Revisiting my football governance dissertation

In December 2022, as part of my masters in corporate governance, I wrote 15,000 words on a topic that I (a) thought was interesting enough to keep me motivated to get over the word count; and (b) predicted was going to be the cause of the next big governance headlines. The topic? The state of English football, and the conflicting interests of fans and owners in decision-making at the highest level across the game.

A big part of my research was based on the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance (conveniently published by DCMS roughly a week before my deadline), which was conducted on the assumption that football clubs in England were being run “recklessly”. It suggested that fans were being cut out of the fundamental decisions made by the owners of their clubs, who were predominately seen by fans as custodians of something much bigger than just a balance sheet and a payday.

In broad terms, my dissertation agreed with this assessment, and suggested that in order for fans to maintain (or in some cases, obtain) any shred of influence in how their clubs were being run, a significant shift in the attitudes of the owners of football clubs, particularly those at the top of the pyramid, was going to be required. This dilution of power however, I argued, only had a chance of having any impact if it was delivered through state-backed regulation which was able to stand up against the behemoths of the game.

Two and a bit years on since my dissertation and the publication of the Fan-Led Review, I’m pleased (and to some extent disappointed) to report that I wasn’t far wrong (ignoring, of course, the actual cause of the big governance headlines of the last few years).

The idea of a new independent football regulator started to gain traction in May 2022, when the government of the day accepted all ten of the recommendations that were made as a result of the Fan-Led Review. A change of government later, and the Football Governance Bill is finally crawling through the bureaucracy of our parliamentary democracy. I find all of this quite interesting, so I thought I might offer some thoughts on how it’s getting on.

It’s fair to say that the Bill, and indeed the idea of independent regulation, has been met with slightly more than a hint of scepticism. The version currently being debated in the House of Lords has already been watered down as a result of pressure applied by UEFA, which has been insistent that, in the interests of preventing “interference” from the state in the running of football, the independent football regulator should not have regard to the UK government’s foreign policy positions when considering any proposed new club ownership. The separation of state and sport is an admirable principal, even if it is a sporadically applied one, which is clearly heavily dependent on whichever position is most useful at the time. A sunset-clause to the Bill was even proposed in the House of Lords committee stage to allow it to be closed down after a period of five years if it was deemed to not be “effective” by a panel of experts, that conveniently were to be appointed by the government. The proposed clause was subsequently withdrawn, but the influence of lawmakers, particularly those with a shared interest maintaining the status quo, will undoubtedly be at the back of the minds of those tasked with trying to independently regulate an industry on which almost everyone in the whole country will have an opinion.

Karren Brady, Vice Chair of West Ham and member of the House of Lords, has been vocal about her view of the “detrimental effect on football” the regulator is to have, an argument seemingly based on the notion that self-regulation of football clubs is an approach that works. For those sitting around a Premier League club boardroom table, I suspect this is indeed a widely shared opinion. There are, however, some that would disagree, not least the Government's own white paper which used the word "defective" to describe this mark-your-own homework approach. We shouldn't forget why there is a debate in the first place. The voices and opinions of owners and the rule-setting competition-organising "governing" bodies are heard loud and clear, being able to shout the loudest, but where are the fans in all of this?

Just this week, there has been another accusation of a Premier League club owner allegedly profiting from selling the clubs’ own game tickets overseas at a substantial mark-up, at the expense of the local fans, and, in the view of the club's supporters' trust at least, potentially in violation of the club's own ticketing policy. Putting the issue of a conflict of interest to one side for just a moment, the global expansion of the game, particularly at a Premier League level, is an issue on which fans must be consulted, if only to ensure they are not left behind.

The Labour government’s latest iteration of the Bill does seem to have made some progress in addressing this imbalance, requiring “effective engagement” (definition pending) with fans on key issues such as ticket prices and the location of the club’s ground. The regulator will, as currently drafted, also have the power to compel clubs to democratically elect fan representatives with which they must effectively engage. Fan-engagement is already required for Premier League clubs under the Fan Engagement Standard, but its quite clear that independently set and verified standards for fan engagement across English football, overseen by the independent regulator, can really only be a positive move.

There’s clearly a lot still to unpack and evolve here before we’re even close to any kind of Bill becoming law and the regulator being fully up and running. For example, a proposed amendment to the Bill to prevent state-owned clubs was ultimately not moved at the committee stage in the Lords, leaving the questions over the influence of foreign states, and by extension the risk of football clubs being used as mechanisms for sportswashing, somewhat unanswered. This also raises further questions of the future role of the FA, and specifically the current owners and directors test system. As with most early-stage drafts of new regulations, the Bill seems to be in the "more questions than answers" phase.

I’m already looking forward to the insights our elected officials will be able to offer when the Bill makes it to the Commons. DCMS are taking proactive action, presumably to pre-empt even further redrafting of the Bill, by recruiting for policy and legal staff for their “Football Implementation Unit”. I suspect this means that the conclusions of my dissertation will become increasingly less accurate as the Bill, and indeed the role of the regulator, are watered down in a sea of amendments. Still, for those with whom I share the niche interest in the governance of football, it's certainly something to keep entertained.