UK Government Confirm Independent Football Regulator

[Dave]

What does everybody make of her proposals?

 

The big takes from what I understand are the following:

- For an independent regulator to deal with the game’s finances, club ownership and corporate governance.

- A proposed levy on transfers between PL to PL and PL to overseas clubs to increase distribution to grass roots.

- The abolition of parachute payments.

 

We've seen Premier League football clubs obviously go out and protect there own interests. Angus Kinnear described the financial redistribution recommendation as “akin to Maoist collective agriculturalism”, Steve Parish described it as "a huge act of self harm", Karen Brady compared regulations to "living in North Korea or Russia".

 

The reality is we can't go on the way it is. In the EFL we have clubs like in The Championship behaving like idiots throwing around money they have no chance of recuperating during a pandemic unless they get promoted. In the Premier League we hear the same squabbles about how the greedy six don't like that the other fourteen clubs have as much as a say as then, and the other fourteen clubs don't like the power the greedy six impose on them. The FA are clearly incapable of controlling the situations themselves so maybe a independent regulator will do some good.

The parachute payments, whilst a good idea in practice, have just been abused far too often by clubs that have used it to gamble on a quick promotion back to the Premier League as opposed to using it for its initial purpose of covering the inevitable payments they would struggle to make otherwise such as player wages. The disparity in financial muscle afforded to those clubs just causes others to do more 'creative accounting' which has effectively landed Derby County in so mucn mess theyre facing liquidation. Any suggestion to replace them with a more fair system should be listened too in my opinion, and I support a team that have a lot more to lose than any other if they were to be replaced. 

I by no means think an independent regulator will solve all of the English Football's problems. All you have to do is look at how inadequate other regulators are such as the Gambling Commission, Ofgem, Ofwat etc but on face value it seems a step in the right direction. 

[Stan]

Quote

 

Blocking clubs from joining a breakaway European Super League will be among the powers held by English football's new independent regulator.

The plan for a regulator, recommended by a fan-led review last year, has been confirmed by the UK government.

Preventing historic clubs going out of business is one of the aims, as well as giving fans greater input and a new owners' and directors' test.

The significant move aims to protect English football's cultural heritage.

The main purposes of the proposed new regulator will be:

• Stopping English clubs from joining closed-shop competitions, which are judged to harm the domestic game
• Preventing a repeat of financial failings seen at numerous clubs, notably the collapses of Bury and Macclesfield
• Introducing a more stringent owners' and directors' test to protect clubs and fans
• Giving fans power to stop owners changing a club's name, badge and traditional kit colours
• Ensuring a fair distribution of money filters down the English football pyramid from the Premier League

"The English game remains one of the UK's greatest cultural exports, with clubs and leagues around the world modelling themselves on its success," the government said before its white paper on football governance - a policy document which outlines the proposed legislation - is released on Thursday.

"That is why the government is today taking the necessary and targeted steps to ensure that continues for generations."

The Premier League was understood to be wary of a regulatory body when the proposals were announced in April last year.

The league says it is "vital" a regulator does not lead to any "unintended consequences" that could affect its global appeal and success.

What will the regulator cover?

European breakaway leagues

Six English clubs - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham - were among a dozen from across the continent that announced plans to form a European Super League in a shock move in April 2021.

It sparked a tumultuous few days in English and European football.

Fans quickly demonstrated their anger at the plan outside English clubs' stadiums - with similarly vitriolic protests taking place across Europe - forcing the Premier League clubs to back down and apologise.

Despite the U-turn, the debate over the future of top-level European football has continued.

"The regulator will have the power to prevent English clubs from joining new competitions that do not meet a predetermined criteria, in consultation with the FA and fans," said the government.

"That criteria could include measures to stop clubs participating in closed-shop breakaway competitions which harm the domestic game, such as the European Super League."

Financial stability and fans' input

A new licensing system will require every club - from the Premier League to the National League - to prove it has a sustainable business model implemented by responsible custodians as part of an application process.

If clubs are not granted a license by the regulator, they will not be allowed to compete.

Another key power of the regulator will be ensuring fans have a greater say in their club's strategic decisions.

