The Labour government’s Football Governance Bill has been read in the House of Lords for the second time, but a few concerns about the legislation have been raised – some familiar, some new.
Re-introduced by Labour in October, the Bill has its origins under the previous Conservative government. Labour opted to launch its own version of the legislation, which it believes it has strengthened, after winning the July election.
The main caveat of the legislation is the creation of an independent Football Regulator. This body will be tasked with improving the resilience of club finance, taking on ‘rogue owners’, improving fan engagement, introducing a code of practice and preventing clubs from joining breakaway clubs, Baroness Twycross of the Labour party told the House of Lords.
“The football industry has not gone far enough in tackling these issues despite many opportunities to do so,” Twycross said, referring to the issues of financial irresponsibility and mismanagement in football.
Lords share UEFA and PL overreach worries
Though the Bill has now progressed through the Lords after its second reading, heading to the Committee Stage for more scrutiny, a number of concerns were raised by Lords from across the benches.
Baroness Grey-Thompson questioned the government as to why women’s football has not been considered in the legislation.
Though noting that the Bill has been set out to cover English men’s football and not football as a whole, the peer remarked that “if the aim of this bill is to ensure financial sustainability for the future of football should this not be for the whole game?”.
She continued: “I believe the exclusion of the women’s game from this bill could hinder its growth so that it will continue to be an afterthought when it should be at the forefront of innovation.”
Concerns were notably raised by representatives of the Conservative Party – which as noted above first introduced legislation to regulate England’s men’s football scene after fan backlash against the attempted breakaway European Super League (ESL), which resulted in the Fan Led Review of Football.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay questioned the decision to remove parachute payments from the remit of the new regulator, pointing out that when clubs are relegated from the Premier league to the Championship ‘clubs overheads increase but the income does not’.
His Conservative colleague, Lord Maude of Horsham, raised an issue previously outlined by European football governing body UEFA in a statement last month. His concern relates to potentially over-regulation of the sport.
“We must be careful that this bill does not overreach itself or indeed over-regulate or over-complicate the running of our cherished football clubs,” he said.
EFL in favour, Premier League unconvinced
Several commentators have queried whether the regulation of English football could potentially hinder the competitive and international apparel of the Premier League, and UEFA cautioned that English clubs could be prevented from participating in European competition.
The Premier League has also cautioned about introducing ‘banking style’ regulations to the English football ecosystem. To be fair to the top-flight, Baroness Twycross did cite financial services regulations as a good example to follow.
The peer did also have some harsh words for how football has been governed. She remarked that: “Football industry has not gone far enough in tackling these issues despite many opportunities to do so.”
In contrast to the Premier League and Conservative peers, Rick Parry, Chair of the EFL, does not seem to be fazed about the government’s regulatory ambitions for football. Parry is of the view that the Premier League would not be where it is without the system promotion and relegation, and financial regulation is needed to ensure this continues.
Speaking to the Guardian this week, he remarked: “The Premier League isn’t just the snapshot of the 20 clubs who were in it for the time being, it’s all of those who’ve made a contribution to its growth over the years and make it what it is.
“If we all decide the pyramid doesn’t matter, let’s just stop promotion and relegation and then see how strong the Premier League is. I think without variety and competition at the bottom, if you have a sterile league, if, heaven forbid, we adopt the American system and we just have closed leagues, then how big would the outcry be?”
With the Football Governance Bill progressing through its first and second readings in parliament, it is looking increasingly likely that regulation of English football will become a reality.
This could deal a blow to any prospects of the European Super League, at least one with English clubs anyway – this would exclude six of the world’s 10 most valuable clubs from the proposed competition.
For the government, this is a chance to protect what it considers one of Britain’s most valuable cultural and economic exports. For fans, the Bill promises to prevent financial mismanagement which saw the collapse of historic clubs like Bury and Macclesfield, and prevention of any unpopular breakaway leagues. For the sports stakeholders itself, views on challenges and benefits are far more diverse.
“It (football) is a global success story and one of our greatest cultural experts, so it is an industry we can predict both for its economic value and for the fans who go to support every week even when their team is down on its luck,” Twycross summarised the legislation.
“Despite its phenomenal success we know that irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation have cast a shadow over too many of our clubs. Too often are fans who have had to fight to protect their cubs identity, heritage and very existence.”
