair play rules. Those rules demonstrate why regulating football in this way is such a risk. They have protected the most established clubs from challenge, prevented teams from building on their success through investment, and caused all sorts of perverse decision making.

Premier league teams are selling promising young players because they represent pure profit in the financial fair play system. Players are signed on long-term contracts to amortise the cost. Some clubs have sold their grounds to comply with the regulations. Chelsea sold their women’s team to a company belonging to their owners for an inflated sum of £200 million, just to get around the rules. It is not difficult to see how a football regulator would lead to similar perverse outcomes and a loss in the competitiveness of English teams.

Just today, we have heard calls from parliamentarians to extend the role of the regulator. We can imagine interventions on ticket prices, kit sales and carbon footprints, and perhaps quotas for English players, wage equality between men’s and women’s teams, the distribution of revenues, restrictions on heading the ball, and diversity mandates for youth schemes and the appointment of coaches. I heard something said about human rights checks.

Football does not need this regulator. The vast revenues of the premier league and their distribution, and the extraordinary continuity of almost every professional club in the country, show that the sport is balancing commerce and community well. Our clubs are performing in a tough international market and the most competitive of leagues and cups, and they are surviving and thriving as vital community institutions. When it is not even clear what the problem is that we are trying to fix, why would we risk something that is so cherished by so many?