Moves by owners which may prove controversial - for example, changing the name, badge and traditional kit colours, or moving stadium - will not be allowed to be made before consulting fans.

It will "put fans back at the heart of how football is run", says the government.

Additional owners' and directors' test

The test to determine the suitability of owners and directors of English clubs has long been under scrutiny.

The regulator will introduce an "enhanced" test which will operate alongside the current process implemented by the Premier League, Football League and Football Association.

According to the government, it will lead to "ensuring good custodians of clubs, stronger due diligence on sources of wealth and a requirement for robust financial planning".

The suitability of Premier League's owners' and directors' test has been criticised in the past, most recently following the Saudi Arabian-backed takeover of Newcastle.

Amnesty International urged the league to change the test to address human rights issues, with the Saudi state accused of human rights abuses.

A bid for Manchester United by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, the chairman of one of Qatar's biggest banks, has also raised concerns among human rights and LGBTQ+ groups.

Requirements that currently prohibit someone from becoming an owner or director of a Premier League club include criminal convictions, a ban by a sporting or professional body or breaches of key football regulations such as match-fixing.

Fairer distribution of wealth

The regulator will have backstop powers to impose a new financial settlement, which effectively means it can force the Premier League to share more money across the pyramid.

EFL chairman Rick Parry wants a 25% share of pooled broadcast revenue with the Premier League, merit-based payments across all four divisions, and the abolition of 'parachute payments' to teams relegated from the top flight.

But the EFL has told its clubs it is "not hopeful" of securing the settlement it is looking for.

While discussions between the bodies are ongoing, the new regulator will force arbitration if an agreement is not reached.

"The Premier League remains the envy of club competitions around the world and the government remains fully behind its continued success," said the government.

"But in order to secure the financial sustainability of clubs at all levels, a solution led by those running the leagues and their clubs is needed, and remains the government's preferred outcome.

"However, if the football authorities cannot reach an agreement the regulator would have targeted powers of last resort to intervene and facilitate an agreement as and when necessary."

The Premier League has said it gives away 15% of its revenue already and in 2020 also agreed a £250m rescue package to help ease the financial challenge faced by EFL clubs as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Parachute payments are solidarity payments made to help relegated sides adjust to lower revenues. Clubs receive 55% of the amount each Premier League side get as part of a share of broadcast revenue in the first year after relegation, followed by 45% in year two and 20% in year three.

The payments have been criticised for creating 'yo-yo' clubs and financial disparity between sides in the Championship.

What has the reaction been?

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the "bold new plans" would put fans "back at the heart of football".

"Since its inception over 165 years ago, English football has been bringing people together, providing a source of pride for communities and inspiration to millions of fans across the country," he said.

"Yet despite the success of the sport both at home and abroad, we know that there are real challenges which threaten the stability of clubs both big and small.

"The new plans will protect the rich heritage and traditions of our much-loved clubs and safeguard the beautiful game for future generations."

Sports minister Stuart Andrew told BBC Radio 5 Live: "There's a lot to celebrate about English football. It is hugely successful in many areas. But there is no doubt some serious problems do exist.

"The fan-led review spent a considerable amount of time getting evidence about the experiences many fans had with their individual clubs and it's clear some of them are not being managed well.

"We had hoped football would sort this problem out themselves, but frankly they haven't."

Labour welcomed the move for a independent regulator but shadow culture, media and sport secretary Lucy Powell MP said the Conservative government should have published the white paper sooner.

"Fans are desperate for a say on the future of their clubs and the game. We can afford no further delay," she said.

"The government should urgently bring forward legislation, or take responsibility for any clubs that go under, spiral into decline or which are bought by unsuitable new owners, in the years they've wasted bringing the regulator."

Kevin Miles, chief executive of the Football Supporters' Association, said the group "warmly welcomed" the introduction of a regulator.

"The football governance white paper clearly addresses our key concerns around ownership, rogue competitions and sustainability," Miles said.

"We support any proposals that offer fans a greater voice in the running of their clubs."

The Premier League said it appreciated the government's "commitment" to protecting the league's success, but cautioned: "It is vital regulation does not damage the game or its ability to attract investment and grow interest."

