An Analysis of the Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill

?A bizarre reference to Confucius, a quote from JB Priestley, a few surprising cross-party alliances and a cameo appearance from a former Prime Minister. Perhaps never before has the governance of English football been taken down such unusual political alleyways. But that in itself is perhaps a sign that the sport - so entrenched in the “social fabric” of the country, as Lord Parkinson was at pains to point out - has not been so close to meaningful change since the Premier League’s creation thirty-two years ago.?

?In just under four hours of parliamentary scrutiny led by The Minister Baroness Twycross, the government’s reformed, more “match fit” variation of the Football Governance Bill was placed under VAR review by a collection of members of the House of Lords that included Margaret Thatcher’s Sports Minister, the vice-President of West Ham United, and a former Chairman of the Football Association.?

?If the government, however, had expected a continuation of the largely unencumbered cross-party support that the introduction of a regulator for the football industry has previously enjoyed, this Second Reading was an ample introduction to the notion that making change in football never did run completely smooth. The (largely Conservative) backlash to the legislation arrived in two forms. The first a conceptual objection to “big government”, and a push for fully free market economics. This included a particularly strange intervention by Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, whose tangential references to the issue of transgenderism in boxing fell largely upon bemused ears. ?

?The second, however, will cause the government more concern. This, perhaps most sharply dealt by both Lord Moynihans (Colin and Jonathan), but inclusive of Baronesses Brady, Fox and Evans, as well as Lords Goodman, Maude, Jackson, and Birt, was a surgical deconstruction of the Bill’s shortcomings, with a focus on detail.??

?Chief amongst the list of charges presented by this boisterous union was a concern in relation to over-regulation, with an allegation that the Bill had already been infected by mission creep. It was Moynihan the younger (Colin) who levelled the accusation that what had initially been outlined as light touch regulation in Tracey Crouch’s ‘Fan-Led Review of English Football’, had been mutated into “far reaching government control” over the course of the last three years. He noted that the powers the Bill had provided to the government exceeded those given by regulators in other industries, with the result being a Bill “peppered with uncertainty and interventionist powers” and “containing 42 delegated powers”. It was a point picked up by both Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Baroness Brady, both of whom questioned the independence of the slated football regulator, with the former suggesting it provided ministers with “sweeping powers.”?

?Brady, supported by Baroness Fox of Buckley, led a separate attack on the method of arbitration proposed for the regulator, as a means of enforcing a redistribution deal between the Premier League and English Football League. The inflexibility of the regulator, and inclusion of parachute payments as part of the consideration, were particular points of contention. Concerns were also raised regarding the proportionality of the Bill, and the potential impact it might have on clubs in the football pyramid without access to significant financial resources. Several calls were made too for a sunset clause to be implemented, an acknowledgment that a regulator might only serve to empower the historic regulator of the sport in England, The Football Association.?

?The frustration with this is the potential of these concerns to overshadow the support shown towards the idea of a regulator in many quarters of both Houses. There were eloquent points made by Lords Bassam of Brighton and Wood of Anfield, as well as Baronesses Morris and Taylor of Bolton, regarding the parlous state of finances across the industry, and the impact felt at the lower reaches of the football pyramid. Likewise, Lord Ranger of Northwood and Lord Addington touched on the social need for a regulator, to ensure that clubs don’t drift from being cornerstones of communities.?

?It is precisely these arguments that have characterised my own support for the introduction of the regulator since the publication of the Fan-Led Review. The 58% technical insolvency rate amongst clubs in England’s top four divisions, the unsavoury melee for power at the top of the sport, and attempts to form the European Super League, point to a market failure that has left the industry deeply out of balance.?

?And yet there is now a risk that these points get lost, drowned in a quagmire of technicalities that should have been addressed at a much earlier stage. The deepest regret should be that several of the points made about the Bill are neither without merit nor fresh in nature. In both of my reports on this topic, submitted to parliament during my time at think-tank Civitas, I warned repeatedly of the need to tighten the rhetoric around the independence of the regulator, argued extensively for some sort of sunset clause, and of the necessity for proportionality.??

?And yet I cannot claim to be either soothsayer or prophet, simply one of several parties pointing to the same potential problems and attempting to be heard. What has happened instead is a stumbling from DCMS to the same pitfall that has befallen every attempt to reform the industry over the last thirty years – an underappreciation of both the uniqueness of the football industry and the determination of those within the sport with anti-regulatory vested interests to make themselves heard within Whitehall.?

?The result is that a fine idea for regulation risks becoming trapped in parliamentary bureaucracy, held up by details that might never have been problematic. The issue now is not with the concerns of Moynihan or Brady, but that the door has been left ajar for such shortcomings to be weaponised by the likes of Lord Hannan and his ham-fisted band of allies. If that is to be case, then football risks an impasse before the new regulator can even begin work. Those signs would not bode well.?

?

?

?