Posted on 20th December 2024
Tories tie themselves in knots over Football Governance Bill
The Football Governance Bill is being debated in the House of Lords and some Conservatives are tying themselves in knots trying to find reasons why an idea their party supported during the election campaign is now a threat to the game.
We have no idea where this change of political heart comes from, although Labour’s Lord Blunkett blamed the Premier League for “filibustering” the Bill “with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support”. Surely not!
We remember in January 2024 when the Premier League told MPs they wouldn’t lobby for or against a regulator – although within three months they’d forgotten their promise and warned about the “unintended consequences of regulation” in The Times.
One thing we wouldn’t want to forget are the ideas put forward by (largely) Tory peers trying to filibuster scrutinise the Bill. So we’ve created a Christmas listicle – 10 Lords a-leaping, if you will…
1. Lord Moynihan’s proposal to exempt diplomats, government ministers and heads of state from any football club ownership test is number #1 with a bullet.
Who wouldn’t want Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un running their club? They’d be ruthlessly efficient at disposing of managers, we’re sure.
2. Baroness Brady: “Season ticket holders are the beating heart of football clubs. They are not just customers; they are custodians of the club’s heritage and identity. They represent generations of loyalty, support and community spirit.”
Magnificent words from a club executive who shocked Hammers in the close season by attacking kids’ and OAP concessions. Warms the heart!
3. Lord Moynihan (again): “Are we saying that US American football teams should come here and give great enjoyment to the people of this country, but that we will regulate our teams and stop them going elsewhere to provide great joy to citizens around the world?”
YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE SAYING! None of our domestic competitions or games should be played abroad.
4. More poor comparisons with other sports from Lord Markham: “Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable?”
We think he’s trying to ask why top-flight clubs should have to share revenue when tennis players don’t. Fun fact – Wimbledon gives more total prize money to men who finish outside the top 16 than those who finish in the top 16. Football does not.
5. Lord Hannan: “My Lords, to what problem is this Bill a solution?”
Remember when clubs tried to form a Euro Super League and the PM promised to stop it? This is the legislation. Imagine keeping a promise?! It does lots of other stuff that was also in your party’s manifesto too. You’re welcome.
6. Lord Maude: “Additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator.”
This is a cracker! Last season alone the Premier League spent £45m on legal costs, much of it fighting cases against its own clubs. The regulator would save them cash as they’d be expected to cover £10m annually – a saving of £35m last year. Lord Maude not paying attention.
7. Lord Maude still not paying attention: “This was a Bill conceived in a fit of absence of mind; it has come about almost by accident.”
Sorry, but no. The fan-led review was a 2019 Tory Party manifesto commitment and this is the result of years of consultation with football. In 2018 the FSA was challenging the FA on this very subject and in 2011 football was warned about its governance by Parliament.
8. Lord Jackson: “The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions.”
Lord Jackson hasn’t noticed that the EFL, representing 72 professional clubs, backs the Bill.
9. Baroness Brady: “Parachute payments are a cornerstone of the Premier League’s competitive balance.”
A deal proposed by the Premier League would allow relegated clubs to spend 85% of their revenue on wages while other clubs in the Championship would be limited to 70%. This means relegated teams could spend £110m whereas Championship clubs would be constrained at £20m. The underlying threat to football’s “competitive balance” is that the same handful of clubs could repeatedly be promoted to (and relegated from) the Premier League – creating a de facto closed shop league.
10. We’ll finish where we started – with Lord Moynihan: “If we are thinking about the commercial and financial success of this industry, we should follow the commercial and financial logic.”
You say commercial and financial logic, we say what about tradition, loyalty, togetherness and local pride? Following commercial and financial logic without any care for heart and passion will kill the game in the long term. Now that is an “unintended consequence”.
- The FSA looks forward to seeing the Bill progress in Parliament, once this time wasting has passed, and we’ll continue to work with all parties to get this over-the-line in 2025.
