"In the discussions to inform next week’s white paper on football, many stakeholders were attempting to get the government to understand this is much more than a “once a generation” moment. They described it as possibly the only opportunity to properly assess the English game and where it’s going, since nothing like this has ever been done before. It is quite a thought, that illustrates the “enormity” of what this government are taking on. In 160 years of codified English football, there has never been anything like an attempt at a holistic assessment of the sport and what it should look like." [Extract from accompanying article]
I agree with @PragueAddick that selling this to FAPL fans will be difficult, but perhaps the greater danger will come from the lobbying of FAPL Owners & Directors, who unlike the majority of clubs lower in the pyramid will be able to afford professional lobbyists to act on their behalf, both in Parliament and to rally their own fans to their perceived vested interests.
Taken as a whole, the number of fans in the 72 EFL and countless lower league clubs must surely match the number of FAPL fans, but will enough of them take the few minutes necessary to lobby their MP in support of the FLR recommendations? Even with all our recent woes, will all Charlton, Bury, Rochdale, Birmingham & Derby fans take the opportunity to make their voices heard? It will take a massive effort on social media at all levels of the game to overcome the inertia of the many ostriches out there.
@N01R4M, it’s only one person but when I heard Tim’s comments I assumed the Sun had run a piece to order from the lobbyists. Having read it this morning thanks to the link above, I have to concede its not so. It looks like the Sun might be on our side, for now. Yet even so, Tim seems to have been triggered by nothing more than a bit of racy language in there. It’ll be interesting to see how the dialogue with him goes. I’m treating it as qualitative research.
The publication of the UK government's long-awaited white paper proposing reforms to shake up football has been delayed to later this month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64539586
Not sure this is the right thread - couldn't seem to find another one. But anyway..
With reference to our esteemed Prime Minister getting freebies to see Arsenal, courtesy of the Premier League.
Charlie Methven has been sticking his oar in (and quite right too in my opinion) on the Football Governance Bill.
He is quoted as saying: 'This is a clear conflict of interest, and a pretty drastic one at that. The decision as to whether to include parachute payments in the remit of the regulator is a massive multi-billion-pound decision, which neither Keir Starmer nor anybody who works in No 10 Downing Street should seek to have any influence over, given the lavish financial benefits received and which continue to be received. If Labour's previous commitment to include the parachute payments has been overturned, then there would need to be an inquiry.'
"Strengthened" legislation to establish an independent football regulator for the elite men's game in England is set to be introduced to Parliament by the government.
The regulator will be given "new powers" as part of the Football Governance Bill, including over the Premier League's controversial multi-million pound 'parachute payments' that are given to relegated clubs.
It will "explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds.
It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be "a clear commitment" to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The bill will be introduced on Thursday in the House of Lords in an attempt to speed up the legislation.
The bill, tabled initially in March, failed to pass through Parliament before the general election was called in May.
But in "major changes" to the proposed legislation, the Labour government is set to strengthen the regulator's remit, which will oversee clubs in the top five tiers of the game.
"Strengthened" legislation to establish an independent football regulator for the elite men's game in England is set to be introduced to Parliament by the government.
The regulator will be given "new powers" as part of the Football Governance Bill, including over the Premier League's controversial multi-million pound 'parachute payments' that are given to relegated clubs.
It will "explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds.
It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be "a clear commitment" to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The bill will be introduced on Thursday in the House of Lords in an attempt to speed up the legislation.
The bill, tabled initially in March, failed to pass through Parliament before the general election was called in May.
But in "major changes" to the proposed legislation, the Labour government is set to strengthen the regulator's remit, which will oversee clubs in the top five tiers of the game.
Sounds like the exact opposite of what we need, it reads like anyone with a shit tonne of money, regardless of where they got it and how many skeletons are in their closet, can buy a club as long as those skeletons aren't in the UK...
"Strengthened" legislation to establish an independent football regulator for the elite men's game in England is set to be introduced to Parliament by the government.
The regulator will be given "new powers" as part of the Football Governance Bill, including over the Premier League's controversial multi-million pound 'parachute payments' that are given to relegated clubs.
It will "explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds.
It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be "a clear commitment" to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The bill will be introduced on Thursday in the House of Lords in an attempt to speed up the legislation.
The bill, tabled initially in March, failed to pass through Parliament before the general election was called in May.
But in "major changes" to the proposed legislation, the Labour government is set to strengthen the regulator's remit, which will oversee clubs in the top five tiers of the game.
I think I read somewhere (sorry can't remember where) that FIFA stuck there oar in. Suggesting that such a clause amounted to political interference by Government - a clear breach of FIFA (and UEFA?) rules that would not be tolerated. And that England would be booted out of all international competitions at both club and international level if it was applied.
