Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the fact that Labour Members went mad about that, but now they are doing so because this is one of theirs.

Media outlets are now reporting that even some EFL clubs are deeply worried about this political appointment. If they are worried, we should be worried and we should listen. Members will recall that this is not the first time that alarm bells have been sounded about political interference in football governance. Well before this deeply questionable appointment, UEFA raised serious concerns that England risked exclusion from the European championship due to concerns that a Government-backed football regulator could lead to unacceptable political interference. We understand that in a letter from UEFA, which is still being withheld from Members by this Government, the general secretary said:

“One 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. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition.”

And that was written before the Government sought to install a Labour crony at the helm of the football regulator.

We began this debate by recognising football for what it truly is: not just a sport but a pillar of our national identity; something that unites communities, carries our shared history and inspires future generations. It is because we care so deeply about this game and everything it represents that we cannot, in good conscience, support a Bill that risks compromising its very foundations and its independence.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State says that he cares deeply about football and the communities that it unites. My patch is just down the road from Reading, where we have seen truly horrific scenes as a bad owner has ripped the heart out of the football club and driven it almost to the point of extinction. Reading fans back this Bill, and they do so because they know that the Bill will make it far harder for what has happened to Reading ever to happen again. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman: why will he not back this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Wherever I have been in the world, whether it is in Hertsmere or at the United Nations, I am always asked two questions: “When did you meet the late Queen?” and “Which football team do you support?” Such is the strength and reach of English football.

As I have said to this House before, English football is a cherished cultural and soft power that ranks alongside our greatest museums, galleries and stately homes. Indeed, I saw that again this Friday at my brilliant local club, Boreham Wood FC, led by the indefatigable Danny Hunter. Three generations of his family have sustained that club, sustaining community life, providing education, nurturing us through covid and facilitating the next generation of stars to rise all the way to the top of the premier league. I did not hesitate to act when English football was threatened by the rapacious greed of the proposed European super league, which would have deracinated six of our greatest clubs. It is in that resistance to the ESL that the roots of this Bill lie. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, threatened a “legislative bomb”, which resulted in us bringing forward the governance review led by my excellent former colleague, Dame Tracey Crouch.

In our consideration of this legislation, I caution that English football survives on cut-throat competition in which the rewards for victory are high and the costs of failure are equally high. It is also dependent on significant levels of global investment. Well-structured investment is not a threat to English football: it is one of its great strengths. I could list many examples. We have Manchester City, which is backed by the Abu Dhabi United Group and which has posted record revenues of more than £700 million and profits of £73 million based on solid equity, not risky leverage. That is exactly the sort of leverage that is demanded. Likewise, Newcastle United’s new ownership, led by the Public Investment Fund, has brought more than £300 million of fresh investment without debt, so we have a thriving team and jobs created, with silverware returned. Beyond the premier league, we have seen what the injection of funds at Wrexham has done for its extraordinary ascent through the league. And at Tottenham Hotspur, their fabulous stadium is now expanding to include things like the Eubank-Benn masterclass at the weekend.

This all leads to the core question before the House, which I have very little time to address, but I will try to make my point succinctly. There is undoubtedly a case for regulation. The pyramid is not working, with £100 million for TV rights at the bottom of the premier league as opposed to £4 million at the top of the EFL. We need to address that—it is not sustainable. Likewise, the movement from the national league to the EFL is something that we need to expand, as exemplified by the 3UP campaign. However, before we go down this path, we should look at how circumstances have changed in the past year. Look at the change in the global investment environment, principally as a result of instability in the US, and at the national insurance hike faced by every club up and down the country. Is this really the right moment to proceed with further regulation?

