English football nears new dawn under regulator despite Conservate resistance

Independent

10-03-2025

The Football Governance Bill returns to the House of Lords on Tuesday, with the government privately believing it is in 'a good place'. There's a tentative confidence about a development that is going to mark a historic shift in English football – and maybe world football.
While one of the debates driving the bill is about how 'broken' the game is, EFL chairman Rick Parry says: 'The conclusion seems to be there is a problem that needs to be addressed.'
It can often be forgotten now, but one of the reasons there was impetus for an independent football regulator was because six of the wealthiest clubs had such issues with the wider system they attempted to form a breakaway European league.
The story has moved on, but one of the points of the prospective regulator is to protect core values that should be immutable: the game's cultural heritage and the financial performance of both clubs and the system. That is to be achieved through the issuing of licences subject to financial sustainability and 'backstop' powers to determine how much money the Premier League provides to the pyramid below, with an insistence it will be 'pro-growth and light touch'. The EFL says it should be about the 'right touch'.
There is now hope that the regulator is close, despite what many involved have described as an 'onslaught' against the bill, furthering a split that feels such a removal from the spirit that drove the fan-led review in the first place. The Premier League – which has led resistance against the bill – stresses its stance is only about protecting the competition's status as the world's strongest and main funder of the pyramid from unnecessary regulation. Chief executive Richard Masters has said he welcomes certain protections, but has concerns over the effect on competitive balance. The EFL points to the lack of competitive balance between the Premier League and the rest.
Insiders have noted how that divide is mirrored in the politics. Sources state that Labour, who essentially adopted the legislation from Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, are increasingly irritated with how the Tories seem to be 'parroting the Premier League line'. Hundreds of amendments have been tabled by the House of Lords, with the vast majority that are perceived as trying to dilute the regulator coming from Conservative peers. Most of the concern has been about a proposal from Lord Parkinson that the bill be changed from 'public' to 'hybrid', which could then require years of consultation.
Lisa Nandy, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, recently attacked what she described as a 'Conservative front bench who are intent on wrecking the bill'. Baroness Brady, who is also the vice-chairman of West Ham United, initially tabled 19 amendments.
For some observers, this simply comes down to political ideology. The Conservatives are anti-regulation, while the Premier League has become a model of neoliberalism in sport.
One cynical interpretation is that some owners want to keep trying to make money out of the Premier League without interference, and don't want to give money to EFL clubs owned by billionaires to spend on wages. The EFL insist they don't want mere spending on wages either.
Most stances are more nuanced. One is that changing the gradient of revenue distribution – especially by diluting parachute payments – could have the effect of widening gaps to clubs who compete in Europe and receive Uefa's huge prize money. That would be an ironic consequence, since it was that gap that initially drove the Super League.
Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish meanwhile articulated one of the more common views, that the regulator would 'interfere in all of the things we don't need them to interfere in and help with none of the things we actually need help with'.
One executive described it as a 'poor' and 'reactionary' piece of legislation. Echoing Parish, another argument is that football needs help on competition law, in the same way that American sports are exempt. That would mean they couldn't have challenges like Manchester City's associated party transaction case.
That stance would of course recognise that sport is different to other industries, but it may play into two pro-regulator positions.
For one, those against the bill are constantly stating other businesses wouldn't be regulated like this, and it could inhibit 'growth'. That would appear to inherently contradict the idea that sport is different, however, especially since team competition doesn't happen organically. 'It's really important to remember that football is a sport, not just a market,' Parry says. 'Sport by definition has to have a regulatory framework.' It has to produce a champion. A question often asked is how many Premier League owners would vote for the competition's equal shares of revenue now?
Parry meanwhile says 'growth in a football context does need some careful definition', and shouldn't just apply to the top end. Another amendment adds 'financial growth of English football' into the regulator's secondary duties. Similarly, strong regulation hasn't inhibited investment in US sports, and the Premier League already has an almost unsurpassable advantage. The latest Uefa landscape report shows the competition has almost double the revenues of La Liga and Bundesliga, at £5.9bn. Parry made a point of stressing how the German league recently committed to sharing revenues 80-20 with the second tier, with 'no howls of anguish'.
Secondly, there's the issue of the Premier League self-regulating. Some critics are just scathing of the idea, pointing to how the City case has taken over five years, the Leicester City case was messed up and two competition law cases have been lost.
There is nevertheless a wider principle. The Premier League has become the de facto power in English football through its financial might. Everything it does affects everyone else, right up to potential wage inflation from financial regulations. The Premier League just has little interest in exercising that power over the rest of the game, since every decision just relates to the 20 clubs in the division, at least 40 per cent of whom are statistically likely to be transitory.
What that in effect means is that decisions pertaining to the future of English football are based on 20 current ownerships, and their own contemporary concerns. Brighton, say, now have a greater influence than Middlesbrough despite Middlesbrough spending far longer in the Premier League.
The issue is maybe best exemplified in the recent APT case, where defeat came on shareholder loans and clubs acting in their own interest. The problem of self-regulation there was obvious.
So, the Premier League might not want interference but it unintentionally interferes with everything else. The competition itself would say if you change the landscape the Premier League sits in, you also change the money it can give to the pyramid.
This cuts to the core tension underpinning everything. Football is now wrestling with dysfunctions that come from the ad hoc and anachronistic way its power structure developed.
You only have to look at the curious place of the Football Association. It should be the independent regulator, and sources state there was initially internal desire to pitch for the role. The Premier League would never have accepted this, however, which emphasises the power imbalance. In any case, the FA is part of that criticised structure led by Fifa and Fifa, who have themselves become players in the process. You only have to look at debates around the congested calendar.
Fifa should themselves be the ultimate regulator on such issues. Potentially bringing it all full circle, however, the Club World Cup or expanded Champions League could become de facto Super Leagues.
It's why many other countries are watching what happens in England with interest, since the idea may well spread. The bill is expected to come into law by summer. After that, it will be a new future.