English football’s great reform debate: A ‘good day for fans’ or a ‘kick in the teeth’ with frustrating delays
In the moments that followed sports minister Nigel Huddleston’s statement to the House of Commons yesterday, Tracey Crouch took to her feet from the back benches and called it a “good day for football fans”.
All 10 strategic recommendations set out in Crouch’s fan-led review, published in November, have formally been endorsed by the UK government. Radical reform of the game is now unavoidable.
An independent regulator would “usher in a new era of financial competency and sustainability for our clubs”, according to Huddleston. There was also a commitment to introduce an “integrity test” for club owners and directors, minimum levels of fan engagement and a promise to address the distribution of the game’s wealth.
The precise details will have to wait until the publication of a Government White Paper in the summer but Huddleston maintained this was the day a route toward reform was made clear.
Not that everyone was content with yesterday’s developments. Scepticism and doubt abound.
Crouch admitted her own concerns and nervousness over unspecified timescales for change.
Opposition party Labour, meanwhile, warned these delays were “a kick in the teeth to football fans”.
“There’s no time to dwell on the ball,” said the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), wary of a protracted process causing further damage.
The Athletic analyses the state of play in English football’s great reform debate.
How significant was the government’s latest announcement?
It is 12 months since the rise and swift fall of a European Super League prompted government intervention, bringing forward a Conservative Party manifesto pledge from the 2019 general election to conduct a fan-led review in football governance.
The final report of a study that gave voices to all stakeholders was published and submitted to the government in November and the response, issued early on Monday morning, represented formal support for the 10 strategic recommendations. “A significant step in protecting our national game,” said Huddleston.
The standout commitment was the introduction of a new independent regulator, capable of improving “financial sustainability and corporate governance”. Included in the remit would be sterner demands placed upon club owners and directors, including an “integrity test” and “enhanced due diligence”. Those would replace tests currently carried out by the Premier League, the English Football League (EFL) and the Football Association.
The government’s commitment to the fan-led review’s recommendations will also grant supporters greater engagement, increase protection of clubs’ heritage and tackle the long-standing issues of financial distribution within the game. The latter, said Huddleston, could yet be a matter settled by the Premier League and EFL, despite the absence of tangible progress in the five months since the fan-led review was first published.
The source of irritation was not in the intentions but in the timings.
“A white paper setting out full details on these measures and an indicative timetable for legislation is expected to be published this summer,” said the government. That loose – and unspecific – date was not what some wanted to hear.
There are worries reform could yet be two years away.
Why the delay, and how much of a concern is it?
For all there was widespread, cross-party approval for the introduction of an independent regulator, there are nagging concerns the process is taking too long.
Crouch might have declared herself “enormously pleased” that the review’s recommendations had been endorsed but she is “nervous” that any hesitation would eventually lead to reform being watered down.
“Like most football fans, I’m always fearful of two things — 1-0 scorelines with time to play, and games that head into extra time,” Tottenham-supporting Crouch said in the House of Commons. “Given that football and politics can be volatile and vulnerable to sudden change, I’d encourage the government to nail the win for millions of fans across the pyramid and deliver the reforms as quickly as possible.”
The language was far spikier from the opposition benches.
“After a government review and many previous promises to legislate, today’s announcement of a further consultation later this year, and a delay to legislation until at least 2024 is a kick in the teeth to proud footballing communities across England,” said Labour’s shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell. “Every club that goes under in the minimum two years delay to football regulation will rest on the government’s shoulders.”
The FSA delivered the same message.
“Each day drafting White Papers is another day when a club might cease to exist,” it said. “Another day for a dodgy owner to get their hooks into a club. Another day for remote billionaires to try and create European Super League 2.0. The FSA urges the government to move fast and legislate now.”
Huddleston, who formally delivered his oral statement to Parliament on Monday afternoon, has attempted to play down those concerns, saying, “If the major issue that people are complaining about is the timescale of getting on with it, I’ll take that, because it means the broad substance of the recommendations is being accepted.
“We want to move as quickly as possible but we do want to make sure we do this carefully. We’ll only get one chance to do this right. There is no intent to delay.”
Huddleston, though, was unwilling to set out a clear timescale beyond it reaching a conclusion before the UK’s next general election, likely to be in 2024. He said: “This is not simple. Not all the stakeholders support what we are doing. We’ll give a timescale as we come up to the summer.”
