The UK Government has produced a white paper outlining the terms of a new independent regulator for English football.
A lengthy process of turning that into legislation and passing the bill through Parliament will now follow, which is anticipated to take around 18 months, and in many ways Thursday’s announcement leaves us with many questions still unanswered.
But we’ll do our best…
Why does the Government think football needs a regulator?
The European Super League was the straw the broke the camel’s back on regulation in football, which has always been mentioned in the shadows of the game. The universal supporter backlash made it clear that fans needed a bigger say in what their football club does.
But the sports minister Stuart Andrew’s opening statement on the front cover of the white paper also makes reference to Bury, Macclesfield Town, and Derby County, all of which have “left communities devastated” by their respective financial demises.
An independent regulator will aim to scrutinise owners and their business plans to ensure that clubs are run responsibly and sustainably – as well as stopping them from joining other competitions or changing key elements of their club without fan consultation.
It’s not just the Government who think we need a regulator either. Its creation appears to have cross-party support, albeit not without some criticism.
Shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport Lucy Powell said: “In the 15 months it’s taken the Government to finally publish a football white paper, Derby County nearly went under, Oldham Athletic was relegated, Chelsea changed hands and Manchester United, Newcastle, Liverpool and Bournemouth were all put up for sale. The Premier League and EFL still haven’t reached a deal on finances. And now a European Super League 2.0 is back on the table.
“Fans are desperate for a say on the future of their clubs and the game. We can afford no further delay.”
More from Football
Don’t the Premier League and Football League already look at owners’ finances?
Yes, but in the Government’s view not well enough. The owners’ and directors’ Test, sometimes called the fit and proper person test, looks at their criminal history and some elements of their financial acumen, although prospective owners rarely fail it.
The regulator’s version will be much beefed up, the Government promise.
What power will the regulator have?
One of the issues with the tests of owners’ suitability at present is the footballing authorities rely on self-declaration. By writing the regulation of football into law, “OfFoot” (or whatever it ends up being called) will be able to compel those wanting to buy a club to supply the details they need.
In terms of sanctions the emphasis will be on “collaboration between parties”, with a regulator forcing clubs to engage with fans to resolve issues. The white paper does say sanctions may be imposed on owners “if there is a persistent and wilful lack of engagement”, right up to the suspension of a club via the withdrawal of its licence, but don’t expect to see things like transfer embargoes or points deductions.
Who is going to pay for it?
The clubs, much to their chagrin. The levy will vary depending on the size of the club and their league position, but the money is going to come from within.
The white paper says the six richest clubs will cover approximately 50 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the Premier League covering the next 30 per cent. The irony of that number is the so-called Big Six were the ones who triggered the regulator’s inception by their breakaway – and now they will have to pay for it.
What does it mean for me as a fan?
In the short term, not very much. There is currently a stalemate between the Premier League and the Football League over the trickledown effect of money within the pyramid, and the Government hope that this step forward will encourage them that regulation is coming fast, and if they don’t sort it out themselves, they may end up being dictated to – but until the regulator is created by a bill in Parliament, it will largely be business as usual.
Will it mean Qatar can’t buy Manchester United?
Again, given the timescale, no. But also there is a rather feeble reticence to tread on the toes of the Foreign Office by making “unilateral judgments that risk straying into foreign policy”.
“This will be very much looking at the individuals that are wanting to buy clubs or who are running clubs,” said the sports minister.
“They have to pass those fit and proper tests, but we also need to know where their sources of funding is coming from, so it’s very much about the individual.”
The only hint of objections to state ownership is in the section about “politically-exposed persons” (PEPs), but even then it states that “as political affiliation can expose individuals to bribery, corruption or external influence, PEP status may be considered as part of an in-the-round assessment”. But a prospective owner would not be automatically rejected for being a PEP.
More on Premier League
New Man Utd owners must reconnect with fans and be totally transparent, says Rio Ferdinand23 February, 2023
Rio Ferdinand says he doesn’t trust Twitter any more: ‘I feel like I’m being controlled’22 February, 2023
'Maximum effort is the minimum requirement': Dyche's motto is powering Everton's survival bid22 February, 2023What the regulator could do is force a club to admit its (here comes another acronym) UBI: the Ultimate Beneficial Owner, who would then be investigated under the terms of the new fit and proper persons test. Newcastle have always denied that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, is their ultimate owner, but the regulator could scrutinise that further.
The Qatari bid to buy Manchester United claims no links to the autocratic political powers in that country, but football’s regulator might not buy that as readily as the current authorities.
Will there be a person appointed as a figurehead? Who might that be? Tracey Crouch? Gary Neville? Prince William?
Essentially no. Instead of a figurehead, the Government say that want “clearly somebody who has an understanding of football, but equally has a real understanding of financial good management, business, good practice, and if they’ve got some regulatory experience too, that would be the perfect candidate”.
That does narrow the field quite significantly – you are left wondering which former football executives fancy going from poacher to gamekeeper?
What does the Premier League think of it?
Naturally, the Premier League are wary of any efforts to reduce their own power in the game, and a loaded statement responding to the white paper said they were wanted a solution to key issues in the game to be “football-led” and called it a plan to make England the first major nation where “football is a government-regulated industry”. They did though accept the need “to implement stronger and more independent regulation”.
The important thing to remember is that the Premier League is, rather than a separate body, just the 20 clubs grouped together, each with their own agenda and axe to grind. They will fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground they have to cede, you would imagine.
Will it help to bridge the gap between the ‘Big Six’ and the rest?
Given that FFP was designed to rein in spending, there is a chance that regulations designed to achieve financial fairness could actually make things worse. Even if the Big Six have to foot the bill for half of its running, the regulator might still only cost them £10m a year each, a drop in the ocean of their vast budgets.
There will be some paragraphs that concern them though. In one section, clubs are warned that if one owner’s spending “might be destabilising”, because their levels of wages would force other clubs to offer similar salaries beyond their own means, the regulator might “determine specific licence conditions taking account of the stability of the specific club”.
In English? They could put the handbrake on transfer spending of a club if they think it is getting out of hand, but the implication seems to be that it would be a last-resort type action.
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/hOkVRe2
Post a Comment