A statement added that the league would work "constructively" with stakeholders to ensure the regulator "does not lead to any unintended consequences that could affect the Premier League's position as the most-watched football league in the world".

Crystal Palace co-owner Steve Parish said there would be "a lot of intense detail to work out" from the proposals.

"It is unprecedented, we will be the only sporting industry to be regulated by the government," he told BBC Newsnight.

"Of course there is a lot of fantastic broad brushstrokes in the press release and the white paper, but the devil will be in the detail."

The English Football League said it supported the proposals around enhanced regulation.

"The EFL has been clear that the English game needs a fundamental financial reset in order make the game sustainable," a statement read.

"The white paper represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity that must be seized to address the systemic issues that football has been unable to sort itself over the last 30 years."

Football Association chief executive Mark Bullingham highlighted the recommendation to increase funding of the grassroots game as being an important part of football's long-term future.

"The white paper rightly focus on ensuring our game moves forward with well-run clubs operating on a more sustainable financial footing," Maheta Molango, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, said.

"We will work to ensure that the important mechanisms and structures that exist to protect players' rights and conditions are properly understood and maintained as part of any future financial reforms in the game."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536218

[Honey Honey]

Regulators typically freeze problems rather than eradicate them. They entrench existing hierarchies. Rarely shake things up, preferring limited incremental reform at best.

The Premier League has a corruption and cartel threat so deserve nothing less than  a regulator.

[Juniper]

41 minutes ago, Honey Honey said:

Regulators typically freeze problems rather than eradicate them. They entrench existing hierarchies. Rarely shake things up, preferring limited incremental reform at best.

The Premier League has a corruption and cartel threat so deserve nothing less than  a regulator.

I would hole heartedly be in agreement as we see too many clubs where the cash is skimmed off. Clubs are not perse profit making business but an entertainment and community initiative and all profits should be ploughed back into the club to redevelop their infrastructure and community links. I am unsure if this will stop the 'sugar' daddy owner (not sure what they get out of it if commercial) but the general feel of corruption should be dealt with. How this will regulate it I have no idea but we all agree something needs to happen.  

[Dave]

Just turned on Sky Sports News to hear David Sullivan, the man who sold Birmingham City to a person who is now in prison for money laundering, say that football does not need an independent regulator in terms of governance and ownership.

[OrangeKhrush]

ideas always seem great when they are implemented to late

[Dave]

I agree have to say I agree with everything I've seen so far.

The changes to the owners and directors test by introducing business plans (and the addition of subsequent reviews) are an absolute necessity. Southend United are likely to go out of business next week, a club that has a big fan base and we're in the second tier 15 odd years ago. Many fans of that club, including famous people in the media's eye, have been saying for years Ron Martin's 'end game' was to sell the stadium to property developers. For those that don't know it looks like he's going to do that now by putting the club in administration and buying the ground back from the administrators. He has no interest in paying the debt that's owed to HMRC or what happens to the football club. Football cannot have another Ron Martin. Then you have the more famous Portsmouth example, and more recent Birmingham City example, where these clubs have just been jumping from hot frying pan to hot frying pan of bad owners. 

The acknowledgement that fan involvement is integral going forwards will be liked by most. I thought we were losing that amongst fans of the greedy six until we saw the protests towards the ESL. You can just see on the Wrexham documentary how football clubs are a massive part of the community. A badge change, kit colour change, even slight name changes etc don't actually bother me but I know it's a big deal for others and fans should be acknowledged.

The report also puts an end to any chance joining a breakaway European Super League, which I imagine were all in favour of.

I'm usually against government interference. I've worked in industry's previously where government inconvenience has felt like nothing but a hindrance and an inconvenience, but in this circumstance I think it's necessary. I havent seen anything to suggest they're going to interfere with clubs that are being run well and will encourage others to act in a more sensible manner. 66 clubs entering administration just shows how something has been badly wrong for a significant period of time. I imagine whoever is appointed as the independent regulator will be vilified by Martin Samuel and other puppets but its got to a stage where we need somebody that's nerdy with accounting to oversee this mess. 

