Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

20:30:00

Clause 7: The IFR’s general duties etc

Amendment 67A

Moved by

67A: Clause 7, page 5, line 26, at end insert— “(d) differential impact on regulated clubs participating in, or seeking to qualify for, competitions organised by international football bodies.”

My Lords, Amendment 67A in my name addresses a critical oversight in the Bill. It is intended to properly recognise the clearly differential impact of regulation on certain clubs, specifically those participating in or seeking to qualify for competitions organised by international governing bodies. This amendment is essential to ensuring that the unique challenges faced by Premier League clubs, especially in the context of UEFA and FIFA, are properly understood and accounted for. I begin with the elephant in the room: UEFA’s refusal to endorse this regulatory regime. We know that UEFA has explicitly raised objections to the Bill’s provisions, warning that mandatory redistributions and other aspects of state interference risk breaching its rules on the autonomy of sport. This is no small matter. UEFA and FIFA hold significant leverage over clubs competing in their competitions, and they have made it clear that this leverage could be exercised if the Bill’s provisions conflict with their frameworks. Premier League clubs that qualify for European competition—clubs that have spent years building their competitiveness and investing in their success—are now being placed in an unenviable and unique position. They face the very real risk that this regulatory framework could put them in conflict with UEFA and FIFA, creating ongoing uncertainty and jeopardising their ability to compete on the European stage. The consequences of such a conflict are potentially catastrophic, not just for the clubs involved, although it affects them uniquely, but for the reputation and stability of English football as a whole. The differential impact of the Bill in this respect is stark. Premier League clubs, particularly those involved in UEFA competitions, are the only entities at risk of disqualification due to regulatory conflicts. They are also the only clubs that must navigate both domestic regulation and the additional compliance burdens imposed by UEFA licensing. This small class of clubs is being asked to shoulder very specific, disproportionate burdens and risks that directly affect their operations, financial stability and competitive standing. Let us not forget that these clubs are the financial engine of the football pyramid. They generate billions in revenue, attract international investment and support grass-roots football through solidarity payments. Yet the Bill places them in a uniquely precarious position, where their ability to operate and succeed could be undermined by regulatory uncertainty and conflict with international governing bodies. Unlike lower league clubs, Premier League clubs that aspire to European success operate under the shadow of UEFA’s and FIFA’s leverage. This is not a temporary issue; it is a permanent dynamic. UEFA has already made it clear in correspondence, which the Government has refused to publish, that certain provisions in the Bill could jeopardise compliance with its framework. This gives UEFA and FIFA ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. The Bill compounds this problem by failing to address how the regulator would navigate these international conflicts. While it empowers the regulator to impose unprecedented interventions, such as backstop powers over financial distributions, it does so without requiring the regulator to consult or co-ordinate with UEFA or FIFA. This omission leaves clubs caught between competing regulatory demands with no clear resolution mechanism. The potential consequences of these conflicts go beyond individual clubs. If Premier League clubs are disqualified from European competitions, or face ongoing regulatory uncertainty, it would damage the Premier League’s reputation, diminish its global competitiveness and, ultimately, reduce the revenues that flow down the pyramid. This is not scaremongering. It is a very real risk, uncovered by this Committee, which this the amendment addresses. The amendment also speaks to a broader issue of fairness. Premier League clubs are being disproportionately impacted by the Bill, including the backstop, because they are the only funder of other leagues in the pyramid. Yet their unique position and vulnerabilities are not adequately reflected in the legislation. By explicitly recognising the different impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can at least begin to address this imbalance and ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently harm the clubs but helps drive the success of English football. If we are to create a regulatory framework that commands trust and confidence, we must acknowledge these differential impacts openly and honestly. The amendment is a vital step towards that goal. This amendment is not about special treatment for Premier League clubs. It is about recognising the unique challenges they face, ensuring that regulation does not create more problems than it solves. By acknowledging the differential impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can create a regulatory framework that is fair, proportionate and fit for purpose. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, to ensure that the Bill reflects the realities of modern football and the global stage on which our clubs operate. I beg to move.

My Lords, I want briefly to support my noble friend’s comments and amendment. We have already set out our concerns about UEFA and FIFA’s objections. The Minister has suggested that our concerns are somewhat misplaced. Given the comments that have just been made, our concerns have unfortunately not been allayed. The fundamental issue is that, rightly or wrongly, the letter from UEFA and FIFA was in the papers; we have seen concerns that were raised. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Minister has not been able to fully explain to the Committee exactly what has been said. She said that constructive conversations have happened. That is great news and we are all pleased to hear it but, up to this point, she has not been able to give us any detail to match the concerns that we have seen in this letter. Does she feel able today to give us a bit more detail and some categorical examples of where FIFA and UEFA have said that they are now happy with the Government’s position and happy with the Bill as it is? We could balance that with what we have seen in the papers and the press from the letter, and what we have heard in some—I am sure—well-intentioned comments from the Minister about what has been said, but with nothing tangible to back it up. Does she have any correspondence with UEFA or FIFA, or any more tangible evidence that she can give us, to help us with the words she has been saying, which, I am sure, reflect conversations she may have had in meetings? This would give us some more tangible evidence that the issues that my noble friend has raised will not come to pass. Until we have that, we will have to return to this and, I am afraid, press the Minister for any more information she can give us.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, could we have the answer tonight as to what the state of play actually is? If we get some assurance that, “Providing we do not do X and Y, which we hope is not the intention of the Bill, we are fine”, then this will get put to bed. If the Minister can see some way of assuring us, even if it had to be on Chatham House terms or something, that would help, because we do not want there to be a problem. If we can get that assurance out there, this issue will go away. Let us face facts: it just would not exist. We want there to be a competition. Presumably, Europe wants the Premier League there. The reason why we have this Bill is about Europe. It was because of fans protesting that they were going to lose their competition and their traditions to Europe, and politicians saying, “We’ll intervene”, which most people agreed with. If we can get an assurance that there is something solid that means we would have to do something radically different to turn this bad scenario into a living nightmare, that is fine. We cannot guarantee the future; we can deal only with the Bill in front of us. If the Minister can give us those assurances she will have my full support.

My Lords, over the weekend, I and colleagues from across the Committee wrote to the Minister and sought to be very specific about the points that have just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Brady. It would be helpful to the Committee—I mentioned this to the Minister this morning too—to put on record the specific concerns that could lead to differences of opinion between the two regulatory frameworks: the regulatory framework we are seeking to put into legislation and the regulatory framework that already exists within UEFA and in FIFA. Indeed, if the answer to all the points that I will raise is that there is no conflict, the Committee will be satisfied and so will I. I would be grateful if we could have specific clarification on UEFA and FIFA’s position concerning the regulatory powers contained in the legislation. Given the extensive scope of the Bill’s powers and their potential impact on clubs and national teams participating in UEFA or FIFA competitions, I would be grateful if the Government could confirm whether UEFA and FIFA have been consulted on each of the following categories of powers: whether UEFA has specifically approved the proposed regulatory framework, particularly the revenue distribution backstop powers; the licensing framework and powers; the IFR’s independence; the IFR’s accountability mechanisms; the Secretary of State’s broad-ranging powers; the delegated powers; the financial oversight mechanisms; and the interaction between IFR rules and UEFA/FIFA regulations. If there are any areas where UEFA or FIFA has or will, in response to this request, express reservations or express modifications then I would be grateful if the Committee could be informed. Have the Government commissioned expert legal advice on these issues? How has this impacted on the design of the legislation? How will potential conflicts between UEFA/FIFA regulations and these various powers be resolved, especially regarding revenue distribution arrangements, competition participation rules, financial monitoring requirements, the licensing system, and the extensive rule-making powers granted to the IFR? This clarification is essential for ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory framework and avoiding any potential conflicts with existing football governance structures. As my noble friend mentioned, as reported in the press, in a letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State, UEFA warned against “government interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference to “guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”. The Bill, however, gives the regulator and the Government the following powers over football in England. I would very much welcome confirmation from the Government, not today but in due course, that in the meeting the Minister of Sport had with UEFA— referred to by the Minister on an earlier Committee day—the Minister brought these powers to the attention of UEFA and it confirmed that they do not amount to “government interference”.

20:45:00

The Secretary of State’s powers identified in the Bill are: the power to specify competition subject to regulation, in Clause 2(3); the power to provide financial assistance to the IFR, in paragraph 36 of Schedule 2; the power to publish football governance statements, in Clause 11; the power to issue guidance to the IFR about the exercise of its functions, in Clause 13; the power to make regulations amending thresholds for ownership tests, in paragraph 16 of Schedule 1; the power to amend bodies to which the IFR can disclose information, in Clause 86(6); the power to make regulations about public authority information disclosure, in Clause 87(4); the power to make consequential amendments to legislation, in Clause 97; the power to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, in Clause 98; and the power to determine the IFR board’s remuneration, in Schedule 2.

I may not have covered all the IFR licensing powers, but I have gone through the Bill and the first is the power to grant, refuse or revoke operating licences, in Clauses 15 to 19, which will have a big impact on UEFA; the power to attach mandatory and discretionary licence conditions, which are unspecified, in Clauses 20 to 25; and the powers to specify conditions relating to financial resources, non-financial resources and fan engagement.

Then there are the IFR ownership and officer powers: the powers to determine the suitability of club owners and officers, in Clauses 27 to 32; the power to issue disqualification orders against unsuitable owners and officers, in Clause 38; the power to direct the removal of unsuitable owners or officers, in Clauses 39 to 40; the power to make ownership removal orders, in Clause 43; and the power to appoint replacement officers in certain circumstances, in Clause 42.

On the IFR financial and revenue powers, which again seem to stand in potential conflict with UEFA, there are: the power to require financial plans and corporate governance statements that differ from UEFA’s; the power to impose financial penalties for non-compliance; and the power to require the payment of the regulatory levy by a licensed club, in Clause 53.

There are the IFR revenue distribution backstop powers: the power to trigger mediation between competition organisers, in Clauses 57 to 60; the power to make binding distribution orders if mediation fails, in Clause 62; the power to specify the duration and revocation of distribution orders, in Clause 63; and the power to review and enforce compliance with distribution orders, in Clause 64.

There are heritage protection powers: the power to approve or refuse the relocation of club grounds, in Clause 48; the power to protect club names, crests and colours, in Clause 49; and the power to specify prohibited competitions, in Clause 45.

The IFR investigatory and enforcement powers are in the Bill: the power to require information from clubs and relevant persons; the power to appoint expert reporters to investigate clubs; the power to conduct investigations into potential infractions; the power to issue urgent decisions; and the power to impose sanctions, including financial penalties.

The key powers delegated to the Secretary of State are clearly matters that can potentially conflict with UEFA’s current rules and regulations, such as the definition powers: the power to define “specified competitions” that fall under regulation; the power to amend the definition of “serious criminal conduct”; the power to amend the definition of “season”; powers to make supplementary rules on any aspect of the Act; and the power to make rules about fan consultation requirements.

There are just three final areas that I think are important. I very much hope the Minister will be able to give us comfort on this point, but the potential for conflict seems to exist in terms of the regulatory framework powers: the power to amend areas where the IFR may attach discretionary licence conditions; the power to change the statutory minimum number of members of the expert panel; the power to define relevant revenue for distribution purposes; and the power to amend figures relating to numerical maximum financial penalties.

Then there are the key delegated powers to the IFR, the operational powers: the power to define specified senior management functions; the power to make rules determining the form of operating licences; the power to make rules about licence applications and timelines; the financial and enforcement powers; the power to specify prohibited competitions; the power to make rules regarding levy charging; the power to make rules determining revenue for calculating financial penalties; and the power to delegate information-gathering powers to expert reporters.

In conclusion, there are the governance powers: the power to make rules regarding honesty, integrity and financial soundness assessments; the power to publish corporate governance codes of practice; and the powers to prepare and publish corporate governance reports.

I would very much appreciate the Government’s detailed response on these matters in writing at their earliest convenience, because they go right to the heart of the success or failure of the Bill, our future in Europe and indeed the World Cup competitions. I very much hope and request that the Minister takes these requests to UEFA and FIFA so that the Committee can be completely comfortable that they are in line with the regulations and, as a result, there can be no conflict in future that will be to the detriment of football and fans.

My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but the noble Lord has said time and again that the Bill may jeopardise British clubs competing in Europe. Can the Minister clarify that in Italy the legislative decree 9/2008—the Melandri law—and in Spain the royal decree law 5/2015 both deal with the distribution of audio-visual rights, and both insist on a significant amount of distribution to lower clubs? I have not heard that clubs from Italy or Spain have been refused participation in European competitions.

My Lords, I support in the strongest possible terms my noble friend’s Amendment 67A. After the backstop issue, this is the most important issue in the Bill. For the fans of some teams, the ability to play in Europe and their clubs’ fortunes there are more important than what happens with the national side. We are being asked to consider something so fundamental that we cannot do it with this proposed legislation unless the Government publish the letter and any subsequent conversations that they have had with UEFA. Otherwise, we cannot really take into account the full ramifications of what the Bill may do. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up best when he said that it was the risk of the breakaway league that caused the Bill to come into consideration in the first place. I humbly request that the Minister shares with the Committee everything that UEFA has said in relation to the Bill.

My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting —and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important. It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.

I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real. UEFA says that it is concerned and that: “A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now. Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.

My Lords, I just want to clarify my position. I did not want an absolute yes; I wanted a probable yes in the most civilised world. Going forward, that is what I was looking for, because we cannot let UEFA dictate our sovereign law to us, can we?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brady for her Amendment 67A and for the passion and clarity with which she set out her reasons for it; I am also grateful for her undoubted expertise in this area, as in so many others that we are examining in this Committee. This is a very important point, as my noble friend Lord Markham echoed. A number of clubs enter teams in international competitions, and these international competitions have their own requirements and rules by which the clubs who take part in them have to abide.

21:00:00

Any club wishing to take part in a UEFA competition must be granted a UEFA club licence before they are permitted to compete. These licences are accompanied by corresponding club licensing regulations that include provisions to

“ensure that clubs have an adequate level of financial management and organisation … protect the integrity and smooth running of the UEFA club competitions … safeguard each club’s identity, history and legacy”

and

“promote a healthy relationship between clubs and supporters”,

ensuring that everyone can access the game in a safe and secure environment.

I am sure that noble Lords will see that there is a distinct overlap between these stated aims and provisions and those we have been examining in the Bill.

Those requirements mean, as my noble friend set out, that Premier League clubs could face unique risks under the Bill’s proposed regime. They would have to ensure that they complied both with the new domestic regulations and with UEFA regulations. That could potentially generate conflicts that Premier League clubs would have to find a way to deal with while ensuring they maintain their places in both sets of competitions. If all clubs are regulated in the same way by the new domestic regulator we are considering in the Bill, those that also have to abide by the rules established by international competitions might be at a disadvantage.