So, not everyone is on board then?
Not quite. The Premier League, that hugely successful multi-billion pound operation, does not enjoy the prospect of having to adhere to outside instruction. It has made no secret of its opposition to an independent regulator and is in no mood to change now.
“We welcome the clarity from the government about their position, and are committed to working with them during this next phase of consultation, although we will continue to maintain that it is not necessary for there to be a statutory-backed regulator,” said the Premier League, which would favour regulatory duties being passed to the FA. Huddlestone says that would be “difficult to imagine”, but has not ruled out the prospect.
Those who run English football’s top flight are busy coming up with their own ideas.
Not only is the Premier League spending time “reviewing” its Owners’ & Directors’ Test, it plans to introduce “a number of measures” that will give fans of its 20 member clubs a louder voice. Those details, it says, will be revealed ahead of next season, which kicks off on the first weekend in August.
Another point in Crouch’s initial review continues to irritate the Premier League.
Within the review’s 162 pages was a recommendation that “the Premier League should guarantee its support to the pyramid and make additional, proportionate contributions to further support football”.
That was a call for the cash-rich Premier League to pass a greater financial package down the pyramid to the EFL and beyond. It was left to football’s stakeholders to address that point before the end of 2021 but there is still no sign of agreement on distribution.
The EFL has made its case clear enough: Sell their broadcasting rights together with the Premier League and gain a 25 per cent cut in return. Parachute payments in the event of relegation to the second-tier Championship, the safety net that clubs in the Premier League’s bottom half cling to doggedly, would then be abolished.
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, is still not keen to give up that sizeable portion of the pie to a division as dysfunctional as the Championship. “I think that would be a disaster,” he said last November.
Dialogue is ongoing between the Premier League, the EFL and the government but there is no suggestion the vested interests can find common ground. Clive Efford, a Labour MP and former shadow minister for sport, said the two were “miles apart.”
The figure distributed will be somewhere between the 16 per cent currently passed down by the Premier League, with roughly half of that going to relegated clubs, and the 25 per cent sought by the EFL. The Premier League believes it will have already paid out close to £1.3 billion to the EFL and football pyramid since the start of the 2019-20 season.
“We hope they can come to some sort of agreement on financial flows and will continue to put the pressure on them to do so,” Huddleston says. “If not, we have said we reserve the right for this to be part of the responsibilities of the regulator. The key thing is that we want football to lead on the solutions and give them the chance to do so with a sense of urgency.
“The message to the Premier League is quite clear. They need to act sooner rather than later because otherwise it will be forced on them through the regulator. It’s not an endless timescale here.”
The fan-led review had raised the prospect of introducing a 10 per cent transfer levy, to be paid by Premier League clubs when signing players. It was estimated that could be worth £160 million if passed down the pyramid.
Huddleston did not rule out such a step if reform was not forthcoming from within. The challenge to redistribute money, at least for now, remains with the Premier League and EFL.
What else do supporters need to know about the imminent changes?
The proposals, now backed up by parliamentary commitments, are ultimately designed to improve the health of the English game.
The onus is on financial suitability and asking more of club owners, both ahead of takeovers and on an ongoing basis. Financial regulation will be overseen by a regulator, with greater scrutiny placed upon the sources of funding. That would still not prevent state ownership.
Supporters, in theory, can nevertheless expect a greater say. Huddleston says the independent regulator will set a licence condition that would set out a “minimum level of fan engagement”. He added that would not amount to a one-size-fits-all policy, but could include a golden share or a shadow-board operation.
That would increase protection to guard against hugely unpopular ventures, such as the European Super League. It would also provide a say in steps such as a club’s potential relocation and any changes to the badge or name.
“Football is in crisis – but today could be the start of the comeback,” says Niall Couper, chief executive of Fair Game, a campaign group that garnered the public support of 52 MPs last week.
“The argument for an independent regulator is over. The question is when. Every time reform of football has been mooted, the proposals have ended up gathering dust. We need a firm timeline for legislation. And we need it now.
“This is a once-in-a-generation chance to change football and protect our community clubs. That is why need to make sure we address football’s unsustainable financial model.
