Football Governance Bill - Committee Debates D(el)ay 2
Climate change denial, support for Premier League games played abroad and that's coming from just one of the Peers proposing amendments to the Bill.
Day 2 (Monday 2nd December) of the Committee debates in the House of Lords witnessed Peers lock horns for 6 hours, session 1 lasting 4 hours and session 2 lasting 2 hours, ending late into the evening (10.21pm). With only 33 (hands to face) of the 342 amendments discussed or debated.
As per Day 1 it was the Conservative Peers namely, Baroness Brady, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Moynihan to name but a few, instigating long discussions on a limited number of amendments, with what felt like, based on the body language, their targeted outcome.
Watching the live footage and reading the transcript you will quickly realise not much was achieved. Again the focus for the Tory Peers was from the lens of successful Premier League clubs and maximising their financial growth. They did occasionally mention clubs like Brighton & Hove Albion and Peterborough United when it suited their narrative.
They would argue the time was well spent clarifying and clearly defining the purpose of the Football Governance Bill. Even when debating clauses drafted by their own party members from the previous Government.
The amendments that conjured up the most debate (and time) can be grouped into the following buckets:
Sustainability - the meaning and measures of Sustainability - yes this subject again.
“Fans” the meaning and classification of fans and fanbases and the consultation / involvement differs types of fan groups would / should receive.
The risk of overregulation and “mission creep” amendments such as corporate social responsibility, environmental sustainability and net-zero obligations.
Cost burdens placed on clubs under an Independent Regulator.
Meaning of “English Football’ - What teams and which leagues will be governed by the Bill and why are they not listed in the Bill.
Inclusion of women’s football into the Bill.
This article will focus on three of the above buckets.
Foreign Investment
Amendment 12 to Clause 1, proposed by Lord Maude of Horsham was the first amendment to be debated.
Most football fans would suggest item (d) of amendment 12 is very subjective, which Peers made the point of questioning.
How would anybody be able to define “significant”. What is significant for a League 1 or League 2 may not be signifanct to a Premier League team.
Lord Maude of Horsham going on to say “my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there.”
In support of Amendment 12, Lord Hayward went onto say: Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league...”
Like many amendments from the Conservative Peers the nature of the proposed changes seems solely focussed on building a Bill which would see Premier League clubs act freely and unopposed and continue to accept vast amounts of revenue without care of where the money is coming from or what is required in return from the Premier League clubs.
Minister Baroness Twcyross in not accepting the clause went on to remind the Peers supporting the change that “Football does not have a growth and success problem. What it does have is a sustainability problem’ and
“these amendments would significantly expand the scope of the regulator and put in place a much more interventionist regime than this Government or the previous Government proposed. The regulator would be required to become actively involved in issues such as overall match attendance. It is unclear how a regulator would achieve this without directly intervening on issues such as ticket prices. I am sure that is not the noble Lord’s intention.”
Locality Matters
Another pinch point in the first session was the removal of the word “local'“from Clause 1…yes still on clause 1…
In defence of maintaining the word “local” Lord Knight of Weymouth said:
“One reason why I have been interested in this Bill is the European Super League proposals that previously happened—the possibility of clubs’ owners deciding that they are going to play two or three games in the United States or two or three games in the Middle East. By defining “local”, are we not ensuring that there is some protection against the aspiration that some owners may have to meet the needs of fans who might be numerous in the Middle East or the United States, but we want regulated clubs to be looked after here in Britain?”
A response that most English football fans, in particular season ticket holders would agree to.
You only need to look to Spain for an example of where the removal of the word “local” could lead. The proposed move of one of the premium La Liga fixtures between Barcelona and Atletico to Miami, sprung on fans during the early stages of the season. La Liga dropped it’s plans (for now) after pressure from match going fans….”local” fans.
The La Liga however is still pursuing more competitive league matches to be played outside of Spain. La Liga matches potentially in USA and/or Saudi Arabia reportedly on the horizon. No surprise when the final stages of the Spanish Super Cup and Italian Super Cup are now to be played in Saudi Arabia, with the Spanish Super Cup starting from 2025. Italy and Spain have opened the floodgates.
The reaction from the Barcelona and Atletico fans on news of a proposed game in the USA clearly not observed by Lord Moynihan of Chelsea who said:
“To make another point, a few weeks ago, two of the top American football teams came to play at Wembley. It was enormously popular: people from all over the UK flooded in to see those games. Are we saying that US American football teams should come here and give great enjoyment to the people of this country, but that we will regulate our teams and stop them going elsewhere to provide great joy to citizens around the world?
I hear the words “friendly game” mentioned behind me. The element of competition, unless it is banned by this new EDI proposal, is a hugely important part of any game, and friendlies are not the same as the pure thing. But whether friendly or not, why would we want to ban our famous, successful teams from playing abroad? I submit that this is quite extraordinary.”
Sentiments supported by Lord Finkelstein, Director of Chelsea Football Club ….The Club owned by Clearlake and US businessman Todd Boehly. Finkelstein going on to say “I urge that the Bill and the debate should define “fans” as widely as possible.”
Another comment that would concern any football fan with a moral compass, came from Lord Hayward in response to Labours Lord Watson of Invergorie, who pitched his concerns about the trend of transferring sporting events often “funded to outrageous extents by foreign, often repressive and undemocratic Government”
Lord Hayward responding with “Can I clarify what the noble Lord has just said? He described the sporting events in the Middle East over the weekend—which were cricket, rugby and motor-racing—as “worrying? . Receiving literally millions of pounds of income for a football club or other sport in this country—is that really worrying?”
A clarification that sums up the mind set of the majority of Conserve Peers present in the House of Lords. A mindset that English football needs protection against.
In the word of Baroness Twycross “Locality matters”.
Environmental Sustainability
Of the 33 amendments featured in the double session of debates, a third of the amendments related to new inclusions related to environmental sustainability proposed by a hat-trick of peers, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, Lord Bassam of Brighton and majority contributor Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Multiple peers were quick to object the environmental amendments; Baroness Fox of Buckley My Lords, first in with “I rise to oppose this whole group of amendments.”
Followed up with:
“We already know the potentially costly and devastating impacts such green policies can have for organisations and individuals, let alone the barriers on development and growth that they can pose. Imposing such regulatory requirements on football clubs seems ill-advised and could be financially draining.” & “I simply raise this because, if a club wants to go green and fans want their club to be more environmentally friendly, that is fine. But the regulator should have absolutely zilch to say on it and certainly no power to impose it.”
The strangest response on the matter was from Lord Moynihan of Chelsea who refused to accept that climate change was even real…with this truly absurd interjection:
“I absolutely say that the central prediction of all the major bodies is that there will be no major problem faced from climate change by 2050. If, indeed, the noble Lord or any other Peer wishes to controvert me, could they please quote such scientific evidence? By the way, they should also take into account, for example, the recent statement from the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics, that climate change theories are a scam”
The same Lord Moynihan of Chelsea whose registered interested include shareholdings in Shell, Schlumberger and Total Energies.
In summing up of Day 2, the words frustrating and dangerous come to mind. Frustrating, because the debate is being slowed down by certain Peer’s who do not want the Bill passing thus making the debates less productive. Dangerous because the tweaks to the bill being proposed, if not correctly managed, could severely impact local football communities up and down the country.
That is all we have for Day 2, there was plenty of other talking points which we did not cover in this article. If you have read this far I recommend you read the transcripts also.
We’ll see you again after day 3 of the Committee debate, which is schedule for 4th December.