So I am very glad that my noble friend has raised this point in Committee today, because it allows us to return to two very important issues with which we are not yet satisfied. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the clarification of what he seeks but, whether it is on his slightly more relaxed test or the more stringent ones that some of my noble friends behind me are seeking, we have not yet had the answer that meets our satisfaction. I hope that the Minister can please us all in the Committee tonight, but she would be going some way if she pleases the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the first instance. I hope that she will be able to, because it speaks to the uncertainty regarding UEFA’s view of the Bill.

As my noble friends have said, the Government are still not willing to disclose the letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State, so the Committee is operating without having seen it and without being able to be sure about whether UEFA is content with all the provisions of this proposed regulatory regime. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, up to a point: we do not necessarily want UEFA to dictate the regime that we as a sovereign Parliament are looking at, but I think that all football fans would hope, as we look at this legislation and think about the appropriate regulatory regime, that we are mindful of the stipulations that competitions English teams currently participate in are not breached in a way that threatens our participation in them.

That is all the more important with regard to the specific question raised by the amendment. My noble friend is trying to ensure that there is no undue burden on certain clubs that also have to abide by UEFA rules and licensing requirements. Without reopening the can of worms on hybridity, it does bring up that question, since there will be an unequal impact between clubs that enter teams in international competitions and those that do not. It seems, from the way the Bill is constructed, that certain private interests will face differential treatment. So I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this before us again and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling this amendment, which gives us a further opportunity to have a discussion on international competitions. I understand that the intent of the amendment is to ensure that English clubs can continue to participate and compete successfully in international competitions. That is something we all want. As we have discussed at length previously, the Government are confident that nothing in this Bill as drafted will jeopardise the participation of our clubs in international competitions. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised a point on UEFA statutes. As I have reiterated previously, in the strongest terms, we have engaged extensively with UEFA in the development of the Bill. As has been confirmed by the FA, we are confident that the Bill as drafted will not breach any of UEFA’s statutes. The regulator will be operationally independent of this Government and any future Government, and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. This was confirmed by the FA itself in oral evidence given to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on 14 May this year, during the passage of the previous Bill, introduced by the last Government. Both Ministers and officials have engaged regularly with the FA, UEFA and FIFA about the Bill, and they will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and beyond.

Obviously that is great, but the Bill has changed since then, particularly around the backstop provision. The noble Baroness on the Labour Bench was talking about before this new Bill came into effect: does that still stand? Has there been an update from the FA on that, because some of the provisions in the Bill have changed?

I understand that the FA’s position on this point has not changed. We completely agree that, in the course of regulating, the regulator should not unduly harm the ability of regulated English clubs to compete against their rivals and to succeed in those competitions. This is why Clause 7(2)(a) already relates to avoiding effects on the sporting competitiveness of one regulated club against another. This would cover the “differential impact” to which the noble Baroness’s amendment refers. Clause 7(2)(b) also relates to avoiding “adverse effects on the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs”. This includes against international competitors, as the Explanatory Notes clarify. These provisions already achieve the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment to minimise impacts on competitiveness, and in fact do so more holistically, recognising that competitiveness matters beyond just the relatively small proportion of clubs competing in, or vying for, European football. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, while I remain confident that nothing in the Bill as drafted would jeopardise the participation of English clubs in international competitions, I do understand his concerns. On UEFA and FIFA, we are speaking to the relevant authorities and will give noble Lords the reassurance on the specific points raised by the noble Lord in the coming weeks before Report. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and hope that she will withdraw it.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and other noble Lords for their contributions. However, I am deeply concerned about the assurances offered. While the Minister again claims that UEFA is comfortable with the Bill, the assertion is at odds with what we know. UEFA has explicitly raised objections to aspects of the Bill, including the risk of state interference breaching its rules. The correspondence exists, yet the Government refuse to publish it. If UEFA is so comfortable with the Bill, why the lack of transparency? Why not share its position openly with the House? The Minister may be interested to know that, a couple of days ago, I spoke to Mark Bullingham, the CEO of the FA. He told me that only UEFA itself, not the FA, can confirm whether the Bill breaches its statutes, and that he believes that it will not give that confirmation because it will not want to give up its leverage. That is deeply worrying. This amendment does not create complexity; it adds clarity. It ensures that the regulator considers the unique and unavoidable fact that Premier League clubs operate under dual compliance requirements—domestic regulation and UEFA licensing. Ignoring this reality risks leaving clubs exposed to significant conflicts with the governing bodies, which creates confusion and the instability that the Minister says the Bill seeks to avoid. The claim that Premier League clubs are not disproportionately impacted is demonstrably incorrect. Only Premier League clubs are subject to UEFA licensing requirements, only they face the prospect of disqualification from European competitions, and only they are exposed to the dual pressures of domestic regulation and international oversight. They also fund the competition and the pyramid. This is not about prioritising one group of clubs over others; it is about recognising that their unique position requires tailored consideration. The Premier League is not just a league; it is global powerhouse and the financial engine of our football pyramid. The risks of conflict with UEFA and FIFA are real, and they are uniquely borne by Premier League clubs. This amendment does not create division; it addresses it. It ensures that the regulator has the tools and the mandate to navigate these challenges fairly and effectively. I urge the Minister to reconsider her position as we progress towards Report and to reflect on the broader consequences of dismissing these concerns. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67A withdrawn.

Amendment 68

Moved by

68: Clause 7, page 5, line 26, at end insert— “(2A) The IFR must publish an annual statement to report on how it has considered, measured and performed in relation to its general duties under 7(2).”

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Maude, I rise to move Amendment 68. I intend to speak more fully later, but I welcome the group as it stands because the amendments in it cover the issues that will arise soon after the completion of this legislation. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise in support of this group of amendments, particularly my Amendment 328 in which, in short, I seek to assess the impact of the Bill and the independent football regulator on the Premier League. When I spoke at Second Reading, I highlighted my view from the perspective of a fan of football because football is so much more—it is more than a business; it is a love, a passion, for billions around the world. In Committee, there has been much debate about the potential impact on the game, which is so loved and successful, from the implementation of an independent regulator which may inadvertently temper both the game’s passion and its commercial success. I now put on my business head and shall explore how the regulator means to measure its impact on the clubs it will regulate. First, what data will the regulator require to report on its effectiveness and on how it is impacting football, particularly the Premier League? Secondly, how will the regulator report to the Secretary of State on how this global industry is operating in many different environments? When we start to explore that question, a further question should come to our minds: are we actually talking about football or something different? My love for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club remains undiminished despite the testing of my resolve almost every weekend—and last weekend was no exception. However, I ask noble Lords to look further than what occurs on the pitch. My club, like many, has and will continue to invest heavily not just in players but in infrastructure. I must congratulate our chairman Daniel Levy on building a truly world-class stadium in Tottenham, but please note that I did not say “football stadium”, for the Tottenham Hotspur stadium is much more. It has been built to exacting specifications so that it can also host American National Football League games with an entirely separate pitch built underneath the football pitch—a real feat of engineering—and completely different changing rooms have been incorporated into the stadium to meet the exacting requirements of the NFL squad sizes and their expansive kits. More than 120,000 spectators watched NLF games at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium during 2019, 2022 and 2023, and thousands more will this year, which means that already 12 of the NFL’s 32 American teams have played in the new stadium. But this is not all. We have also welcomed Beyoncé, Guns N’ Roses, Lady Gaga and many other world-class stars. World title boxing fights have been hosted, and we have F1 DRIVE London, the official Formula 1 karting experience. When I walk up towards this gigantic modern-day Colosseum that sits on White Hart Lane, I see the Premier League logo proudly attached to the facade but, alongside it, the Formula 1 and NFL logos—probably with space for a few more. The club quite rightly states on its website: “Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has become a new sports and entertainment destination for London, bringing a boost of circa £344m to the local economy every year”. Tottenham is widely regarded as a well-run football club, with owners firmly focused on delivering a sustainable business operation and quality entertainment—I will not talk about trophies.

21:15:00

Back to the subject of reporting, we are talking about not just football but a complex, multifaceted entertainment industry. I have not even touched on revenue streams such as merchandising, food and beverages, viewing rights and future developments such as digital and virtual fan day experiences, when tickets will be bought for experiencing the game in pseudo-virtual and immersive manners in venues away from the stadium or even in our own homes. The future of the game-day experience will continue to change, evolve and be even more innovative to capture and deliver more to fans to compete with the broader global sporting and entertainment industry, which all obviously means more revenue for the clubs.

I hear the voices saying, “This is just the big clubs, those at the top of the pyramid—the Premier League, the establishment”. But it is not. Clubs up and down the league pyramid are leveraging their assets—yes, at different sizes and scales, but they still are. They are hosting events within their grounds when they are not being utilised, building digital services and community forums and creating online fans. It is the way the industry is developing and innovating to cater for a growing marketplace, to deliver a product for those who wish to be entertained.

I am calling for a six-month report to the Secretary of State from the independent regulator, but I am really politely asking the Minister what the regulator will be reporting on. Will it have to forensically detach the revenue streams relating to non-footballing activities which are on the clubs’ balance sheets to give us a pure footballing revenue view so that it can be compared and contrasted on a footballing-pure basis? How will the criteria for reporting on the impact on the clubs’ finances be established? Will the regulator be expected to take a full 360-degree view of club finances both now and in the near future, or will it relate to revenues only generated by football-related activities?

My Lords, I support Amendments 68, 89, 120 and 121, which focus on ensuring accountability and transparency and are critical to protecting the Premier League and safeguarding its unique role in the football pyramid. This Bill introduces a radical new framework for the governance of football, one that includes significant regulatory oversight and redistribution mechanisms. We are the first country ever to do this, and I am worried that we may well suffer from first-mover disadvantage. There are profound changes in this Bill that will impact every level of the game, and it is essential that the Government and the regulator are held to account for the consequences of these measures. Regular reporting is not just a bureaucratic necessity; it is a vital safeguard to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders, particularly those of the Premier League, are protected. If we are to introduce a regulator with such extensive powers, it must be held accountable for the full range of consequences its decisions may have. The competitive balance of the Premier League—its very dynamism and unpredictability—is central to its global appeal. This, in turn, drives its ability to attract world-class players, managers and investment, generating revenues that flow down the football pyramid. Yet, without baselining these measures or requiring the regulator to report on its impact in these areas, we risk implementing a system that could inadvertently undermine the Premier League’s success. Similarly, international competitiveness is a crucial factor for the Premier League. It is the most watched and admired league in the world, representing a unique soft power asset for the UK. The ability of Premier League clubs to compete at the highest level in Europe has been a driving force behind their commercial success, as well as their capacity to support the wider game through solidarity payments and grass-roots initiatives, all of which are voluntary. However well-meaning, if the regulator’s interventions dampen investment or create uncertainty, this international competitiveness could be severely compromised, and yet somewhat incredibly there is no requirement in the Bill for the regulator to monitor or report on this. Investment is another area where the absence of reporting requirements is deeply concerning. Premier League clubs operate in a highly competitive global market for players, sponsorship and broadcasting rights. Long-term investment decisions, whether in infrastructure, youth academies or community programs, depend on regulatory certainty and stability. If the regulator’s actions lead to a chilling effect on investment, it would have profound consequences not only for the Premier League but for the whole football ecosystem. Again, there is no provision in the Bill to track or report on this impact, leaving us blind to the unintended consequences that could arise. The amendments before us, particularly Amendment 68, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, seek to address these gaps. They recognise that we cannot introduce such a transformative regulatory framework without ensuring that it is judged against the metrics that matter most: competitive balance, international competitiveness and the ability to attract investment. Unless we retain these qualities, we will end up with a much smaller, less well-funded and far less successful football pyramid. The question of stability in a rapidly declining ecosystem becomes somewhat irrelevant. We must ensure that we have a clear understanding of whether this legislation is achieving its aims or instead introducing unintended and potentially harmful consequences. For example, if the redistribution mechanisms introduced by the regulator begin to destabilise clubs’ financial planning or deter investment, we must know about it quickly and transparently. If the regulator’s powers are being applied unevenly or disproportionately, we need to be able to challenge and rectify that. If the Premier League’s unique role in funding the pyramid is being undermined by these changes, we surely need a mechanism to address that impact. I encourage the Minister to consider the spirit of these amendments and, between now and Report, consider ways that the accountability and transparency mechanisms can be considerably strengthened.

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 120 and following on from the point that my noble friend Lady Brady made, I hope to put some meat on the bones of what we would be asking the regulator to produce in its annual report. Right now, all that the Bill says is that we are asking it to produce a summary of the activities undertaken during the year and for any other information that the Secretary of State sees fit. The whole purpose of our debates over the last few days is to make sure the regulator is fit for purpose in its objectives and that its performance is then measured against those objectives. My amendment—non-controversial, I hope—is about trying to hold the regulator to account. It seeks to add that the regulator should look at and report on clubs’ compliance against directed action, regulator finances, enforcement action, their performance against their own objectives, how much time it has taken to grant licences to clubs and any salaries above £100,000. It is quite a simple list that seeks to hold the regulator to account and get clarity on what its performance has been for the year, so it can then improve performance going forward.

My Lords, I will briefly follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, and the other contributions. The transitory nature of sport is such that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, stood up to speak, West Ham were leading 2-0, but by the time she sat down they were leading 1-0—VAR had intervened. I pay credit to the noble Baroness for being here and paying such attention to the detail of the Bill, given the interest she declared, and which we are all aware of, in relation to West Ham. The series of amendments here all deal with the reporting duty after the Bill has been passed and at the point of implementation. As others have indicated, it is key that there is a clear understanding, not only for the regulator or government but for the fans, who are key to the Bill—the whole idea of the Bill is about involving the fans—that the regulator is obliged to explain to the fans precisely why he has done things and that he recognises the impact of his actions on fans, clubs and players. At all levels, it is necessary that we have that information and understanding—and rapidly.

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is proposing to speak to her amendments in this group.

The amendment in this group that I tabled has been covered by some of the earlier discussions we had and some of the assurances that the Minister gave.