Based on my 20 years’ experience in and out of government, I caution the House that when a regulator is created, however benign the intention, a self-serving bureaucracy always seeks to expand its scope over time. That will be the case for this piece of legislation, and this regulator will be on the front and back pages of the newspapers every single day. We have already heard arguments from Lib Dem colleagues for expanding the scope of the regulator before it is even up and running. In this changed environment, and given measures such as the backstop and its application to the pyramid and to parachute payments, I think there remains a window in which we can threaten this kind of regulation but not actually introduce it, because I fear the damage it will do.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I regret that I cannot give way. For the reasons I have described, I will be voting accordingly at the end of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Having been elected more recently, I am somewhat less burdened by previous legislation, but let me be clear: having worked in sports administration for many years, I have serious misgivings about a Government regulator in football. I know that this legislation started out as a very well-meaning initiative, but I have concerns—they have already been raised by other hon. Members—about creeping scope and the potential impact of Government meddling in a great British success story.

It is hard to argue that the premier league is not England’s finest export. It is the envy of global football, a competitive and unpredictable league that attracts the biggest names in the game to play in front of packed stadia, with hundreds of millions more watching around the world. The league contributes over £8 billion to the UK economy, pays £4 billion in tax, and employs over 90,000 people. Its reach is truly unparalleled, as other hon. Members have referenced. I have seen kids wearing Chelsea shirts in rural Rwanda and met Man United fans in Pyongyang—in fact, it may surprise the House to know that the premier league is widely watched in North Korea, albeit through pirated broadcasts. However, I understand that Spurs do not regularly feature in the coverage, thanks to their captain Son Heung-min.

I am sympathetic to fans up and down the country who fear that the owner of their football club is going to run it into the ground. As a Leeds fan, I know a thing or two about bad ownership and financial mismanagement, and we have heard some good examples of that from Members representing Reading and Sheffield Wednesday. However, we should dispel the myth that every football club owner is some super-rich maniac trying to squander their fortune in order to destroy a local football club.

[Peter Swallow]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that not all football club owners are maniacs determined to ruin their club, but I gently point out that this regulator will ensure that those clubs that do have such owners will be better protected in future. Does he not accept that point?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I disagree on the ideological level—on the ideological point about who should regulate football. I will come on to that in a second, but I do not believe it is the Government’s job. I believe that the football landscape already provides for regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Fans of Reading football club, including the many in my constituency, will be anxious as they wait for the final game of the season. We are neck and neck with Leyton Orient, and a good result against Barnsley on Saturday—apologies to the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—will send them to the play-offs. Any football fan knows these jitters; they are an essential part of what makes the beautiful game so beautiful.

The sad reality is that Reading fans are anxious for another, entirely avoidable reason: the stranglehold that their absent owner Dai Yongge has on their club. I will not rehearse it all now; I spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks back, and we have heard a lot tonight about the state of the club. However, with the EFL now finally forcing Dai Yongge to sell up, with a deadline of 5 May, Royals fans really are nervous. The Bill will come too late for Reading fans, but it is so important, because what has happened to Reading should never be allowed to happen to another club.

I want to take this opportunity to praise the Supporters’ Trust at Reading, which has been fantastic in standing with the club and fans throughout this process. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me and colleagues to discuss the plight of Reading, and I thank the Minister for meeting with us and staff. Staff welcomed the Bill, as have fan groups up and down the country, which makes it all the more shocking that the Tories have U-turned and are proposing to vote against it tonight. What the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) said—that it is all okay because no club has been lost irrevocably—is an indictment, and there is one party that has been completely silent tonight. Where are the Reform MPs? Why are they not in the Chamber standing up for the clubs in their constituencies? It is not good enough.

I will quickly touch on three aspects where the Bill could go further and do what I hope it will: ensure that what happened to Reading is never repeated. The first is the protection of community assets. The Bill rightly protects stadiums, but it would be great to see more action on other community assets, including training grounds. The second is about giving fans a say in their club. It is so important that the Bill is strong, so that bad-faith clubs are not allowed to get away with simply paying lip service to these matters. Finally, it is so important that a fit owners test is included in the Bill, but we need to work out what will happen when bad owners are already in post or slip through the net. I recognise the huge complexities here, but Reading really is a cautionary tale.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

From Reading again: Matt Rodda.