“What we need now is a firm timetable for change. There can be no more delay or dithering.”
https://theathletic.com/3271607/2022/04/26/government-reform-english-football-fan-led-review/
English football’s great reform debate: A ‘good day for fans’ or a ‘kick in the teeth’ with frustrating delays
In the moments that followed sports minister Nigel Huddleston’s statement to the House of Commons yesterday, Tracey Crouch took to her feet from the back benches and called it a “good day for football fans”.
All 10 strategic recommendations set out in Crouch’s fan-led review, published in November, have formally been endorsed by the UK government. Radical reform of the game is now unavoidable.
An independent regulator would “usher in a new era of financial competency and sustainability for our clubs”, according to Huddleston. There was also a commitment to introduce an “integrity test” for club owners and directors, minimum levels of fan engagement and a promise to address the distribution of the game’s wealth.
The precise details will have to wait until the publication of a Government White Paper in the summer but Huddleston maintained this was the day a route toward reform was made clear.
Not that everyone was content with yesterday’s developments. Scepticism and doubt abound.
Crouch admitted her own concerns and nervousness over unspecified timescales for change.
Opposition party Labour, meanwhile, warned these delays were “a kick in the teeth to football fans”.
“There’s no time to dwell on the ball,” said the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA), wary of a protracted process causing further damage.
The Athletic analyses the state of play in English football’s great reform debate.
How significant was the government’s latest announcement?
It is 12 months since the rise and swift fall of a European Super League prompted government intervention, bringing forward a Conservative Party manifesto pledge from the 2019 general election to conduct a fan-led review in football governance.
The final report of a study that gave voices to all stakeholders was published and submitted to the government in November and the response, issued early on Monday morning, represented formal support for the 10 strategic recommendations. “A significant step in protecting our national game,” said Huddleston.
The standout commitment was the introduction of a new independent regulator, capable of improving “financial sustainability and corporate governance”. Included in the remit would be sterner demands placed upon club owners and directors, including an “integrity test” and “enhanced due diligence”. Those would replace tests currently carried out by the Premier League, the English Football League (EFL) and the Football Association.
The government’s commitment to the fan-led review’s recommendations will also grant supporters greater engagement, increase protection of clubs’ heritage and tackle the long-standing issues of financial distribution within the game. The latter, said Huddleston, could yet be a matter settled by the Premier League and EFL, despite the absence of tangible progress in the five months since the fan-led review was first published.
The source of irritation was not in the intentions but in the timings.
“A white paper setting out full details on these measures and an indicative timetable for legislation is expected to be published this summer,” said the government. That loose – and unspecific – date was not what some wanted to hear.
There are worries reform could yet be two years away.
Why the delay, and how much of a concern is it?
For all there was widespread, cross-party approval for the introduction of an independent regulator, there are nagging concerns the process is taking too long.
Crouch might have declared herself “enormously pleased” that the review’s recommendations had been endorsed but she is “nervous” that any hesitation would eventually lead to reform being watered down.
“Like most football fans, I’m always fearful of two things — 1-0 scorelines with time to play, and games that head into extra time,” Tottenham-supporting Crouch said in the House of Commons. “Given that football and politics can be volatile and vulnerable to sudden change, I’d encourage the government to nail the win for millions of fans across the pyramid and deliver the reforms as quickly as possible.”
The language was far spikier from the opposition benches.
“After a government review and many previous promises to legislate, today’s announcement of a further consultation later this year, and a delay to legislation until at least 2024 is a kick in the teeth to proud footballing communities across England,” said Labour’s shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell. “Every club that goes under in the minimum two years delay to football regulation will rest on the government’s shoulders.”
The FSA delivered the same message.
“Each day drafting White Papers is another day when a club might cease to exist,” it said. “Another day for a dodgy owner to get their hooks into a club. Another day for remote billionaires to try and create European Super League 2.0. The FSA urges the government to move fast and legislate now.”
Huddleston, who formally delivered his oral statement to Parliament on Monday afternoon, has attempted to play down those concerns, saying, “If the major issue that people are complaining about is the timescale of getting on with it, I’ll take that, because it means the broad substance of the recommendations is being accepted.
“We want to move as quickly as possible but we do want to make sure we do this carefully. We’ll only get one chance to do this right. There is no intent to delay.”
Huddleston, though, was unwilling to set out a clear timescale beyond it reaching a conclusion before the UK’s next general election, likely to be in 2024. He said: “This is not simple. Not all the stakeholders support what we are doing. We’ll give a timescale as we come up to the summer.”