I look forward to her noble friend the Minister’s response to it, if she feels she has anything to add to it in this group. The debates that we have had on this group, which concerns reporting requirements, cast my mind back to the debates we had during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on testing the duties for Ofcom to report back on how it would operate the new regulatory regime that the Act set up. My noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood talked about future-proofing and emerging technologies, and this is an opportunity, through the reporting, to make sure that the changing technology and new areas of work are not just in the mind of the regulator but brought back before Parliament for some consideration. My noble friend Lady Brady—I pay tribute to her being here for the consideration of the Bill, particularly this evening—described the first-mover disadvantage. Notwithstanding the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned about the Italian and Spanish legislation—and I will certainly look at the extent to which that has lessons for us—what we are doing here is on a scale not done by any other jurisdiction. We want to make sure, as we are doing it, that it is working and that it is brought back before Parliament for proper consideration. I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought amendments in this group and spoken to them. My Amendment 121 in this group is simple and technical. The Bill states that the regulator “must arrange for a copy of every report under this section to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”. The wording of the amendment and the original wording of the Bill may seem very similar, but the substantive difference here is that we think that the duty should fall on the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament, not on the regulator. The Secretary of State is directly answerable to Parliament, whereas the independent football regulator, at least in the way that the Bill currently envisages it, is not. Surely it is therefore the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the actions of the regulator and to present the relevant documents to Parliament for scrutiny. That would not be interfering with the regulator’s independence. Ministers already do this on behalf of other independent regulators: they are not carrying out the regulation but they bring documents before Parliament on the regulators’ behalf. Indeed, they are often asked about the way that regulation works, in addition to the power of Select Committees to call people who work at the regulators directly before them. My amendment would also standardise the wording of the Bill. For example, Clause 11(6) states: “The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”, and Clause 13(6) states: “The Secretary of State must lay any guidance, or revised guidance, published under this section before Parliament”. If the Bill envisages elsewhere that the onus is on the Secretary of State to lay documents before Parliament, I do not understand why it does not do so also in Clause 14. I am curious to probe the logic in the drafting to see why there is that discrepancy and whether we ought to change it.

21:30:00

Amendment 68 would require the regulator to publish an annual statement reporting on its success in fulfilling its general duties. It builds on the concerns that have been raised about the importance of expanding the duties that are placed on the regulator. Requiring an annual report would ensure that the regulator was forced constantly to assess how well it had performed its duties. A good regulator is self-reflective, and any regulatory body that does not look frequently at its own work and take stock of how well it is performing is surely doomed to fail. It would otherwise be all too easy to carry on its work creating ever-more burdensome rules, handing out fines and imposing other penalties without ever stopping to assess whether those actions were achieving the effects they intended.

The amendment seeks to provide the regulator with an annual opportunity to reflect on how successful it has been in avoiding the negative consequences established by Clause 7(2). That echoes some of the provisions in Amendment 89 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, which has broader scope and would require the regulator to publish a report detailing not just the extent of its success in discharging its duties but how it has achieved its objectives and complied with the regulatory principles. I rather support both those amendments.

Amendment 120 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham seeks to amend Clause 14 to expand the content of the annual report that the regulator is required to produce. I added my name to the amendment because when reading the Bill we were both struck by how limited the current requirements are for this report. The Bill says only that the annual report

“must include … a summary of the activities undertaken by the IFR during that year, and … other information as the Secretary of State may direct”.

It leaves so much to the discretion of the Secretary of State—a member of the Executive—rather than somebody from the legislature.

This is Parliament’s opportunity to be a bit more assertive about the things that we would like to hear from the regulator on a regular basis, without relying on the discretion of the Secretary of State. That is not to second-guess what the present Secretary of State might request but to future-proof this and make sure that Parliament sets out those demands rather than the Government, with the Executive avoiding the need for Parliament to get what it wants. It is important that we do not miss the opportunity to be a bit clearer about what we would like here.

First, Amendment 120 would require the annual report to include the extent to which regulated clubs were complying with the rules and regulations established by the regulator. That would allow Parliament to examine whether the regulatory regime continued to be effective. If clubs were not complying with rules, Parliament, not just the Secretary of State, should be made aware so that it could examine the reasons and try to ensure that corrective action was taken.

The amendment would also require the regulator to include a statement of its finances for that year. This provision is very significant because it would force the regulator to be completely transparent about its financial situation. That is especially important during the initial period, as the Bill envisages it, when the functions of the regulator will be funded by the taxpayer. Any public body that is receiving public funds from the Exchequer must surely be required to publish its accounts so that Parliament and the taxpayer know how their money is being spent and can scrutinise this. That will be just as important once the levy system is up and running and it is the regulated clubs that are the funders of the regulator’s activities; I am sure they will equally want to keep a close eye on how their money is spent.

Transparency is also key when we consider the licensing regime. The amount of time taken to make a decision regarding operating licences will have a major impact on regulated clubs; if the regulator is not efficient in this process, it could compromise the ability of clubs to operate effectively. That certainty for clubs is vital; no club will be able to operate without knowing in a timely manner whether it has been successful in its application for a licence. Delays to this process could prevent clubs entering teams into competitions, hinder investment and, ultimately, harm the club’s financial sustainability, cutting against the core purposes of the Bill. It is more than reasonable that the period taken to grant licences should form part of this report and be published annually so that Parliament can hold the regulator to account in this area and ensure that it is performing its functions efficiently.

The last aspect of the amendment also seeks to ensure transparency by requiring the regulator to publish a list of employees who are paid a salary of more than £100,000. That is perfectly standard practice throughout the public sector, and I hope that it will not be controversial and that the Minister will be sympathetic to it.

With gratitude to my noble friends who brought amendments in this group, and indeed to noble Lords opposite who have done so as well, I hope the Minister will engage with this group on the reporting requirements and think, not just as the Minister presently at the Dispatch Box but as a parliamentarian, about the importance of the accountability that Parliament, as well as her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, needs.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for moving Amendment 68 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and all noble Lords for their thorough discussion of it and the other amendments in this group. The amendment, along with Amendment 89 from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, seeks to place additional reporting requirements on the regulator to increase transparency and accountability. On Amendment 68, I understand the desire to ensure that the success of English football is protected and that the regulator monitors, evaluates and can be held accountable for its impact on the factors set out in Clause 7. However, the impact of the regulator in these areas should already be reviewed in both the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report. This is true also in respect of Amendment 89. The annual report that the regulator will be required to produce and lay before Parliament at the end of each financial year will be on the exercise of its functions. The Secretary of State may also direct the regulator on what that annual report must include; they could, for example, already require the regulator to report on each of the specific aspects, including those in my noble friend’s amendment. It is absolutely right that the regulator can be made to report on specific aspects of its performance and that these can vary from time to time, depending on the activity of the regulator and the state of the industry. We strongly expect that the regulator’s annual report would naturally include how well it had fared in advancing its objectives, but rest assured that if the regulator did not naturally report on this, the Secretary of State could direct it to.

Does the Minister accept that if the Secretary of State decided that was not necessary but Parliament wanted to hear it, as the Bill is drafted, it is the Secretary of State who wins that? This is decided by the Executive and not by the legislature. Does she not think there is a role for Parliament to be a bit more assertive in what it would like to hear, rather than relying on a Secretary of State who shares its wishes and is willing to facilitate that?

I assume that if the relevant parliamentary committee felt that it was not getting the information it required, it would have quite an interesting evidence session with the regulator. It would be a very brave Secretary of State who did not include the information that Parliament wanted in an annual report of that nature or ask the regulator to do that. I can see the noble Lord shaking his head. I am not convinced that anything I could say on any of the points raised would satisfy him so, with respect, perhaps I could move on to other points.

The Minister is accidentally proving my point. This is the frustration of parliamentarians when we ask questions and do not get what we want from an Executive. She is right that there is a role for Select Committees here, but I worry that the Secretary of State may not need to be that brave to avoid asking for these things. We are just keen to probe how Parliament can be a bit more precise in making sure it gets what it wants, but I will let her continue.

I suggest that noble Lords might discuss this at further length with the shadow regulator. As noble Lords will be aware, they have made themselves available and I am sure that, as the Bill progresses, they would be happy to have further conversations. I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. As I touched on earlier, the annual report is a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I therefore understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers the necessary detail. It will be in the power of the Secretary of State to specify any required contents, which are not, as Amendment 120 would ask for, all listed in the Bill. This is so that a much more adaptive approach can be taken, year by year, and so as to not constrain the issues that should be covered in the report. With regard to Amendment 121, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that the annual report will be laid before Parliament so that it can be scrutinised. If it is not, the regulator will be in breach of its statutory obligations; therefore, the intent of this amendment is already achieved. Moving on to Amendment 122 from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I thank him for raising this issue and am sympathetic to his viewpoint. Women’s football was discussed in the previous group of amendments and, as I outlined, the Government support the recommendation of the independent review of women’s football, published in July 2023. It set out that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate, rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation. We appreciate, however, that this situation may change and that women’s football might need to be brought into scope down the line to safeguard its future. As is clarified in the Explanatory Notes, the Secretary of State will already keep under ongoing review whether it is appropriate to amend the specified competitions. Clause 2(5) already requires the Secretary of State to carry out a formal assessment, including consultation, before doing this and to publish and lay its results before Parliament. The assessment can be triggered at any point so if any change in circumstance occurs, the Secretary of State is able to react. We therefore think that the principle of this amendment is already catered for and do not believe it is right for a clause with a specified timeline to be added to the Bill. The Government recognise the intent behind Amendment 328 from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood. It is vital that the regulator is transparent about the burden that its regulatory activities may have on clubs and competition organisers so that it can be held accountable. From the start, we have been clear that we wish to establish a regulator for football that will take a proportionate approach to regulation. We do not wish to introduce a regulator that will impose onerous and burdensome requirements on the clubs. That is why the regulator will have a statutory requirement when exercising its functions to have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on features such as competitiveness and investability. We expect that the impact of the regulator on the market, including on regulated clubs and the leagues, will be reviewed in both the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report. I reiterate: the Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports. We believe that this ongoing accountability is more appropriate than a one-time review by the Secretary of State six months after the Act has passed. It would not be fair or indeed helpful to evaluate the regulator’s performance or impacts after just six months of a brand new regime. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendments 69 to 71 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Amendment 72 not moved.

21:45:00

Clause 8: The IFR’s regulatory principles

Amendment 73

Moved by

73: Clause 8, page 6, line 3, leave out “should” and insert “must” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires the IFR to use its resources in the most efficient, expedient and economic way.

My Lords, I have got up a number of times today to say that a particular amendment is not controversial and I hope it will be an easy one for the Minister to agree to. I have not been correct yet, because the Minister has not agreed to any, but I think that with this one I am on to a good thing. Everything that I am trying to do here is to make sure that what is written down in the Bill really does happen. To take the exact wording on the regulator’s regulatory principles, in a number of places it says that it “should” use its resources “in the most efficient, expedient and economic way”. We are saying no, it must. It “should”, as far as is reasonably practicable, “co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage” with clubs, owners and competition organisers. Again, we are saying no, it must. There can be lots of good intentions, and lots of times when you can say that someone should do something. My mum told me that I should eat my greens. I cannot say that I always did. In all these instances, it is about making sure that the wording that the Minister and her team put in the Bill means that things really do happen. Again, we suggest that the regulator “must” act in a way that “recognises the specific context of football and the fact that clubs are subject to rules, requirements and restrictions”; it “must” act consistently, “recognising the differences between clubs and competitions and the differences between the circumstances affecting clubs”; it “must” act in a way that “recognises the responsibilities of owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs in relation to the requirements placed on clubs under or by virtue of this Act”; and it “must” act “as transparently as reasonably practicable”. Again, we are just making sure that everything that the Minister has put down by way of the wording of Bill must happen, not just should happen. I think, this time, I am backing up exactly what the Minister would like to see happen. There are also a couple of other sensible amendments from others that fans should be consulted and engaged with in all this, which I also hope would get a resounding yes from the Minister. I look forward to hearing her response in terms of making sure that what she would like to happen really does happen. I beg to move.

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 78, and I would like to begin with a quote, that “there is no reference to players as a group the regulator should co-operate with … There is not a single mention of players, even though they are the main employment group within the regulated clubs. This means that the decisions that the regulator makes could have a tangible impact on their employment. For example, if the regulator exercises its powers to withdraw approval for a competition or refuses a licence to a club owner, there would be a direct consequence on the contracts of and conditions for players … Just as with fans, the professional game could not exist without players, so will the Minister explain why players are not mentioned in this part or elsewhere in the Bill?”—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 16/5/24; col. 129.] Those are the words of the then shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock MP, on 16 May, when the original version of this Bill was in Committee in another place. For that reason, I know that I am pushing at an open door here, because Stephanie Peacock is of course now the Minister for Sport. As shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock not only robustly argued in favour of her amendment but then forced the matter to a vote, which, as is always the case with opposition parties in Committee in the other place, was lost. Therefore, it was both surprising and disappointing to myself and a number of others to find that this Bill—amended only in minor ways from the Tory Bill—did not include mention of players. Ms Peacock’s amendment in May this year included five categories of people and organisations to be added to Clause 8. I have taken out four of those so as to focus on much the most important: namely, the players. Jock Stein, one of the greatest managers ever, once said, “Football without fans is nothing”. He was right, of course. As evidenced in 2020 during the pandemic, all games at the top level in England were played behind closed doors, and I defy anyone to say it was worth the effort. We all know it was driven shamelessly by the financial aspect of it, but as an experience it was, exactly as Mr Stein said, nothing. Important as fans are—I am very much one of them—it was shown to be possible to play matches without them. Try doing the same without players. The players are not simply another stakeholder group in football, and it is fatuous, not to say insulting, that they should be categorised as such. Decisions made by the regulator have the potential directly to impact their careers and their contracts, as Stephanie Peacock said. It should not be left up to the regulator to decide whether they need to engage with them or not. In essence, this is, I believe, an employee relations issue rather than a football issue, as is the need for players to be viewed as distinct from other stakeholder groups. The PFA—Professional Footballers’ Association—represents a very high proportion of the professional players in the Premier League and the English Football League. You might think that young men earning millions of pounds each season would not feel the need to join a trade union. You might, but according to the PFA, membership among Premier League players is close to 100%. Based on my experience as a full-time trade union official, that is remarkable in any sector of employment. But for such wealthy individuals to have calculated that there is benefit to them in becoming part of a union and working collectively, and having people work on their behalf, is astonishing. To suggest that players and their trade union should not be a group of people that the regulator should—to quote Clause 8—“proactively and constructively engage” with is frankly a nonsense. The absence of players and their representatives constitutes a clear and obvious lacuna in this Bill so, with respect, I say to my noble friend, please sort it.