Sounds like the Govt. have rolled over and played dead on this one.
"Strengthened" legislation to establish an independent football regulator for the elite men's game in England is set to be introduced to Parliament by the government.
The regulator will be given "new powers" as part of the Football Governance Bill, including over the Premier League's controversial multi-million pound 'parachute payments' that are given to relegated clubs.
It will "explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds.
It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be "a clear commitment" to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The bill will be introduced on Thursday in the House of Lords in an attempt to speed up the legislation.
The bill, tabled initially in March, failed to pass through Parliament before the general election was called in May.
But in "major changes" to the proposed legislation, the Labour government is set to strengthen the regulator's remit, which will oversee clubs in the top five tiers of the game.
The Tory government stuck it in at the time of closer ties to Saudi Arabia to support investment into the area by foreign assets. Now they'll be free to make decisions regardless of what countries the government wants to invest in us.
Sports media rights executive David Kogan has been named as the government's preferred choice as chair of the English football's new independent regulator.
Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said Kogan was the "outstanding candidate" to fill the position.
David Kogan’s appointment appears to conflict with the core principles of an “independent” football regulator.
His deep commercial entanglements with the Premier League, political partisanship, lack of disciplinary experience and perceived bias towards elite clubs all undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the new IFR.
If the regulator is to command respect, enforce fair play and redistribute football’s finances equitably, its leader must be demonstrably impartial, skilled in public governance and trusted by fans at every level. Qualities that Kogan does not appear sufficiently to possess.
Says the job is to ensure the game is on a sound financial footing - i'd like the job to be about more than that and ensure the game is adjusted back to suit the fans that actually attend games rather than for those that watch on telly, and for the tv companies and players to make money.
Says the job is to ensure the game is on a sound financial footing - i'd like the job to be about more than that and ensure the game is adjusted back to suit the fans that actually attend games rather than for those that watch on telly, and for the tv companies and players to make money.
That ship has long since sailed.
You've more chance of getting back massive collars, "knickers" for shorts, medicine balls, numbers 1-11 and the WM formation!
David Kogan’s appointment appears to conflict with the core principles of an “independent” football regulator.
His deep commercial entanglements with the Premier League, political partisanship, lack of disciplinary experience and perceived bias towards elite clubs all undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the new IFR.
If the regulator is to command respect, enforce fair play and redistribute football’s finances equitably, its leader must be demonstrably impartial, skilled in public governance and trusted by fans at every level. Qualities that Kogan does not appear sufficiently to possess.
I've just read the final para containing the names of the (only?) two other candidates on the shortlist:
As first reported by Sky News, Kogan has been preferred to other shortlisted candidates, ex-Aston Villa and Liverpool chief executive Christian Purslow, and Sanjay Bhandari, chairman of football's anti-racism charity Kick It Out.
Christian Purslow ? This Christian Purslow?? The prize **** was one of the chief lobbyists against the establishment of the Regulator. FF'ingFS!
As for Mr Bhandari, I don't know him at all but based on his LinkedIN profile he looks the best qualified of the three, but he has zero high level business experience in or with football. This role needs someone senior who know what shenanigans go oon in English football, but don't actually approve of it (unlike Purslow).
The second reading of the Football Governance Bill took place on Monday [28/4/25] where once again Clive Efford MP for Eltham & Chislehurst made a speech mentioning Charlton & our ground.
I declare my interest at the outset, as I volunteer as a trustee of Millwall Community Trust.
This Bill has been a long time in the making, and there has been more than a little bit of scaremongering along the way about the implications of a regulator for the future of the premier league. The Bill does not pose an existential threat to the premier league, and no one who supports it wants to undermine the success of the premier league. The existential threat is to the football pyramid, should we fail to secure a fairer distribution of resources. The EFL estimates that its clubs will lose £450 million this season. That loss will have to be covered by the generosity of those clubs’ owners, and where that does not occur, we end up in situations like we had with Bury, Derby, Wigan and many others.
In 2020, the EFL proposed a 75:25 split of the combined TV revenues of both leagues, which at the time would have meant approximately £300 million of additional funding for the wider football pyramid. Instead, in the four years since the EFL first made that proposal, spending on transfers in the premier league has gone up by £850 million. In the 2022-23 season, the premier league spent £2.8 billion on player transfers; the other major European leagues spent around £750 million per league. Turning to wages, the premier league spent a combined sum of €4.6 billion on players’ salaries. Its nearest rival spent an aggregate sum of €2.5 billion—that is a gap of over €2 billion. Compared with the Bundesliga, the gap is nearly €2.5 billion, and for France and Italy, the gap is about €2.8 billion. The £300 million extra that the EFL was asking for pales into insignificance when compared with those sums of money, so a fairer distribution of revenues would not impact on the ability of the premier league to pay the highest salaries for players or the highest prices for player transfers. It will, however, make an enormous difference to the sustainability of the pyramid.