[OrangeKhrush]

5 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I agree have to say I agree with everything I've seen so far.

The changes to the owners and directors test by introducing business plans (and the addition of subsequent reviews) are an absolute necessity. Southend United are likely to go out of business next week, a club that has a big fan base and we're in the second tier 15 odd years ago. Many fans of that club, including famous people in the media's eye, have been saying for years Ron Martin's 'end game' was to sell the stadium to property developers. For those that don't know it looks like he's going to do that now by putting the club in administration and buying the ground back from the administrators. He has no interest in paying the debt that's owed to HMRC or what happens to the football club. Football cannot have another Ron Martin. Then you have the more famous Portsmouth example, and more recent Birmingham City example, where these clubs have just been jumping from hot frying pan to hot frying pan of bad owners. 

The acknowledgement that fan involvement is integral going forwards will be liked by most. I thought we were losing that amongst fans of the greedy six until we saw the protests towards the ESL. You can just see on the Wrexham documentary how football clubs are a massive part of the community. A badge change, kit colour change, even slight name changes etc don't actually bother me but I know it's a big deal for others and fans should be acknowledged.

The report also puts an end to any chance joining a breakaway European Super League, which I imagine were all in favour of.

I'm usually against government interference. I've worked in industry's previously where government inconvenience has felt like nothing but a hindrance and an inconvenience, but in this circumstance I think it's necessary. I havent seen anything to suggest they're going to interfere with clubs that are being run well and will encourage others to act in a more sensible manner. 66 clubs entering administration just shows how something has been badly wrong for a significant period of time. I imagine whoever is appointed as the independent regulator will be vilified by Martin Samuel and other puppets but its got to a stage where we need somebody that's nerdy with accounting to oversee this mess. 

in the dark days of Mike Ashley I was a advocate on a regulatory body to audit what were blatant maladministration of the club, how he mis reported finances and stole around 350m out the club through schemes.   Mike Ashley wad never fit and proper and should be in prison.

[Dave]

4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

in the dark days of Mike Ashley I was a advocate on a regulatory body to audit what were blatant maladministration of the club, how he mis reported finances and stole around 350m out the club through schemes.   Mike Ashley wad never fit and proper and should be in prison.

As much as I dislike Mel Morris' actions with Derby County, the way he used his final bit of power to ensure Mike Ashley wouldn't own the club deserves credit. His involvement with Coventry City's ground just adds weight to that.

[6666]

I'm not sure if there's a genuine need for it. Make FFP a lot more credible and other than that, I'm not sure if anything else should be imposed on to clubs.

Football makes money through being a form of entertainment. Whoever's at the forefront of that form of entertainment will get more money. Not sure how or why you'd try and marry that with socialist ideals. It won't work. It's not supposed to. It runs on capitalism. That's the cold, hard truth.

Is it the responsibility of the Premier League to make sure lower league clubs stay in business? And why is it called "fair distribution" when it'd be a case of the Premier League basically giving away money?

It won't work.

[Reluctant Striker]

It doesn't seem especially obvious to me what to expect it will do. The UK government pushed out Abramovic as he was edging himself out of the door.

Lots of owners are disliked by rival fans, or the clubs own fans.

Will this new regulator block some of the mega rich supposedly state funded owners? Will it do more to block any dodgy unfit owners? Will it do anything about the owners who decide against signing any new players & sell the club when it gets relegated? Will it enforce a better & fairer FFP? Will it just ensure clubs have to remain within the national leagues?

It seems to me the best it will easily be able to do is tread on the toes of the FA & Football League.

Will wait & see any stories it gets attributed with. There certainly is a pile of stuff that goes on in football that puts money too far ahead of morals.

[OrangeKhrush]

what the premier league needs is for the other 14 to stand up and tell the "faux six" that they want their fair cut of the pie and they are here to compete not make up numbers.  the six Barce/Real teams that try take all the income for themselves while heralding themselves as godsends needs to end, a new collective agreement with equitable distribution based on merit of being in the league eg: if revenue is 20bn each club gets 1bn.

I would also like to see max cap transfer limits to 100m per season, this will normalise inflated fees and will remove "money" as the factor stopping competition.