My Lords, Amendment 80 in my name seeks to include football supporters’ trusts on the face of the Bill to ensure that they are consulted on all matters relating to fan engagement as set out in the Bill. It is not intended to restrict the regulator, as the Bill states, or to restrict other fan groups being involved. I declare an interest in that I am currently a director of Manchester United Supporters Trust and was its former chairman over the past decade. It is a very substantial trust with over 100,000 members, and initially came into being in 1998 in opposition to the Murdoch bid for the club, followed by the bitterly opposed leveraged takeover by the Glazer family in 2005. However, in the last decade, the trust has developed a constructive relationship with senior management which delivers fan consultation and representation for supporters. Supporters’ trusts are uniquely equipped to perform this role, and every club would benefit from engaging with such a body. Currently, there are 149 supporters’ trusts across the football pyramid: 16 in the Premier League, 18 in the Championship, 20 in League One, 15 in League Two and 80 in non-league football. Most, if not all, trusts are registered with the FCA and operate under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. I invite my noble friend the Minister to accept this amendment on the basis that supporters’ trusts provide an existing substantive platform for fans to have a voice in club decisions. It is a structure that should be utilised to the benefit of football as a whole. It is an existing and vibrant structure that I envisage the independent regulator would welcome working with from the outset. It is important for the Committee to appreciate the many facets of supporters’ trusts and how they contribute to football as a whole. Invariably, the trusts are democratically elected, operating, as I have said, under FCA-approved constitution and rules. They help to ensure the interests of the wider fan base and community they represent. This is vital in sustaining the contact with fans and in the case of smaller clubs. Trusts often emphasise local community values and initiatives. The trust can help to maintain strong ties with the local fan base, fostering a sense of belonging and identity. This is relevant to the Premier League as well as non-league clubs. Many clubs have charitable foundations that, in my experience, work closely with their trusts. Foundations work with local schools, using their links with the club to assist teachers in their roles. Many also support local food banks. Trusts, by raising funds through their membership and donations, can contribute to the financial health of the club. This can be particularly beneficial in the smaller clubs that face financial difficulties, as has been seen in recent history, where trusts have been instrumental in saving their clubs. Trusts invariably advocate for transparency in club operations, hoping to make club management accountable. This can, of course, lead to better governance practices and more ethical decision-making. The Bill, of course, very helpfully and constructively sets out the criteria which clubs and fan groups have to take into account. Supporters’ trusts wish to focus on the long-term sustainability of their club rather than short-term profits, which is often the case for the owners of clubs. This perspective can lead to more responsible management of resources. Where supporters’ trusts are represented on club boards, they can influence strategic decisions, ensuring that the fan perspective is included in the governance, which, of course, is crucial. All fans can join trusts, and this can promote inclusivity within the club, assuring that the fans, regardless of background, have the opportunity to participate in club activities and governance. As has been seen in times of crisis, such as financial troubles or ownership disputes, trusts can mobilise fan support to advocate for the club’s best interests, potentially influencing outcomes in the interests of supporters and the club as a whole. An obvious recent example was the attempt by a few clubs, including Manchester United, to establish a closed European super league. Overall, supporters’ trusts enhance the governance of football clubs by fostering a more inclusive, accountable and community-oriented approach. Therefore, with great respect to my noble friend the Minister, I urge that this amendment be accepted.

My Lords, my Amendment 81 stands in contrast to my noble friend’s amendment, which is very exclusive in suggesting that the only format of supporters’ group should be the trust format. In this country and, indeed, across the rest of the world there is a huge range of different kinds of football cultures and football groups. I should declare an interest, of course. Although I have no pecuniary interest whatever—I own no shares, and I receive no dividends or payments—I have the joy, or the pain, of being able to discuss with my many thousands of members the trials and tribulations of Leeds United Football Club. A number are in this Chamber even this evening—more than one. However, there are different kinds of fan group. If the Government—or, at a later stage, the House—wish to see the regulator having to liaise with fan groups, then in essence there is a range of choices. It could be randomised—whoever the regulator chooses, but that seems neither appropriate nor efficient. It could be, as my noble friend suggests, exclusively for the trusts, or it could be, as I am suggesting, any fan group that has some kind of democratic structure. The reason for a democratic structure is that you are then representing somebody rather than representing yourself.

22:00:00

My amendment would incorporate all the trusts. The fundamental difference tends to be that a lot of the trusts want to own part of their football club. My fan group has no desire to own part of our club. We see the model of football as being a range of different major investors in a multi-million—and, sometime in the future, multi-billion—pound business. The last thing we want is to meddle with those financial decisions. Neither do we want to be making decisions on sacking managers or appointing them, selling players or buying them.

Particularly on the selling of players and the sacking of managers, we take the approach that we would never call for our owner to be replaced. Not all the owners that I have witnessed have been the best of choices over the years, but we never call for the manager to be sacked. Indeed, when the club is potentially about to sack the manager, we continue to support the manager until the manager is no longer our manager. Mr Bielsa once rang me, in rather a Spanish way, to thank the fans for continuing to support him when even the club owners had clearly lost some confidence in him. It is how we define supporting the club. We are not there to run the club but to support it. We are not there to try to own the club. As well as the trust organisations, which fulfil a different role and have a different perspective to be consulted, there are quite a number of these kinds of supporter groups across the country. We are members because we love supporting our club. Having the fan voice consulted by the regulator would help the regulator, particularly in some of the minutiae of getting it right.

My final point concerns a significant group: I refer to the Jewish supporters’ groups that have been set up. I have just had a meeting, having had the chance to escape from here, with the whole group on its plans for the future. There are groups coming from the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Sikh community and other communities, who want simply to enjoy supporting their team and sometimes meeting together. If these groups had a proper structure, they would be good for the regulator to consult when it is relevant. I think we should be inclusive rather than exclusive in relation to this.

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, not least because I am a member of his supporters’ group. We also have another supporters’ group, for Leeds United. Members of Parliament in both Houses are parties to the WhatsApp group. While the public-facing position regarding the manager is always one of support, it cannot always be said that those on the WhatsApp group speak in such gentle and supportive terms of the manager after one or two defeats. That aside, I support the noble Lord, Lord Watson. He made an extremely important point, and it was wise to pray in aid the Minister in another place regarding his Amendment 78. If we are to have a regulator, surely, in terms of financial regulation and the overall financial role, we cannot just ignore the players, let alone the fact that they are right at the heart of the game. The total wage bill across Europe’s big five leagues—England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France—was £13 billion in 2022-23, up from 12.3 billion in the prior season. We all know that, in certain circumstances, players are brands in their own right. Many boast bigger social media followings than their clubs. Sponsors know this, investors are taking note and the clubs know it. Only this week in the Financial Times, the IMG sports and entertainment president, George Pyne, stated: “The players are the most valuable asset in the sport … With social and digital media, commercial opportunities today are more valuable than they might have been 10 years ago because these players are now brands in themselves”. It is a people business; it is relationships that matter, and relationships with the players are central to the success of any football club. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right. If we are to have a state-appointed regulator, that regulator, in looking at the finances of the club and taking an overall view of it, must engage with the footballers and listen to their representations.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. Your Lordships may expect a former TUC leader to advocate the principle of workforce engagement and consultation, but it was over a decade ago that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his report No Stone Unturned, talked about the value of what he called “shop-floor wisdom”. It is not just a case of fair access. In my experience, there have been many positive examples of where shop-floor wisdom has made for much better decision-making. The workforce and their representatives are what I would describe as the canaries in the mine. They can see when organisations are heading for trouble from the inside, they have good ideas about how to make industries stable, sustainable and fair, and their ideas deserve to be heard. Nowhere is that more relevant than in football. When club owners and managers tell the regulator a particular story, players and their representatives can provide a crucial quality check. They may agree with the owners; they may not. But the new regulator would benefit from hearing the workforce perspective. I have heard a lot about finances in this debate. I offer just a gentle reminder that, if you were to ask any fan, they would say that true wealth is created on the pitch. Like Labour and, indeed, across this House, the PFA proudly believes in the unifying power of football in society, and it is a guardian of those values. Players must have a right to a voice: a right, enshrined in law, to be consulted on equal terms.

My Lords, I have had my name down as a supporting figure on three occasions. I just cannot resist, with this talk of “should” and “must”. It does sound awfully like “may” and “shall”, which is something steady to go back to. My question for the Minister is: is there any difference legally between the two words? If there is not—in certain circumstances, there is not—can we just hear that? On the amendments, I start with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I supported. Yes, you should consult your players. They are your primary asset; they are what the fans come to watch. It would seem sensible; that is why I am in support. I realise that I might be backing two horses in the same race by putting my name to these two amendments, but the fact is that various fan groups need some interaction with the regulator. How that is done is incredibly important. To return to the players, without them you have no product. You have no financial resource; you have nothing to come behind. Not consulting them is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Many people will tell me that they are overpaid namby-pambies or whatever. I do not agree, but people will tell you that. The fact is that every time you run around as a professional athlete, you are risking your career, or risking it being shortened. Every time you are told to play that extra game when you are not quite ready for it yet, or you are a little bit tired, you are risking your career and your professional value. You may be playing injured, for instance. We should hear from this group. They have short, often very productive careers. Often, though, they do not. What we tend to do in this debate is think about the Premiership, but we are talking about the entire structure, going down. Many people are just making a living—sometimes a good living—for a short period of time. We must make sure that they are consulted as well. The entire structure going down is something that we are in danger of forgetting repeatedly in this Bill. So I hope that the Minister will give us some clarification here. Players must be consulted and there must be a way of talking to the fans. Is this just another one of the hardy perennials of Parliament going down the “may” or “shall” route? Does the wording change in the lead amendment make any difference?

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I wholeheartedly agree that footballers are at the heart of football. Without them, we certainly could not achieve anything at all. The relationship with players is absolutely vital to football clubs. West Ham was one of the very few clubs during the pandemic where I and my footballers took a 30% pay cut to ensure that all other staff were paid in full and that nobody lost their job; that is part of the spirit and it is why footballers really must be consulted. I also support Amendment 86, which would introduce vital principles to guide the regulator’s approach. These principles reflect a sophisticated understanding of how football actually works and what makes it successful. The existing principles in Clause 8 of the Bill appear largely defensive and process focused. In essence, they tell us that the regulator should use resources efficiently, co-operate with stakeholders and act proportionately. With respect, I would argue that these are descriptions of basic administrative competence, not meaningful regulatory philosophy. No one would argue for inefficiency or disproportionality, and that is really the test of whether these are real, consequential principles. More concerning is what these principles admit. They say nothing about preserving what makes English football successful; nothing about maintaining the competitive tension that drives our game’s appeal; and nothing about enabling the responsible ambition that has created the world’s most watched sporting competition. Let me begin with the fundamental point that I believe is captured by this excellent amendment: the need for clearly identified harm and least-intrusive measures. Football thrives on calculated risk taking and sporting ambition. A regulator consistently intervening without clear necessity will suffocate the very qualities that make our game exciting. This is not about weakening regulation; it is about making it effective. Consider how successful football regulation actually works. The Premier League has developed sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining financial sustainability while preserving competitive tension. When issues arise, they are typically best addressed through existing structures that understand football’s unique dynamics. This amendment would ensure that the regulator works with those proven systems rather than creating unnecessary parallel requirements. The principles around competitive tension and ambitious ownership are particularly crucial. The Premier League’s success rests on maintaining genuine competition, where any club can succeed through good management and investment. Aspiration can happen because clubs are empowered and incentivised to take measured risks in pursuit of sporting achievement. The amendments focus on commercial autonomy and innovation, reflecting another vital truth: football’s success comes from constant evolution. The Premier League leads the world precisely because it enables responsible innovation in everything from broadcasting arrangements to community engagement. Overly prescriptive regulation risks spoiling this competitive advantage that we have developed. Most importantly, these principles would ensure that the regulator maintains proper focus by requiring clear evidence of harm and demonstration that the existing structures cannot address issues. We would avoid unnecessary intervention while maintaining proper oversight. This would help us enhance, rather than inhibit, what makes English football successful.

My Lords, I rise briefly to seek clarity on a key point that does not seem clear in some of noble Lords’ amendments, in particular Amendment 79 from this group. From what I can tell in reviewing the Bill and debates around it—I beg your Lordships’ and particularly the Minister’s indulgence if I have missed something and this has been adequately addressed—we have not yet defined a fan. I make my sincere apologies, but I need to point out this abundantly obvious fact. Amendment 79 is a one-word amendment.

22:15:00

We are told that the Bill’s purpose is to

“promote the sustainability of English football”

and its structures. These structures will be considered sustainable if they

“serve the interests of fans”

and

“contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities”.

However, as I mentioned on a previous amendment, while we need to define or maybe expand on definitions of sustainability—and maybe even expand the purpose of the Bill to include growth and/or success, not merely sustainability—we also need to clarify who is considered a fan.

It seems counterintuitive and—given my understanding of corporate governance, in particular sport governance frankly perverse and obtuse that we should structure legislation that is supposed to benefit someone without clearly defining who that someone is. I am afraid my view is that implicit definitions are not going to be effective, let alone sufficient, in guiding the regulator to the right conclusions. The legislation needs to make that definition explicitly, as it has done with other key definitions.

All the other principal, individual protagonists in this drama are defined—from owners to officers to senior managers. Groups or collectives are also defined, such as clubs, teams and competition organisers, to name just a few. Even football itself has its own definition, and esoteric matters such as heritage are defined, but fans do not get a look-in. That is somewhat strange, given that the central purpose of the Bill is to represent fans’ interests. Why are fans not defined? My question to the Minister is: why is the key protagonist in all this, the fan, not defined in the Bill?

Can I help the noble Lord? The debate on defining sustainability was about three hours on the first day and, on fans, about two and a half hours on the second day. I think we have done both of those subjects to death, for hours and hours.

We did not get to a conclusion.

We may not have got to a conclusion, but what about repetition? Here we go again. We have had the discussion; the Minister gave us her answer; we move on. But we have not moved on because, two days later, it is brought up again and again and again. This is the frustration that some people are having. I understand the need to examine and tease out but, if we do not like the teasing out, we cannot keep going back every day to keep teasing out. We will never finish; that is the problem with it. We have had an enormous debate on sustainability and on fans.

I rise to make one point of clarification. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be very pleased if the Minister indicated her support for it, because I have been having discussions about whether we should table further amendments on players in other parts of the Bill—but I will wait on the interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, referred to players and touched on the question of staff. It is not only players who should be included; there should also be references to staff because, after all is said and done, any football club employs not only players but large numbers of staff. Both players and staff should be covered by any amendment.

My Lords, it is telling that so many noble Lords from both principal sides of your Lordships’ House have tabled amendments about the regulatory principles established by the Bill, which have been gathered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has assembled an impressive coalition of support for his Amendment 78. He secured the support of my noble friend Lady Brady, his friend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the present Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock. The Minister keeps reminding us of things that were said in the last Parliament and arguing that we should be bound by them, so I hope she will demand the same consistency from her honourable friend and will pay heed to the support that Amendment 78 has secured. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right that this seems a clear and obvious lacuna in the Bill. I do not think we have had a professional footballer in your Lordships’ House. We have professional cricketers and Olympians and Paralympians, and we have noble Lords with interesting and considerable experience, but he has given voice to a group of people who have not yet been spoken up for in this Bill. Perhaps noble Lords can think of one. I cannot, so maybe it is a suggestion for his noble friend.