So, not everyone is on board then?
Not quite. The Premier League, that hugely successful multi-billion pound operation, does not enjoy the prospect of having to adhere to outside instruction. It has made no secret of its opposition to an independent regulator and is in no mood to change now.
“We welcome the clarity from the government about their position, and are committed to working with them during this next phase of consultation, although we will continue to maintain that it is not necessary for there to be a statutory-backed regulator,” said the Premier League, which would favour regulatory duties being passed to the FA. Huddlestone says that would be “difficult to imagine”, but has not ruled out the prospect.
Those who run English football’s top flight are busy coming up with their own ideas.
Not only is the Premier League spending time “reviewing” its Owners’ & Directors’ Test, it plans to introduce “a number of measures” that will give fans of its 20 member clubs a louder voice. Those details, it says, will be revealed ahead of next season, which kicks off on the first weekend in August.
Another point in Crouch’s initial review continues to irritate the Premier League.
Within the review’s 162 pages was a recommendation that “the Premier League should guarantee its support to the pyramid and make additional, proportionate contributions to further support football”.
That was a call for the cash-rich Premier League to pass a greater financial package down the pyramid to the EFL and beyond. It was left to football’s stakeholders to address that point before the end of 2021 but there is still no sign of agreement on distribution.
The EFL has made its case clear enough: Sell their broadcasting rights together with the Premier League and gain a 25 per cent cut in return. Parachute payments in the event of relegation to the second-tier Championship, the safety net that clubs in the Premier League’s bottom half cling to doggedly, would then be abolished.
Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, is still not keen to give up that sizeable portion of the pie to a division as dysfunctional as the Championship. “I think that would be a disaster,” he said last November.
Dialogue is ongoing between the Premier League, the EFL and the government but there is no suggestion the vested interests can find common ground. Clive Efford, a Labour MP and former shadow minister for sport, said the two were “miles apart.”
The figure distributed will be somewhere between the 16 per cent currently passed down by the Premier League, with roughly half of that going to relegated clubs, and the 25 per cent sought by the EFL. The Premier League believes it will have already paid out close to £1.3 billion to the EFL and football pyramid since the start of the 2019-20 season.
“We hope they can come to some sort of agreement on financial flows and will continue to put the pressure on them to do so,” Huddleston says. “If not, we have said we reserve the right for this to be part of the responsibilities of the regulator. The key thing is that we want football to lead on the solutions and give them the chance to do so with a sense of urgency.
“The message to the Premier League is quite clear. They need to act sooner rather than later because otherwise it will be forced on them through the regulator. It’s not an endless timescale here.”
The fan-led review had raised the prospect of introducing a 10 per cent transfer levy, to be paid by Premier League clubs when signing players. It was estimated that could be worth £160 million if passed down the pyramid.
Huddleston did not rule out such a step if reform was not forthcoming from within. The challenge to redistribute money, at least for now, remains with the Premier League and EFL.
What else do supporters need to know about the imminent changes?
The proposals, now backed up by parliamentary commitments, are ultimately designed to improve the health of the English game.
The onus is on financial suitability and asking more of club owners, both ahead of takeovers and on an ongoing basis. Financial regulation will be overseen by a regulator, with greater scrutiny placed upon the sources of funding. That would still not prevent state ownership.
Supporters, in theory, can nevertheless expect a greater say. Huddleston says the independent regulator will set a licence condition that would set out a “minimum level of fan engagement”. He added that would not amount to a one-size-fits-all policy, but could include a golden share or a shadow-board operation.
That would increase protection to guard against hugely unpopular ventures, such as the European Super League. It would also provide a say in steps such as a club’s potential relocation and any changes to the badge or name.
“Football is in crisis – but today could be the start of the comeback,” says Niall Couper, chief executive of Fair Game, a campaign group that garnered the public support of 52 MPs last week.
“The argument for an independent regulator is over. The question is when. Every time reform of football has been mooted, the proposals have ended up gathering dust. We need a firm timeline for legislation. And we need it now.
“This is a once-in-a-generation chance to change football and protect our community clubs. That is why need to make sure we address football’s unsustainable financial model.
“What we need now is a firm timetable for change. There can be no more delay or dithering.”
https://theathletic.com/3271607/2022/04/26/government-reform-english-football-fan-led-review/
