Nandy Warns Against Blocking Football Regulator Bill

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has stated that establishing a new football regulator is “a top priority” and has cautioned peers that it is “not acceptable to use parliamentary procedures to try to block” the Football Governance Bill as it proceeds through the House of Lords. This enhanced legislation, designed to create the inaugural independent regulator for professional men’s football in England, was presented again by the government in October. The bill is currently undergoing the committee stage in parliament, with members of the Lords having deliberated on possible modifications for multiple days. On Monday, Lord Blunkett, a former Labour Cabinet Minister, indicated that those opposing the bill are attempting to “filibuster” – meaning to delay or obstruct – its progression through the Lords. “It is high time we got on with it,” Nandy stated to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday. This significant legislation was initially introduced in March but did not successfully navigate Parliament prior to the general election being announced in May. The re-presented version will grant the regulator authority to evaluate the effect of the Premier League’s contentious ‘parachute payments’ made to clubs that are relegated, as part of a ‘State of the Game’ review conducted every five years. The outcomes of this review could determine which proposed revenue-sharing model the regulator might subsequently enforce – either the Premier League’s or the English Football League’s – should it be tasked with deciding the amount of money the top flight ought to reallocate to the football pyramid through ‘backstop powers’. Furthermore, it will “explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement” with supporters regarding alterations to ticket prices and any plans to move home grounds. When questioned about any message she had for peers attempting to impede the bill, Nandy informed MPs on the CMS Committee that “this has been a very thoughtful piece of work” which “fans across the country have taken seriously and engaged in”. She added: “Too many fans have been in the situation… of seeing their clubs collapse or be on the verge of collapse, with no tools or powers to effectively be able to do anything about that. This is a bill that has had cross-party support consensus for a long time, it was a manifesto commitment from this government. It is not acceptable to use parliamentary procedures to try to block a piece of legislation on which so many hopes and dreams rest”. Nandy conveyed that her message is that “we need to get on with this for the sake of football and out of respect for the fans”. While supporter organizations and the EFL have been among those to endorse the bill, the Premier League has voiced apprehension regarding the regulator possessing “unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of [its] revenues”. The Premier League additionally stated that it could result in “a negative impact on competitiveness, clubs’ investment in world-class talent and the aspiration that drives our global appeal and growth”. It is currently in discussions with the government, aiming to convince them to modify the legislative framework to prevent what it has termed “unintended consequences”. The legislation has also encountered resistance from peers, including West Ham United vice chair Baroness Brady, who has informed the Lords that there are “dangers lurking in this bill”. On Monday, Brady commented: “This unprecedented intervention into private commercial rights must be carefully scrutinised. It very obviously has a differential and disproportionate impact on the clubs within the Premier League. It is also clear that the consequences of this seismic and deeply flawed intervention have not been fully understood.” Conversely, in his response to several suggested amendments, Blunkett remarked: “What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a bill of this sort. But I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.” Nevertheless, crossbench peer Baroness Fox stated: “I take this Bill seriously. I’ve read as much as I can. Nobody from the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should you want to know, written my speeches or talked to me. There’s a lot in this Bill to get ones head around and try to speak to. If there’s a repetition that’s going on in his debate, it’s the constant people on the other side saying that anyone who is scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is not true, certainly not of a wide range of us.” The Premier League was contacted for a statement. The Football Supporters’ Association commented: “A handful of Tory peers seem intent on proposing amendment after amendment in an orchestrated effort to sabotage a bill that was actually supported by the Conservatives ahead of the last election. Supporters won’t look kindly upon cynical parliamentary manoeuvres of this sort, which are usually made by people who’ve already lost the argument.”