I am slightly embarrassed, but there has been a former professional footballer on the Labour Benches. He is now deceased. He was certainly here in the early 2000s. I shall find out his name.

My Lords, it was Lord Burlison.

I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord for rightly recalling him. It is right that he and professional footballers are getting the attention they deserve. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response. I have risen to speak to my amendments in this group—Amendments 74, 75, 76, 82, 84 and 85—as well as to express my support for Amendments 73 and 83 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham and Amendments 86 and 87 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. My Amendment 74 focuses on the meaning of the word “expedient”. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, did not like it last time I mentioned a dictionary definition. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, reached for his dictionary earlier in today’s Committee, so I hope she will not mind me doing so. I think it is important in this instance because in the Cambridge English Dictionary the word “expedient” is defined as, “helpful or useful in a particular situation, but sometimes not morally acceptable”. I was quite struck by that definition. I am not quite sure why a regulator, a public body, should be using its resources in a manner that is sometimes improper or immoral, and I think it is worth scrutinising the choice of that word and the message it might send to the independent regulator. Our choice of language matters, particularly where legislation is concerned. The words in front of us in the Bill, as well as those uttered by the Minister from the Dispatch Box opposite, can be called upon in a court of law and relied upon to explain decisions and decide appropriate courses of action. The regulator will be deriving its power from this Bill and will be operating according to the principles set out in Clause 8, so it is an absolute necessity that the language in the Bill is clear and well chosen, and I do not think “expedient” meets that test. A number of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham in this group are very simple. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted, they change “may” or “should” to “must”. I echo the points that he made, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, made when she had an amendment making the same change earlier in the Committee. When moving that amendment, she noted that it was pretty straightforward, and I would make the same observation about our amendments today. In seeking to make these straightforward changes, we are asking the Government why the less rigorous words “may” and “should” have been used in these instances. That is important to ascertain because of the significance of establishing the regulatory principles in the Bill. The first principle is that the regulator should use its resources in the most efficient—“expedient” as presently set out—and economic way. However, any public body that will be taking funds from the public purse, which this regulator will in its initial period, must be required to use its resources in the most efficient and economic way possible. The word “should” gives a degree of leeway here. I am sure that the clubs that will be paying the levy would not be happy with the regulator using the money they are giving it in an inefficient and uneconomical manner, so Amendment 73 attempts to tighten the phrasing here and remove that leeway. My Amendment 75 would change the “may” to a “must” in paragraph (b). This would mean that the Bill required the regulator to co-operate and engage with the relevant parties. That amendment is complementary to my Amendment 76, which would leave out the words “so far as reasonably practicable”. Again, that amendment is about tightening up the wording of this provision to give the regulator strict instructions rather than looser intent. I have put my name to Amendment 79 alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, which would also amend paragraph (b). The amendment would add fans as one of the parties with which the regulator must co-operate and would therefore standardise this paragraph with other portions of the Bill. My other amendments in this group—that is, Amendments 82, 84 and 85—would all change a “should” to a “must”. Amendment 82 would amend paragraph (d) so that the regulator must acknowledge the unique sporting context of football. That is particularly important for regulated clubs since, as the Bill rightly points out and as my noble friend Lady Brady and others have been keen to stress, football clubs operate in a very different environment from other businesses. The top clubs in the English football pyramid will have teams in both national and international competitions, so the rules and regulations they will already be required to follow must be taken into account by the new regulator. My Amendment 84 states that the independent football regulator must hold officers of a club responsible for the actions of the club where appropriate. Amendment 85 says that the regulator must operate transparently. Transparency, of course, has a wide range of benefits. The Institute for Government, in its report The Benefits of Transparency, argues that: “Collating and publishing government data can also help improve the performance of government services, through the monitoring of key metrics and by increasing access to data across government”. The Institute for Government also points to benefits relating to improved efficiencies, accountability and value for money. Given all this, surely the Bill’s language should seek to require this new regulator to operate with that sort of transparency as well. I will not enter into the debate that we had over the rival Back-Bench Labour Amendments 80 and 81 from the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Mann—although the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in true Liberal Democrat fashion, has signed both. I am interested in the Minister’s view as to whether, between those two, she has a preference in consulting supporters, trusts or elected representatives of football club supporters’ groups. I will not reopen the question of the definition of fans, but I am interested in whether she has a preference between those two amendments.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and, through them, the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Shamash and Lord Mann, for these amendments. This has been a wide-ranging debate. I particularly welcome the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the clarity that he provided. I have noted a number of noble Lords coming back and asking me similar questions to those that we have we had in previous groupings. I will endeavour to continue to give the same answer when required, but it was helpful for the noble Lord to point out that at times we are having a circular and repetitive discussion. Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84 and 85 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, intend to reword the regulatory principles. They seem fundamentally driven by the desire to ensure that the regulator is held more strongly to the principles. However, we are confident that the current wording of the Bill, which has not changed since the previous Conservative Government laid this Bill before Parliament, is more than sufficient to ensure that the regulator operates in an appropriate way and strikes the balance between steering the regulator’s approach and not impinging on its adaptability and independence. By laying out explicitly in the Bill the principles by which the regulator should exercise its functions, we are already making a clear statement about the importance of these stated factors. However, these are intended to be principles, not duties, and the drafting reflects that. In relation to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the difference between “must”, “should” and so forth, we do not agree that the regulator must be required to do these things at all times and in all cases but rather that some flexibility is important. To give an example, if the regulator were enforcing against a club, it might not be appropriate or possible for the regulator to constructively engage and co-operate with that club, as principle (b) encourages it to do. By having these principles as “should” and not “must”, that flexibility is achieved.

22:30:00

I turn to Amendments 86 and 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham. On his Amendment 86, I will take each proposed new principle individually. On his proposed new principle (h), we believe that this is covered through the regulatory principles already—in particular, principle (c) on proportionality, which gets to the heart of what he is proposing here. We believe that the aspects in proposed new principles (i), (j) and (k) are already covered by the duty in Clause (7)(2) to have regard to key secondary outcomes such as competitiveness and investment. There is nothing in the regulator’s regime that will preclude ambitious investment, provided that it is done sustainably. On proposed new principle (l), this is already achieved by Clause 88, which places restrictions on the disclosure of information.

Finally, on the noble Lord’s proposed new principle (m), the regulator should not be taking its lead from competition organisers. The reason for introducing this legislation is that regulation from industry has proven inadequate. The system is designed so that the regulator will not intervene if the required standards are being met. If clubs are meeting their threshold requirements through their compliance with the industry’s own existing rules, the regulator will not need to apply discretionary licence conditions.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 87, we do not think that attempting to fix in statute the number of employees that the regulator will be limited to, without an understanding of the workload or type of regulatory activity required, is appropriate. The regulator may need more than 40 full-time equivalents, or it may need fewer. That will be for the regulator to decide once it is set up, and this may change over time as appropriate to its workload. The Government will scrutinise its costs and the regulator will be governed by the Managing Public Money principles to ensure that it delivers value for money.

I understand that Amendments 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 seek to include different groups in the Bill for the regulator to co-operate and proactively and constructively engage with. I acknowledge that the intent of Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, is to elevate the voice of minority groups in football and ensure that the regulator appropriately engages and considers the interests of these groups.

My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie spoke passionately on his Amendment 78, along with my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. We recognise the vital role that football players play in the industry. It was helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to point out that there are other people who work for football clubs, but it is the players who draw the crowds, viewership and revenues that come with this. I look forward to future discussion, ahead of Report, on the interesting points that all noble Lords raised. It was a particularly interesting point of consensus across the Committee.

Amendments 79, 80, and 81 are in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor, Lord Shamash and Lord Mann. We recognise the intent behind these amendments to add “fans”, “supporters’ trusts” and

“elected representatives of club supporters groups”

to the list of persons that the regulator should co-operate and proactively and constructively engage with. I recognise the wealth of experience that noble Lords have between them in this area.

I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make progress and is moving through a large number of amendments. To refer back to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the Minister said that she looked forward to a further discussion at a later stage. Could she state whether she agrees with the idea that the regulator must engage with football players and their representatives? I think the mood of the Committee went a bit further than just having hopeful discussions in future, and that this was something that really should be considered to be placed in the primary legislation. Could she be a little more explicit? I know that she was sympathetic, but does she agree that that is an issue that should now be looked at in the context of the legislation?

The noble Lord might need to be content with my sympathy at this stage. I genuinely look forward to future discussions on this point. Overall, the Government have been clear that the regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, meaning that it would co-operate constructively with the regulated industry where possible. There are some parts of the Bill—this is one of them—that directly relate to the people or organisations being regulated, rather than to stakeholders across the game more widely. The intention of the regulatory principle in question is to guide the regulator to co-operate constructively specifically with the regulated industry where possible, as this co-operative approach might not otherwise be explicit. We think that to list every possible stakeholder, or possible interpretation of fans or fan groups, that the regulator “should” ever engage with during the course of regulation, could be onerous on participants and the regulator. However, I am happy to meet my noble friends to discuss further how we can reassure fans that they will be consulted where appropriate. For supporters and their relevant representative groups it is clear that the regulator should be acting in their interests. There are several places where this is formalised through specific consultation requirements; for example, in relation to Clause 45, the prohibited competitions clause. For decisions materially impacting players, I recognise that the game is nothing without players, as I said earlier; it is absolutely right that the regulator works with them on matters that impact them. As I mentioned, the specific regulatory principle in question is intended to steer the regulator to co-operate with the regulated population. This does not include players, as they are not themselves subject to the regulator’s regime. This would be not an appropriate place to include players, or indeed any other stakeholder group. However, I understand the desire among noble Lords to ensure that important stakeholder groups are appropriately acknowledged in the Bill. I am sure we will revisit this topic ahead of Report and in future debates. With that said, and for the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group. I hope that noble Lords and my noble friends will not press them.

I thank the Minister. I thought we had an uncontroversial set of amendments with a great deal of consensus around the issue of players and fans. I thought that we almost had the ball in the back of the net. We had some sympathy from the Minister, who said she was looking forward to discussing this further; unfortunately, we did not quite get a yes. I hope we can firm that up as we continue to press for a goal as the Bill approaches Report. There was a large degree of consensus in the Chamber that we definitely “must” include players and fans, rather than just “should”. I hope we are able to pursue that further as the Bill progresses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Amendments 74 to 87 not moved.

Amendment 88

Moved by

88: Clause 8, page 6, line 24, at end insert— “(2) The IFR is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010.”

My Lords, I have the only amendment in this group. Amendment 88 is intended merely as a probing amendment to give us the opportunity to ask the Minister what the Government’s policies will be with regard to the other legal requirements that will be placed on the regulator. I am simply seeking some clarifications here, which I hope she can give. The amendment states that the independent football regulator must be bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010. I note that Schedule 12 addresses these issues by inserting the name of the independent football regulator into the respective Acts of Parliament, but I am seeking clarification principally on how the Government will put in place concrete plans of action to ensure that the regulator abides by both those Acts. I must admit that I have not read from cover to cover Sir Tony Blair’s memoir A Journey, published in 2010, but there is one passage that I have read and re-read with relish. It is brief so, mindful of the entreaties of the Government Chief Whip but noting the fans of Sir Tony on the Benches opposite, I will quote it: “Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it. Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder, I used to say—more than a little unfairly—to any civil servant who would listen: Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you, knowing what you know have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?” I was struck by that passage. It bears returning to. There are lessons there for a Labour Government with a large majority and seeking to legislate in new ways to reflect on. But this is the law of the land and these are important Acts of Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what actions the Government will take to ensure that the regulator acts with the transparency required under the Freedom of Information Act, notwithstanding Sir Tony’s views on it now, and the Equality Act 2010. I beg to move.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for this amendment to ensure that the regulator must comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Equality Act. This is, of course, very important. That is why, per the consequential amendments outlined in paragraphs 4 and 9 of Schedule 12, the regulator will already be subject to these Acts. As a result, this amendment would duplicate this requirement that is already in the Bill and is therefore not necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware from his time as a Minister, legislation should be clear and concise where possible. His amendment would lengthen the Bill to duplicate an existing requirement. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.

I am grateful to the Minister. As I say, I was mindful that it is in Schedule 12, but she did not give much additional information on how the Government will seek to work with the regulator in making sure that it is adhered to. However, I appreciate that that is for the regulator. I am grateful to her for those reassurances. I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the former Prime Minister’s memoir from cover to cover so, with Christmas coming, I note that my wish list is still to be filled. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed.

Amendment 89 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

Amendment 90 not moved.

Amendment 91

Moved by

91: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Televising of football matches of national interest(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert—“(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally tabled two amendments about making sure that terrestrial television carries football matches. When we talk about the quality of football that makes the nation treasure it, access is an important factor. We have had many arguments about what should be covered by free-to-air services. What should be on there? The “crown jewel” events. We are talking about something that we have had for a long time, because there are certain events that will not be hidden behind a pay wall. Seeing one or two of these primary gems makes sure that you have a better connection with the rest of the game. I hope that we will make sure that we continue to get them.

22:45:00

I could go on and wax lyrical, but I would not be able to do it as well as my noble friend. I will leave the Committee with just this thought: if we are going to continue to have this strong connection with our fan base, we really should have this approach to free-to-air services, or something like it, restated—and this Bill would be a good place to do it. I hope that we can get from the Minister a commitment that we will not restrict it further.

Usually, with football—or whatever other sport—we say, “We can make lots of money out of it and we will do lots of good things with the money, but we can’t have it free to air”. The only sport I have ever heard people argue for the other way around was rugby league: it wanted to be a “crown jewel” event, but it maintains quite good free-to-air services. I hope that the Minister will agree that we should continue to have free-to-air services and listed events, that they should continue to be an important factor and that football will not find itself able to remove them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in Amendments 91 and 92. I support his view on having free-to-air services for certain sports. My main reason is to expose those sports to the next generation—the youngers coming through. He mentioned rugby—which is not as available as it used to be, certainly not compared with when I was young—but this applies to other sports, including cricket specifically, as well as golf and boxing, which all now have very restricted free-to-air viewing. You wonder what that does to the current generation of children, who may want to be exposed to the sport, but cannot because their parents, for whatever reason, do not have subscriptions to the various channels. Of course, the regulator will not cover Scotland—perhaps it will have its own regulator following this—but, currently, the Scotland men’s national football matches are available only on YouTube. You could say that that is equivalent to free-to-air viewing, but it is not in any way how international football should be presented. The whole question of how sport is made available to future generations—although it is not really for our debate today—is one that we need to think about very seriously.