Currently, the 20 premier league clubs and the five clubs in receipt of parachute payments get 92% of the distributable money, which is around £3 billion. The remaining 67 clubs of the EFL get a total of 8%, or £245 million. That distorts competition in the EFL and encourages clubs to overspend. The premier league clubs have to agree to change the distribution of TV revenues across the pyramid. In the four years that this has been under discussion, no acceptable proposal has been put forward, so it is clear that football needs an adjudicator to end this impasse. Although it is reasonable to help clubs adjust to being in the championship, it is not acceptable to sustain a system that forces clubs to overspend in order to compete with clubs that are receiving parachute payments. Over the past seven seasons, two of the clubs promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. The top three places in the championship this season have gone to clubs in receipt of parachute payments, with two matches still to go. The 75:25 split will eradicate the need for parachute payments altogether, create a level playing field, and remove the incentive for non-parachute payment clubs to overstretch themselves financially.
Another major issue, which my hon. Friend Mr Betts has mentioned, is that of clubs being separated from their grounds. That has happened to my local club, Charlton Athletic, and to many other clubs. It is difficult to see how the Bill could deal with that issue retrospectively, but it is one that we must not lose sight of. It may not be possible to solve it through this Bill, but it is something that we need to deal with urgently. The time has come for a football regulator, which cannot fail to recognise that the current situation is not sustainable and that it must usher in a fairer system. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in getting us to this point, and I look forward to playing my part in assisting the Bill’s passage through this House.
Comments
(Includes a video of part of the recent HoC debate.)
"In the discussions to inform next week’s white paper on football, many stakeholders were attempting to get the government to understand this is much more than a “once a generation” moment. They described it as possibly the only opportunity to properly assess the English game and where it’s going, since nothing like this has ever been done before. It is quite a thought, that illustrates the “enormity” of what this government are taking on. In 160 years of codified English football, there has never been anything like an attempt at a holistic assessment of the sport and what it should look like." [Extract from accompanying article]
I agree with @PragueAddick that selling this to FAPL fans will be difficult, but perhaps the greater danger will come from the lobbying of FAPL Owners & Directors, who unlike the majority of clubs lower in the pyramid will be able to afford professional lobbyists to act on their behalf, both in Parliament and to rally their own fans to their perceived vested interests.
Taken as a whole, the number of fans in the 72 EFL and countless lower league clubs must surely match the number of FAPL fans, but will enough of them take the few minutes necessary to lobby their MP in support of the FLR recommendations? Even with all our recent woes, will all Charlton, Bury, Rochdale, Birmingham & Derby fans take the opportunity to make their voices heard? It will take a massive effort on social media at all levels of the game to overcome the inertia of the many ostriches out there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64539586
https://www.petervarney.com/post/independent-regulation-is-a-must
With reference to our esteemed Prime Minister getting freebies to see Arsenal, courtesy of the Premier League.
Charlie Methven has been sticking his oar in (and quite right too in my opinion) on the Football Governance Bill.
He is quoted as saying: 'This is a clear conflict of interest, and a pretty drastic one at that. The decision as to whether to include parachute payments in the remit of the regulator is a massive multi-billion-pound decision, which neither Keir Starmer nor anybody who works in No 10 Downing Street should seek to have any influence over, given the lavish financial benefits received and which continue to be received. If Labour's previous commitment to include the parachute payments has been overturned, then there would need to be an inquiry.'
Full article here: MP vows not to make calls regarding football watchdog, but PM refuses (msn.com)
"Strengthened" legislation to establish an independent football regulator for the elite men's game in England is set to be introduced to Parliament by the government.
The regulator will be given "new powers" as part of the Football Governance Bill, including over the Premier League's controversial multi-million pound 'parachute payments' that are given to relegated clubs.
It will "explicitly require clubs to provide effective engagement" with fans on changes to ticket prices, and any proposals to relocate home grounds.
It will no longer be required to consider government foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers, and there will be "a clear commitment" to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
The bill will be introduced on Thursday in the House of Lords in an attempt to speed up the legislation.
The bill, tabled initially in March, failed to pass through Parliament before the general election was called in May.
But in "major changes" to the proposed legislation, the Labour government is set to strengthen the regulator's remit, which will oversee clubs in the top five tiers of the game.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9vn8r2zwyno
Sounds like the Govt. have rolled over and played dead on this one.