My Lords, I say simply that, while some very good arguments have been put forward, we have to be very careful here. The whole question of listed events that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I have been engaged on for many decades, let alone a year, is a complicated and difficult issue. Currently, the Secretary of State has to opine as to whether listing an event meets the criterion of having “special national resonance”. That, in its own right, is a difficult thing for the Secretary of State to opine on. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will recall that, only five years ago, the then Secretary of State made a famous speech on listed events where she put forward the idea that whenever a men’s event was listed, the women’s equivalent should be too. That brought into play a whole series of complex questions, which were important but certainly set the hares running among the people who were focused on listing events. This is complicated further by virtue of a generational change. Young people increasingly access, and are comfortable accessing, all forms of media to watch the sporting events that they wish to see, sometimes in ways that do not necessarily follow the rules. The changing media landscape, certainly for young people, means that the listed event question may even become obsolete. I am not saying that it will but that is the sort of question that is now being posed as a result of the different patterns of media accessed particularly by young people, as opposed to our generation. I am being courteous to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, when I say that, because he looks a good deal younger than I am. In that context, I would hesitate to push the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as valuable as they are, to further consideration in this Bill. However, it is important and probably timely that we now look at the whole question of listed events separately because they are vital to many sports. Equally, in the context of football, and without the wider issues that I have sought to bring to the Committee’s attention, we may be too focused on one sport and not considering the wider implications of what should and should not be listed in today’s media landscape.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The amendment is probably badly worded, but I am sure the inference is about the England football team rather than league clubs and football teams. I was lucky enough to watch England win the World Cup in 1966. I was 14, and it was on television. After that match, loads of people who did not particularly like football began to play football. Geoff Hurst, Martin Peters and Bobby Moore—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady —show the power of that. Geoff Hurst still goes around inspiring people, even now in his later years in life. If you are speaking of putting people on committees, you could ask for no finer a person than Geoff Hurst. If we are talking about free to air and it is a national team, that is where you will get more of an audience—to see England play live, rather than having to pay to watch it on any of the paid-for channels. The noble Lord is right: it sits with the golf, the cricket and all the other important sports. But football is our national sport, and our national football team should be live on air, especially major competitions.

My Lords, in introducing this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, used the phrase “hiding behind a paywall”. I wonder whether that is really a fair description of paying for something. When I got my phone, it was hiding behind a paywall: it was not given to me free; I had to shell out for it. I need a new car at the moment; my heap of junk of a Nissan has collapsed. The new one is hiding behind a paywall, and I have to pay for it. I had to pay for my dinner tonight; it was hiding behind a paywall. There is an assumption here that there is no such thing as private property or free contract and that everything ought to be somehow at the disposition of regulators or of state officials. That is not how we got here. If you do not respect the fundamental ability of sporting clubs or indeed broadcasters to do what they think is in their best interests, you end up with suboptimal outcomes. This is a very neat demonstration of why, once you create these regulatory structures, they expand and expand—because people airily demand things and feel very virtuous in demanding them without any thought for the practicalities of the people who have to implement them.

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 91 and 92 because they try to make the regulator a consultee on listed events and would place a duty on it to have regard to the desirability of making more domestic games free to air. I have huge respect for the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard, and their colleagues, and I know that these amendments relate to a manifesto commitment made by their party, but I hope it is helpful to talk a little about how football’s broadcast economy works in practice. The Premier League’s domestic broadcasting rights are contracted through to 2029. Of course, they represent far more than a simple commercial arrangement: they form the foundation of English football’s entire economic model, and their thoughtful and innovative packaging is a hugely important part of the Premier League’s success. The substantial revenues they generate enable the Premier League to provide £1.6 billion of support to the wider pyramid, representing 16% of central revenues, of which—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, may like to know—£25 million goes to funding the PFA. That is why it keeps its joining fee at £20 and its subs at £150. The sophistication and complexity of broadcasting arrangements is enormous and a huge source of competitive advantage for English football. Each broadcasting slot and each package of rights exists within an intricate ecosystem where values are fundamentally interdependent. These are not discrete assets that can be easily separated; they form a carefully balanced whole that has taken decades to develop to create value and appeal. Forcing certain matches to be free to air would not just affect those specific fixtures; it would fundamentally undermine the value proposition of every broadcasting package. Premium broadcasters invest based on exclusive content that attracts subscribers. Remove that exclusivity —even partially—and decouple certain packages from each other and the entire model becomes unsustainable. The consequences that would cascade throughout football are significant. A significant reduction in broadcast values would not just affect Premier League clubs but immediately impact the entire pyramid through reduced solidarity payments, youth development funding and grass-roots investment. The damage to football’s economic ecosystem would be profound and potentially irreversible. Of course, this sort of intervention would create exactly the kind of seismic instability the regulator is meant to prevent. In an attempt to increase access to certain matches, it would risk destabilising the very mechanism that funds football’s broader development and sustainability. The Premier League’s success in maintaining the growing broadcast revenues, which benefit the entire game, comes through very careful and innovative management of these arrangements. While I respect my noble friend’s motivations and good intentions here, I must strongly oppose the expansion of the scope of the IFR in the way proposed.

My Lords, my Amendment 265 falls in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who has tabled it with me. I know he shares my gratitude to the public service broadcasters with which we have discussed this matter. Our amendment and the two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, all attempt to bring protections for the listed events regime into the scope of the Bill, or at least to give us the opportunity to have the debate that my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly says is needed and perhaps even overdue. In saying that, I am very mindful that we were likely to have had that debate in the exchanges on the now Media Act earlier this year, had the general election not intervened and had the then Bill not gone through the abbreviated processes in wash-up. I think my noble friend is right and that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have agreed, had he been here, that these issues deserve some consideration. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I have brought forward is intended to probe the Government about how they plan to protect digital on-demand rights for the listed events regime. While live television viewing of events is currently included in the regime, there is nothing to stop clipped videos of digital on-demand rights from going behind a paywall. My noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere would certainly have enthusiastically taken part and would have made some very interesting points in the debate we could have had on the listed events regime. This is in the context of public service broadcasters that are broadcasting things that have been deemed particularly important for the public to see in a way that is different from the commercial suppliers, which can provide so many other things to people in the differing ways that they do.

23:00:00

Live rights to listed events will remain critical to meeting the compelling public interest in free and universal coverage of key national sporting moments, regardless of how that live coverage is delivered, but, as noble Lords have noted, how audiences consume sports is changing. For many people, particularly younger people, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said, on-demand viewing via digital platforms is increasingly the norm—even more so, of course, for events that take place at times which fall overnight in the UK, something this Committee stage is rapidly seeking to emulate.

In the first nine months of 2024, the BBC had over 275 million requests for on-demand clips and video packages across a number of sports. These trends will only accelerate with the men’s football World Cup in the United States of America, Mexico and Canada in 2026, where the time difference is obviously not in our favour. Audiences are also increasingly engaging with a range of digital content derived from listed events coverage, alongside live coverage of the events themselves, particularly younger audiences who might see those spoilers and clips through other media that they consume in real time or when they wake up.

The 2024 global sports survey has indeed revealed that a large percentage of younger football fans prefer to watch game highlights and short videos online, rather than watching games live on television. If we are thinking about the sustainability of football and being mindful of its future healthiness, then being able to cater to that next generation of fans—indeed, to make sure that we continue to inspire them and that they can derive the same benefits from the sport that previous generations have—is surely something worth considering.

Access to digital rights such as the ability to deploy on-demand highlights and clips of the key moments in listed events—perhaps goals or tries, as in the preferred sport of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—are crucial components of what public service broadcasters offer to audiences. Although such digital rights are often bundled with live rights at present, there is no certainty that this will continue as online platforms and social media companies seek to acquire them. Without regulatory protection, commercial providers could buy these rights for listed events on an exclusive basis and charge for them. That might not dismay my noble friend Lord Hannan in the way that it does other Members of the Committee, but it would clearly have an effect on the number of people able to share in these unifying national moments. Such a scenario would, I think the Committee would agree, undermine the entire purpose of the listed events regime.

The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and I have brought forward is intended to deal with the current pitfalls with listed events by addressing deficiencies in how the Bill approaches the question of “relevant revenue” for the purposes of distributing that revenue. Ensuring that the concept of relevant revenue is fit for purpose in regard to the listed events regime is clearly a matter within scope of the Bill.

As currently drafted, “relevant revenue” is any revenue arising from

“the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches”.

The use of “broadcasting” here is increasingly antiquated and could lead, particularly as those changes accelerate, to ever narrower interpretation, including the revenue only from the sale of linear rights to broadcast matches in full. That could exclude significant extra revenue streams, to the detriment of clubs, so our amendment introduces concepts which we think are more up to date and reflect how rights to audiovisual football content are increasingly exploited.

As the noble Baroness knows, her predecessors in her department commissioned a review to examine the status of digital on-demand rights and their relation to the listed regime. I do not know whether she is able to give us an update on that work from her department this evening and when it might be completed, but I hope that she will see, particularly given the support of her noble friend Lord Bassam and me, that this is an issue which unites both sides of the Committee and is worth considering in the context of this Bill, even if we did not get the opportunity to do so during the passage of the Media Act. I look forward to her reply.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving the amendment at the start of the debate on this group. Amendments 91 and 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raise an important issue that I welcome the opportunity to discuss. The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. From the start, there have been strong voices from a number of areas that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for the football authorities and other bodies to take the lead. I am sure the noble Lords will agree that the bar for statutory intervention in any market should be high, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although with different words. That is why we have ensured that the regulator’s remit is focused solely on tackling the specific market failures that carry a risk of significant harm to fans and communities but which we believe the industry cannot solve through self-regulation. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to see more matches free to air and understand the frustration of fans who do not always have access to watch their team. I have particular sympathy for the point made by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie about the access of young people to sport. However, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on which free-to-air football matches are broadcast and to have to take into account the desirability of promoting more football matches becoming listed events. This widened remit of considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would prove a distraction from the key responsibility of the regulator to ensure the financial sustainability of football clubs and would widen the scope of the Bill. Turning to Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I was slightly surprised that the Opposition were so keen to debate this amendment now given that it is contingent on Amendment 263, which we will come to later in Committee. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I will respond. As we face a changing media landscape, we must account for alternative forms of content and ensure the scope of the backstop is not restricted only to television broadcasting rights. This amendment intends to ensure that it is clear that a wide variety of content is in scope of the definition of “relevant revenue”. However, the existing drafting of the Bill has already been chosen carefully to ensure that we encapsulate alternative media sources. The current definition of “relevant revenue” already covers all sales or acquisitions of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches, which would apply to revenue produced by online content as well if that online content used footage from broadcast matches. Therefore, the concern underlying the amendment is suitably addressed by the current drafting of the Bill. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope that they will not be pressed.

My Lords, that was not the most positive response I have had to an amendment, but it was worth raising the idea of the listed events and certain things being culturally important. I will take away what the Minister has said and look at it, but it is about the principle that certain things are a little more important and reflect well on the actual product. It can be regarded as a little bit of advertising for those people who are taking some money. If we cast across to other sports, I hope that people will bear in mind the experience of England Rugby. At one point, it was selling its home games, which meant that fans saw England only when they were away—that was the situation a number of years ago. There is a certain point beyond which you are cutting off people and interest, and possibly the expansion of the rest of your market. Yes, things hide behind paywalls if you have not got the money to pay for it or, as often happens in the modern broadcast world, you discover you bought the wrong bit. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I reserve my position about looking at it again.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 93

Moved by

93: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Requirements on Football Agents(1) The IFR must use its powers under this part to ensure that any person who is licenced by the Football Association to provide football agent services (“a football agent”) must—(a) always act in the best interests of their client Players, Coaches or Clubs and in accordance with their fiduciary duties;(b) abide by article 16 of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations relating to their conduct;(c) respect and adhere to the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of the competent bodies of FIFA, the IFR and the Football Association;(d) avoid conflicts of interest while providing their Football Agent Services;(e) ensure that their name, FIFA licence number, FA registration number, signature, the name of their client Player, Coach or Club and any other information as may be required by The Association from time to time appear in any contracts resulting from the provision of their Football Agent Service.(2) Any football agent must, upon request, cooperate with the relevant body of the Football Association, or with the IFR, with respect to any type of information. (3) A football agent must submit to the Football Association and the IFR any agreement with a Player, Coach or Club other than a Representation Agreement, including but not limited to agreements relating to Other Services within 14 days of execution.(4) Within 14 days of payment of a fee related to any agreement entered into with a Player, Coach or Club other than a Representation Agreement, a football agent must submit confirmation of receipt and proof of receipt of such payment to the Football Association and the IFR.(5) For the purposes of this section, a person is a football agent if they provide football agents services.(6) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (5), “football agent services” means football-related services performed for or on behalf of a Client, including any negotiation, communication relating or preparatory to the same, or other related activity, with the purpose, objective or intention of concluding a Transaction.”

My Lords, my Amendment 93 would place new requirements on the independent football regulator with regard to football agents. There is nothing new about agents. They have a role to play in the football league, but they have a disproportionate influence now on players, clubs and the league. Premier League clubs spent a combined £409 million on agents and intermediaries in the 12 months to February 2024, according to the Football Association report last week. Most of this money is leaving football. FIFA is trying to implement some clear and fair rules to the transfer system, including regulations on agents, for the sake of transparency, accountability and better redistribution across all levels of the game. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said that more money should be going to “the clubs that trained and developed the players signed”. He called on Governments and lawmakers to join him and “play an active role in ensuring the funds generated in transfers are kept within football and are shared with clubs from all around the world, as they are absolutely key for current and future generations of footballers”. It appears to be a glaring omission, therefore, that we have this 125-page Bill to regulate football, yet agents are not mentioned once. This cannot be right. There exists a set of Football Association regulations that license agents, which are based on the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. These were approved by the FIFA council on 16 December 2022 and sought to provide a balanced legal instrument to protect the effective functioning and integrity of football transfer systems. The importance of this system cannot be overestimated. Without a properly functioning transfer market, clubs would not be able to obtain the world-class talent they so desperately require; players would not be able to climb the ladder and progress their career, which would instead stagnate; and fans would suffer, too, as they would not be able to enjoy the dynamism and excitement that transfer windows bring to the game or see new faces play in the team that they so love. However, those FIFA regulations have faced legal challenges in the German courts. On 24 May 2023, the district court of Dortmund placed an injunction demanding that FIFA suspend a number of provisions of its football agent regulations for any transfer that was linked with the European Union. The FIFA circular that was sent to the relevant national associations, of which the FA was one, said that the ruling was “inconsistent with … judicial decisions in other European countries”. Consequently, large parts of the FA’s own regulations were suspended in December last year. This amendment seeks to rectify the situation without creating regulatory overlap with the FA by codifying the regulations that had to be suspended. It therefore would not double up on the licensing rules that the FA and FIFA have already set out, but would instead complement those rules. Under this amendment, the regulator would have a duty to ensure that anyone who is licensed by the FA to carry out football agent services abides by Article 16 of the FIFA regulations. That article establishes the rights and obligations of agents. It ensures that agents act in good faith, comply with reporting requirements and uphold the values of the game. Unfortunately, the provision that required agents to comply with Article 16 was one of those that was suspended. This amendment would also require agents to co-operate with the FA and the independent football regulator whenever those bodies should require, and to ensure that they operate with full transparency. I believe it is only right that these rules should be reintroduced, so that is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I would be most grateful if the Minister could commit to reviewing the requirements placed on football agents and inform the Committee of what action the Government plan to take to ensure that agents are held to the same standards by this regulator as clubs and leagues will be.

23:15:00

My Lords, I support this amendment, which seeks to address one of the most significant and unresolved issues in football governance: the regulation of football agents. The amendment is not just about imposing stricter rules on agents; it is about protecting the financial stability of English football and ensuring that the resources within the game are directed towards its growth and long-term health. In the last five years, Premier League clubs alone have spent a staggering £1.65 billion on agents’ fees. This represents an extraordinary extraction of wealth from the game. It is money that could otherwise be invested in stadiums, academies, community projects, et cetera. The agent market is riddled with dysfunction. The incentive structures are fundamentally misaligned, with practices such as dual representation creating inflationary pressures on transfer market fees and wages. Without reform, the unchecked escalation of agent fees will continue to threaten the financial stability of clubs, and limit the growth and potential of the industry. While the amendment addresses a critical issue, it also highlights a broader concern: the lack of meaningful engagement from the Government on how to support English football beyond the confines of the Bill. The Bill creates significant new regulatory obligations and risks for damage within football, particularly for Premier League clubs, without addressing the areas where government action could help the game thrive. Let me be clear: the amendment provides an opportunity to have that conversation. It forces us to ask why the Government have not engaged with clubs on how to help clubs grow and succeed while addressing the inefficiencies in football or the opportunities we have to grow with government assistance. For example, on access to talent, since Brexit English clubs have faced significantly restricted access to international talent compared with competitor leagues. Reforming these laws could reduce player acquisition costs, improve competitiveness and enhance the financial health of the pyramid. On tax incentives for investment, football infrastructure is a national asset. Other countries, such as France and the US, recognise this through targeted tax incentives for stadium development and training facilities. Yet here in the UK we have no similar framework to support clubs to make these long-term investments. These are areas where constructive government engagement could make a real difference. Yet, instead of addressing these opportunities, the Bill focuses on imposing new obligations without offering the tools to support growth or mitigate the unintended consequences. Premier League clubs would really welcome engagement on these potential growth opportunities. Turning back to agents, the lack of effective regulation has been an ongoing issue for decades. The Premier League has already attempted to address this through initiatives such as its 2017 review into intermediaries, which identified serious problems, including the lack of qualifications, excessive influence, and weak enforcement mechanisms. While clubs are willing to take bold unilateral steps, including banning dual representation, these measures were ultimately not implemented, because FIFA launched its own reform process. However, FIFA’s efforts have stalled due to the legal challenges my noble friend mentioned, and its proposed cap on agents’ fees has been deemed unlawful in the UK. Without primary legislation, meaningful reform remains out of reach. The amendment is therefore timely. It provides a legislative framework to ensure that agents act in the best interest of their clients, comply with FIFA regulations and disclose key information about their activities. These measures would not only bring transparency but reduce the inflationary pressures caused by the current dysfunctional system. Whether the Bill is deemed the appropriate place for action or not, I hope the Government will engage with clubs and leagues on how to pursue much-needed reform in a way that safeguards competitiveness. In this respect, this amendment also serves a broader purpose: it highlights the imbalance in how the Government are approaching the Bill. Clubs are being asked to shoulder significant new regulatory burdens, yet there is little or no discussion about how the Government could support them in other critical areas. Whether it is addressing the dysfunction in the agent market, widening access to talent or incentivising infrastructure investment, so much more could be done to help English football grow and succeed. This amendment addresses a pressing issue that has gone unregulated for far too long. The influence of agents on the game and the resources extracted through their fees cannot be ignored. At the same time, this amendment is a reminder of the broader need for the Government to engage with football on how to support growth and sustainability, not just impose new obligations. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to engage meaningfully with clubs and leagues, not just on the regulation of agents but on the wider opportunities I have mentioned, to ensure that English football remains the most dynamic and competitive league in the world.

My Lords, I support both my noble friends who have spoken to this amendment. We spoke earlier about the importance of taking into account the players—the noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised that. Agents push, not least to increase the opportunities for the players to earn money, and one of the biggest problems and the reason why we should engage with players—for example, with the Club World Cup coming up—is that further strain is placed on the elite players. Agents are directly involved in that market; they go right to the heart of the financial stability of the game. The agent market is central to the infrastructure of professional football. If we are to have a regulator, it is inconceivable that it should not consider the impact of agents, which some see as heavily dysfunctional and others see as beneficial if regulated—FIFA has gone through huge challenges recently in terms of the overall regulation of that market. The regulation is difficult enough, but it is impossible not to regulate football as is proposed under this legislation without the regulator taking into account the impact of agents on the financial stability of the clubs. That is the key point. To a great extent, the financial stability of clubs relies on the good working of the agent market. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, she will reflect on that and on the importance of this amendment, and that she will look to see whether advice, even, can be given to the regulator to ensure that this is fully taken into account, to ensure a smooth functioning of the professional football market and, above all, the financial stability of the clubs.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow for tabling his Amendment 93 and giving us the opportunity to discuss the duties of, requirements for and obligations on football agents. As my noble friend established, there is no mention of agents anywhere in the Bill—it is another group, as with the useful debate we had earlier on professional players, where the Bill is perhaps more silent than it ought to be. I will not put my noble friend on the spot and ask him, as I did on that group, whether there ever have been professional football agents in your Lordships’ House—I suppose that may be a bit more likely than professional footballers. It seems I have exhausted his parliamentary, historical and sporting knowledge in this instance. This has been a helpful area of consideration for us. As my noble friend Lady Brady set out very clearly, football agents are one of the areas that absolutely require greater consideration when we consider the regulation of English football. Attempts to bring them under the scope of FIFA and of the Football Association’s regulatory frameworks have been somewhat successful but have not been fully implemented, for the reasons my noble friend mentioned. The role of a football agent is one of significant influence. Agents negotiate contracts, secure endorsements and guide careers. In many cases they hold the futures of young and often vulnerable players in their hands. It is therefore imperative that agents act in the best interests of their clients. My noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow’s amendment enshrines that important principle, requiring agents to abide by fiduciary duties and to avoid conflicts of interest. Such measures are not only common sense but consistent with the values of fairness and accountability that underpin so much else of the Bill. Article 16 of FIFA’s Football Agent Regulations already sets out high standards for agents’ conduct, but adherence to these standards has been inconsistent. By incorporating them in our domestic legislation in the way that my noble friend’s amendment suggests and through the powers of the new independent football regulator, we would send a strong message that, in this country, we expect the highest standards and are prepared to enforce them. My noble friend’s amendment also addresses transparency—another important issue. Requiring agents to disclose agreements and payments would ensure that all interested parties, including clubs and governing bodies, can scrutinise transactions. This is particularly important when vast sums of money are at stake and public confidence is on the line. Greater transparency is not just good for governance; it is essential to maintaining the very credibility of the sport. This amendment would involve additional burdens on agents—my noble friends Lord Evans and Lady Brady were quite candid in saying that in their speeches—but we must remember that these are people who operate in an industry where the stakes are extremely high. Professional football is a multi-billion-pound sector with far-reaching economic and social implications. It is not unreasonable to expect those operating in it to meet rigorous professional standards; of course, that is what the Bill seeks to do for clubs and other parties in the sector. If the Government are willing to take the steps that they are taking to regulate clubs and competition organisers, why would they not be willing to do so with agents? I ask that neutrally because it is a worthwhile area for us to probe. Moreover, this amendment would uphold individual responsibility by demanding ethical conduct from agents. It would reinforce accountability by ensuring that the regulator can scrutinise agents’ practices effectively and would protect the integrity of the market, creating a level playing field for clubs and players. This amendment is about protecting the players, many of whom are young people stepping into a world of vast financial opportunity but also, of course, of significant risk. By holding agents to these high standards, we would ensure that players are not exploited or misled, enabling them to focus on their careers, fulfil their potential and delight fans of football for many years to come. I share the anxiety that my noble friends set out in terms of the behaviours that we have seen in this area. There have long been allegations of financial misconduct or bungs by agents acting in English football. An agent and senior club manager exposed by the Daily Telegraph investigation in 2016 were later suspended by the FA, having been charged with bribery—a very serious offence—so the independent football regulator must do all that is possible to avoid the corruption of the beautiful game and serious crimes such as this. There is also the matter of fraudulent transfers, such of that of Ali Dia. In November 1996, Dia’s agent famously convinced Graeme Souness, then the Southampton manager, that he was the cousin of the FIFA World Player of the Year and Ballon d’Or winner, George Weah, which led to Dia signing a one-month contract with Southampton just a few days later. Dia played only one match in his short spell at the club: he came on as a substitute in a league game but was then himself substituted. He was subsequently released just 14 days into his contract. Dia’s teammate for that one game, Matt Le Tissier, is quoted as saying: “He ran around the pitch like Bambi on ice; it was very embarrassing to watch”. These are the sorts of scenarios that we want to avoid —scenarios through which clubs are defrauded and players are exploited. This is a sensible amendment to help ensure the integrity of football, which is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Bill and many of the measures that are already in it. I hope that the Minister looks favourably upon it and gives it the consideration it deserves.

23:30:00

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for his amendment, which was an interesting contribution to this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, eloquently outlined the costs to the game. The actions of some football agents are clearly a concern, with both the Government and FIFA publicly recognising it as a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, gave a number of specific examples. FIFA has recognised the need for the better international regulation of agents and proposed reforms on this to its member associations. The Government agree with the fan-led review that a global, game-wide solution, led by the industry, is preferable to statutory regulation of agents through the independent football regulator. Trying to address this issue unilaterally could simply push global talent to other markets, so a multilateral solution is preferable. If there is reform, the Government will work with the FA to ensure that any future regulation is fit for purpose. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. I am somewhat disappointed by talk of a unilateral approach, given that FIFA is calling for other countries and authorities to work with it, but perhaps we can revisit this at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 10: State of the game report

Amendment 94

Moved by

94: Clause 10, page 6, line 35, after “football” insert “, including factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs” Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires the State of the Game report to include, in its overview of issues affecting English football, factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs.

My Lords, there are quite a lot of amendments in this group, so I should say at the outset that I am trying to get assurances from the Minister on two specific points. They relate to the “state of the game” report, on which I know a lot of work has already been done. The first assurance is that the report will be as comprehensive as possible. My colleagues and I have listed a number of items that should be included. Some are issues that we have already discussed. Some are very significant, such as community, social impact, how well managed clubs are, an assessment of the distribution arrangements, issues around women’s football, multi-club ownership, player welfare, equalities and social inclusion. All those things should be encompassed by the “state of the game” report, and, without going into any one of them at this stage, I hope we can agree that this report should be as comprehensive as possible. It is important that the regulator has independent and substantial information on which to make judgments. That is the first point that I raise with the Minister and on which I seek her assurances. My second point concerns the timing of the report. As I said, I know that a lot of work has gone on to prepare for the report. The Bill suggests that it should be out as soon as possible, but gives an 18-month deadline. One amendment in this group seeks to reduce that to 12 months. Given the amount of attention on the Bill, that it has been in the pipeline for so long and that people are aware of these issues, a 12-month timescale should be appropriate. I hope the Minister agrees that the report should be published as soon as possible. There is also the question of how often we should have this report. The Bill suggests five years and my amendment suggests three. It suggests that the report should be presented to Parliament. This is not a controversial area, but some reassurances would be beneficial, so that everybody is clear where we are going forward.

My Lords, the “state of the game” report is one of those things that has been almost universally welcomed. It will look at this very big and complex industry, with a very successful top and struggling foundations—that is how the industry appears to many people. My name appears on this amendment alongside that of the noble Baroness because of things such as social impact. We are doing this because it is reckoned to be an important subject that matters a lot to people, and we keep being told that it is a big business—the biggest invisible earner going. If we get a report that is too narrow, we will not be looking at this huge social impact and what goes on. Many of the things that we are talking about here are out of scope of the main operation of the Bill, but they should be looked at somewhere. The women’s game is one that comes to mind, along with players, which these amendments propose would feature here. If we are not going to look at such things in the Bill, we should look at them in the “state of the game” report. It is a huge subject that we are talking about here; we have taken on something that is quite brave. If we do not find out how it is functioning and what is going on, we will be missing a trick. I would hope that we would do this as soon as we can—having slightly more frequent reports, at least at the beginning, would not be a bad idea. The “state of the game” report is a huge opportunity for gathering a great deal of very useful information.