The Tory government stuck it in at the time of closer ties to Saudi Arabia to support investment into the area by foreign assets. Now they'll be free to make decisions regardless of what countries the government wants to invest in us.
Sports media rights executive David Kogan has been named as the government's preferred choice as chair of the English football's new independent regulator.
Lisa Nandy, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said Kogan was the "outstanding candidate" to fill the position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgm8e18dg2yo
His deep commercial entanglements with the Premier League, political partisanship, lack of disciplinary experience and perceived bias towards elite clubs all undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the new IFR.
If the regulator is to command respect, enforce fair play and redistribute football’s finances equitably, its leader must be demonstrably impartial, skilled in public governance and trusted by fans at every level. Qualities that Kogan does not appear sufficiently to possess.
You've more chance of getting back massive collars, "knickers" for shorts, medicine balls, numbers 1-11 and the WM formation!
As first reported by Sky News, Kogan has been preferred to other shortlisted candidates, ex-Aston Villa and Liverpool chief executive Christian Purslow, and Sanjay Bhandari, chairman of football's anti-racism charity Kick It Out.
Christian Purslow ? This Christian Purslow?? The prize **** was one of the chief lobbyists against the establishment of the Regulator. FF'ingFS!
As for Mr Bhandari, I don't know him at all but based on his LinkedIN profile he looks the best qualified of the three, but he has zero high level business experience in or with football. This role needs someone senior who know what shenanigans go oon in English football, but don't actually approve of it (unlike Purslow).
Really? That was the shortlist?
Clive Efford Chair, Public Accounts Commission, Chair, Public Accounts Commission 6:41, 28 April 2025
I declare my interest at the outset, as I volunteer as a trustee of Millwall Community Trust.
This Bill has been a long time in the making, and there has been more than a little bit of scaremongering along the way about the implications of a regulator for the future of the premier league. The Bill does not pose an existential threat to the premier league, and no one who supports it wants to undermine the success of the premier league. The existential threat is to the football pyramid, should we fail to secure a fairer distribution of resources. The EFL estimates that its clubs will lose £450 million this season. That loss will have to be covered by the generosity of those clubs’ owners, and where that does not occur, we end up in situations like we had with Bury, Derby, Wigan and many others.
In 2020, the EFL proposed a 75:25 split of the combined TV revenues of both leagues, which at the time would have meant approximately £300 million of additional funding for the wider football pyramid. Instead, in the four years since the EFL first made that proposal, spending on transfers in the premier league has gone up by £850 million. In the 2022-23 season, the premier league spent £2.8 billion on player transfers; the other major European leagues spent around £750 million per league. Turning to wages, the premier league spent a combined sum of €4.6 billion on players’ salaries. Its nearest rival spent an aggregate sum of €2.5 billion—that is a gap of over €2 billion. Compared with the Bundesliga, the gap is nearly €2.5 billion, and for France and Italy, the gap is about €2.8 billion. The £300 million extra that the EFL was asking for pales into insignificance when compared with those sums of money, so a fairer distribution of revenues would not impact on the ability of the premier league to pay the highest salaries for players or the highest prices for player transfers. It will, however, make an enormous difference to the sustainability of the pyramid.
Currently, the 20 premier league clubs and the five clubs in receipt of parachute payments get 92% of the distributable money, which is around £3 billion. The remaining 67 clubs of the EFL get a total of 8%, or £245 million. That distorts competition in the EFL and encourages clubs to overspend. The premier league clubs have to agree to change the distribution of TV revenues across the pyramid. In the four years that this has been under discussion, no acceptable proposal has been put forward, so it is clear that football needs an adjudicator to end this impasse. Although it is reasonable to help clubs adjust to being in the championship, it is not acceptable to sustain a system that forces clubs to overspend in order to compete with clubs that are receiving parachute payments. Over the past seven seasons, two of the clubs promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. The top three places in the championship this season have gone to clubs in receipt of parachute payments, with two matches still to go. The 75:25 split will eradicate the need for parachute payments altogether, create a level playing field, and remove the incentive for non-parachute payment clubs to overstretch themselves financially.
Another major issue, which my hon. Friend Mr Betts has mentioned, is that of clubs being separated from their grounds. That has happened to my local club, Charlton Athletic, and to many other clubs. It is difficult to see how the Bill could deal with that issue retrospectively, but it is one that we must not lose sight of. It may not be possible to solve it through this Bill, but it is something that we need to deal with urgently. The time has come for a football regulator, which cannot fail to recognise that the current situation is not sustainable and that it must usher in a fairer system. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in getting us to this point, and I look forward to playing my part in assisting the Bill’s passage through this House.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-04-28b.48.0&s=speaker:26339#g116.0