I support many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has raised under Amendment 94. I see that the Chief Whip is in his place; he will be pleased to note that nine of the amendments that we are considering now came from the Labour Benches, and that we have reached page 6 of the Bill. The noble Baroness made the important point that Parliament should receive and debate the “state of the game” report. I am perfectly happy for the regulator, if we are going to have one, to present the report. However, in presenting the report, full attention needs to be paid to factors relating to the community and social impacts of regulated clubs and the women’s game. It is impossible when looking at this overall—and the Bill says that: “A state of the game report must include … an overview of the main issues that the IFR considers to be affecting English football”, —not to consider the development in the women’s game. It is a central part of English football, as cited in the Bill. There is one other area at which we need to look at a later stage, on which I have no intention of detaining the Committee this evening. The regulator is looking at English football clubs and the game in England, but 14 Premier League clubs are in multi-club ownership, which stretches far beyond our shores. That is much more than in any other league in Europe. That has significant impacts on the financial regulation of the game. It provides greater bargaining power in commercial contracts and increases significantly the brand reach of those clubs, while allowing for the pooling of resources. There is flexibility with player transfers and loans. Certainly, within the English game, there is prohibition control over the management of more than one club, and UEFA states that you cannot have one controller covering two or more clubs in the same European competition. All these are actually central financial issues, and they have to be considered in any assessment of the health of the game in England. I am concerned—I hope the Minister can respond and help me with this—that, if the regulator is prohibited from looking at the impact of multi-club ownership, there is a huge amount of important material when it comes to understanding the financial health of the game in England that would be outside the remit of the regulator. If I am wrong on that, no doubt the Minister will say that the regulator is absolutely entitled to look at each and every aspect of the multi-club ownership that takes place, principally in the Premier League. I will not detain the Committee by going further, but I simply table the fact that I think it is an essential and central point in any state of the game report and of the work of the regulator moving forward, and I would appreciate any clarity that the Minister can throw on that this evening.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 101 in my name. It seeks to address a fundamental imbalance in how we will assess the health of English football under this new regulatory framework. The Premier League has become the world’s most successful sporting competition through a sophisticated balance of sporting merit and commercial innovation. Every weekend, millions watch matches where any team can beat any other, where promoted clubs can dream of European football and where calculated ambition is rewarded. This competitive drama has created extraordinary value that benefits the entire football pyramid, yet this Bill creates a concerning issue in how we will measure success. While the regulator must produce a state of the game report, its content focuses almost entirely on identifying problems and assessing risks. There is no requirement to evaluate how a regulatory intervention might affect the very qualities that have made English football successful. This amendment would require the regulator to assess and report on three areas: first, competitive balance and sporting merit, the foundation of football’s appeal; secondly, our international position, crucial given the growing competition from other leagues and competitions around the world; and, thirdly, our ability to attract investment, which is essential for maintaining the quality that drives broadcast value and pyramid funding. Without proper assessment of the competitive matrix, how would we know whether regulation was inadvertently creating barriers to sporting achievement? Without tracking our international position, how could we identify whether intervention was damaging our ability to attract global talent? Without measuring investment impact, how would we spot whether regulation was deterring the responsible ambition that drives football growth? If the state of the game report is to be as Ministers have described it—the definitive evidence base of football’s health that will drive the regulator’s whole agenda—it is crucial that the report considers both the risks and the success factors. We cannot protect what we do not measure. We must not allow these protective regulatory principles to become completely meaningless. The amendment would create crucial feedback loops. It would allow Parliament and stakeholders to identify early-warning signs if regulation begins to damage football’s essential qualities. It would provide evidence to enable the regulator to adjust its regulatory approach if unintended consequences emerge. Most importantly, it would ensure that we protect proper oversight while preserving what makes English football so special. Without this amendment, we risk creating a regulator focused solely on managing decline rather than protecting success. I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could explain why, in her view, the state of the game report should not assess regulatory impact. Will she also explain how Parliament will otherwise be in a position to judge whether this world-first and intrinsically risky regulatory approach is going to be able to maintain English football’s success, growth and vitality?

23:45:00

I rise to speak to my Amendment 104, but I start by saying that I agree with the thrust set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that we want this to be a comprehensive report. We all agree that we need a common factual basis on which to try to agree onward action. As such, I agree that this needs to be the first thing that the regulator does. With that, I am sympathetic towards the quicker timeframe. Obviously, I am mindful that we need to give it a certain amount of time so that it can do the report properly; six months is probably unrealistic as a quick proposal but 12 months should be enough time. Beyond that, given how quickly things move, every three years is a reasonable frequency. Before I come on to Amendment 104, I admit that I am a bit concerned by Amendment 95, which asks the regulator to report with its assessment of how well each club is managed. It is one thing working with each club and looking at its plans; having to report on that is almost like a different level of burden of proof when it comes to the evidence needed. I am sure the regulator will be nervous about putting this down in black and white without having a strong evidential base. When you are trying to do that across 116 clubs, it creates a duty that is probably burdensome on the whole industry. It would result in a whole host of Deloittes, KPMGs and PwCs of the world going into every club, all 116 of them, to try and find assess how well they are run. I turn to my Amendment 104. Key to this is football financial health. We all agree that it is critical to everything that we have been talking about—to sustainability and to the whole pyramid payment system and how much money is going at the top end. Every time I have proposed something, I have thought it was not controversial, and have said so many times over the last few days. I have then been—“upset” is too strong a word—mildly disappointed that it was not taken up by the Minister. I hope that asking the regulator to write in the “state of the game” report a section on football financial health is a no-brainer. Even though we are getting towards extra time, and into stoppage time, I hope we can have one thing chalked up that the Minister is happy to take away and agree to tonight. Similarly, on the state of fan engagement, one thing that united the whole Chamber earlier was when we were talking about how fans should be consulted in all this. I hope that including a section on fan engagement in the “state of the game” report would be considered as close to a no-brainer as you would hope to get. Lastly, proposed new paragraph (f) looks at the operation of the current regulators and an assessment of how well the independent regulator performs. That comes on to a clause later with the subsidiarity principle, and we are asking the independent regulator to, for want of a better term, contract out different functions where a current regulator—the FA, the Premier League or whatever—is better placed to do that. That is the general principle that we hope to get established. However, for it to be able to do that, the football regulator in the “state of the game” report first needs to report on the functions of the current regulators and how well they fulfil them. Again, late into stoppage time, I hope these will be seen as quite sensible and uncontroversial measures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on them later.

My Lords, we are, I hope, on the home straight, to take a metaphor from another sport. I rise to support an amendment in this group, to say nothing about some others, and to oppose some others. I take my thoughts from a reflection on Hong Kong and its enormous success as an economic entity for many decades before, lamentably, we had to lose it to the Chinese —with the current appalling situation that we now see in Hong Kong. Why was Hong Kong so successful? It is generally acknowledged that Sir John Cowperthwaite took an attitude of benign neglect to its success. He arrived in Hong Kong, he was urged to govern, and he said, “No, I’m going to step back because it’s doing very well without my interference”. He assiduously prevented reports being written about Hong Kong. I am very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Brady because it seeks to limit the report, and I say nothing about the various timing amendments, which I do not feel qualified to discuss, but I did say at Second Reading that this Bill was a Christmas tree and, unfortunately, people like to hang baubles on Christmas trees: “Let’s look at women’s football”; “Let’s look at the environment”; “Let’s look at so many things”—it is irresistible when you have a Christmas tree. What is wrong with having a report on these interesting, important things? We go back to Cowperthwaite: if you have a report, people feel urged to do something about it. If you say, “My report says that there’s something wrong here, or that more could be done there”, then that moves on to the impetus to interfere more and more. There are two attitudes in this House to what is going on in football in this country. There is the attitude that we know best and that we say what is fair—fairness seems to be the prime objective among many speakers. There are others who are saying, “Why are you wanting to interfere with what is working so well?” I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for defying the injunction not to repeat ourselves, since he repeated himself earlier this evening in claiming that there was this catastrophic situation in the lower orders of football. I do not see it. Football is thriving. Others said the same when the point was made before—but good on him for defying this attempt to suppress deeply held thoughts, even if spoke twice. No actions have no consequences. Attempts in these amendments to put more and more into this Bill will be detrimental to the great sport of soccer in this country.

My Lords, I will briefly say a few words about my Amendments 106, 108 and 109. Given the hour, I will not speak at length. As with the other amendments in this group, these concern the “state of the game” report. I am grateful to all those who brought amendments in this group and who have contributed to it. My Amendment 106 is attempting to address a very similar point as does Amendment 105, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. Both amendments are attempting to reduce the period in which the regulator will have to publish the first “state of the game” report. As the noble Baroness noted, my amendment changes this from 18 months to six months, whereas theirs looks to change it to 12 months, but the reasoning behind both is the same. The sooner we understand the state of the game under this new framework, the better we can refine and improve the regulator’s role. I think that the sooner that happens the better, but I am not precious about the precise time. Amendment 108 in my name requires the “state of the game” report to be published every four years to allow for a full and proper reappraisal of the issues facing football. The original draft of the Bill, when it was introduced by the previous Conversative Government, set the period for republishing the report at three years, and the current version sets it at five. With this amendment, I am trying to probe the Government as to why they have made the change that they have in this instance, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say. With Amendment 109, again, I am trying to probe the Government’s intent. The Bill includes numerous references to consultations with fans, but it does not include any reference to engagement with fans on the draft “state of the game” report. I am curious as to the reasoning behind the drafting. If the Government believe that fans should be consulted elsewhere in the Bill, why not in this instance and with this provision? I will not speak at length to the other amendments in this group that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, have tabled, but I am grateful to them for their thoughts in doing so. I will touch on Amendment 103, because I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is not here to mention it. Her amendment deals with the question of environmental sustainability. That falls very much into the category of the baubles on the Christmas tree that my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea would be very sceptical of. While football has a role to play in tackling climate change, the regulator must ensure that its focus remains on football governance. In the noble Baroness’s absence, I wanted to make sure that her amendment was noted, and if the Minister has anything to say on it, I am sure that she will be grateful to read it back. Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and to which I have added my name, attempts to expand the scope of the “state of the game” report. This requires the regulator to include an assessment of the overall financial health of football, an assessment of the current state of fan engagement and an overview of the current regulatory functions that are carried out by existing football bodies. We think that these additions are crucial. Financial health is the bedrock of football’s future, and fan engagement is its very soul. We must also respect and leverage the expertise of existing bodies, such as the FA, in ensuring that the regulator complements, rather than duplicates, their efforts. The amendments tabled in this group reflect the wide-ranging interests and challenges facing English football. On these Benches, our priority is to ensure that the Bill creates a framework for governance that is robust, focused and effective. We must protect the integrity of the game, empower clubs to succeed and respect the fans who are its beating heart. I hope the Minister will seek to do that too in her response.

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling these amendments and for the discussion of them. I will take them in turn. I turn first to Amendment 94 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, we do not consider it necessary and believe the Bill already covers this issue, and I hope that this reassures her. The positive social impact of regulated clubs in their communities features in the very definition of the sustainability of English football in Clause 1, so we fully expect that the regulator will naturally cover these areas in the “state of the game” report. I turn to another of my noble friend Lady Taylor’s amendments in this grouping, Amendment 100. While the areas that my noble friend highlights, such as environmental sustainability and ethics, are important, they are not within the remit of the regulator and therefore will not be in scope of the “state of the game” report. In so far as the other areas are relevant to the regulator’s functions under the Bill, it already has the power to report on, for instance, a club’s general financial sustainability.

00:00:00

On Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, Amendment 96 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor and Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, while I understand the aims and intent behind these amendments, the Government do not consider them necessary and believe that the Bill already adequately covers these issues. As part of the “state of the game” report, the regulator will cover matters relevant to the regulator’s functions. This includes how clubs in scope operate and the licensing regime more generally, as well as the context of the regulator. The regulator could potentially also cover any distribution agreement currently in place between competition organisers.

On the broad principle of these amendments, we do not believe that listing every topic that the “state of the game” report may cover is acceptable or necessary in the Bill. The Government do not want to unintentionally limit the report from covering any aspect that the regulator feels is relevant, which is always the risk with a prescriptive list, whether exhaustive or not.

On Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I acknowledge and share the excitement of the recent growth of women’s football—this is something that noble Lords will be clear that I also feel passionately about—and I recognise the need to monitor whether it too needs the protections that we are introducing for the men’s game. However, the Government do not believe that a regular review of women’s football automatically carried out by the regulator is the best way to achieve that.

The Explanatory Notes to Clause 2 set out that the Secretary of State will already keep under review, on an ongoing basis, whether it is appropriate to amend the specified competitions. This assessment can be triggered at any point so, if any change in circumstance occurs, the Secretary of State will be able to react. Before any such amendment, the Secretary of State would also conduct and publish a formal assessment and lay it before Parliament. It is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to review, assess and determine whether statutory regulation should be extended to a new market, rather than for this to be the responsibility of the regulator.

I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for tabling Amendment 98. I understand the importance of the issue raised, but we do not feel that this is a necessary change to the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about multi-club ownership. If the regulator deems that multi-club ownership models are relevant to its functions and objectives, it can and will include this in the report. However, we do not want to force the regulator into reviewing one specific ownership model over another, as it will need to take an objective and evidence-based assessment of any issues relevant to its remit of financial sustainability.

On Amendment 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, while we understand the importance of player welfare, especially given the number of games being played these days, this is not an area that the regulator should be involved in. Football already has the ability to address these issues and we do not believe that they warrant regulatory intervention.

On Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, assessment of the regulator’s success in carrying out its duties and objectives will be key to ensuring transparency and accountability. To the extent that the “state of the game” report looks into the market, it is implicit that it will consider its own impacts on the market. How can it assess the sustainability of the game without considering the underlying regulatory regime that determines how sustainable clubs are?

However, performance reporting will be done through accountability measures throughout the Bill, such as the annual report that is laid before Parliament. The regulator must provide a summary of the activities undertaken during that year, and we expect that that would include an assessment of whether the regulator is meeting its duties and objectives. The Secretary of State may also direct the regulator to include specific things in its annual report.

Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108 in the names of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, all seek to shorten the timeframe within which the first and subsequent “state of the game” reports must be published. We believe that the timings for the “state of the game” report are suitable for the regulator’s objectives. The “state of the game” report will allow the regulator to better understand the finances and economics of the industry and its individual clubs. This is a first of its kind and a significant undertaking.

The 18-month deadline for the first report will ensure that the regulator is able to undertake the in-depth analysis needed for this assessment. The deadline has been reduced from three years in the previous iteration of the Bill under the previous Government, but I stress that it also says

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

It also allows for the regulator to consult as appropriate with the industry and properly take views and suggestions into account, ahead of publishing the report. To squeeze this timeframe could jeopardise the depth and quality of the first “state of the game” report and its effectiveness in providing a solid benchmark for the regulator and for the market.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about the subsequent publication timeline. We do not believe there is merit in shortening the deadline for any of the regulator’s subsequent “state of the game” reports. The regulator can already publish subsequent reports sooner than the five-year timeline if it considers it appropriate to do so. This could be a potential burden on industry, so we think that this timeframe allows for the market to change, balanced against possible costs.

I finish with Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Making sure fans are put back at the centre of their clubs is a key priority of this legislation, so I understand and am sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. However, the Government do not consider this amendment necessary. As part of the “state of the game” report, the regulator will be able to consult other persons as it is deemed appropriate. This could, and I assume, at times, will, include fans. However, it would be overly burdensome to require the regulator to consult all fans on all aspects of the report each time. So we believe that it is appropriate for this to remain at the discretion of the regulator. The regulator is also already required to invite suggestions before drafting its report. This would be an open invitation and so fans would be able to submit suggestions, and I would encourage them to do so.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope noble Lords and my noble friends will not press their amendments.

My Lords, I am very pleased there is such agreement about the importance of the “state of the game” report. The Minister has given some elements of reassurance, but on others I wish she could have gone a little further. Because of the late time, we have not discussed in depth all the elements we were talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned multi-club ownership, which I think we will come unto at a later stage. The one point I cannot agree with that has been said is that football has benefited from benign neglect. Benign neglect of good governance in football is the reason we are here today. But there has been progress here. I am glad everybody accepts that this report will be important. On that basis, at this stage, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Amendments 95 to 109 not moved.

Clause 10 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 12.09 am.