House of Lords take red pen to the Football Governance Bill raising conflict of interest concerns
One Bill. A cast list of over 35 Peers and 342 amendments!
With the Second Reading at the House of Lords complete, the Football Governance Bill moved into the Committee Stage. Day 1 provided over three and half hours of debate which only covered a meagre 18 of the 300+ amendments. Delay tactics in plain sight.
Two areas of discussion that absorbed most air time at the committee hearing being:
Sustainability - The meaning of, and even the inclusion of the word “Sustainability” (more on this further down)
UEFA - Regurgitation of the already discussed relationship with UEFA once the Bill is in place, with reference made to the contents of a mysterious letter sent by UEFA to the Secretary of State, a letter that is yet to be shared beyond the receiver (also requested by The Pitch Inspection and subject to a separate upcoming article)
The amendments proposed are available for all to see, the severity of the proposed changes vary from firming up definitions within the framework of the bill, salary of the IFR’s employees, decisions on gambling advertisements to proposing removal of operating licences for state-controlled clubs.
The quantity of amendments still to be debated is significant and unless the pace improves from the first day of committee talks we are in for a long slog.
The Lords and Baronesses that are proposing changes will reconvene for further sittings throughout December (likely 2nd, 4th, 9th and 17th)
After reading through all the proposed amendments and watching the footage from the House of Lords, the Pitch Inspection took a closer look at the instigators for change.
Peers linked to football
The potential for conflict of interest between the members of the House of Lords and football teams and/or sponsors and partners of football clubs was evident, with ten peers registering notable interests in football and seven who have accepted hospitality packages at English football events in the last 12 months.
Sustainability
The first line of the Bill - Clause 1, Item 1 which is currently drafted as “The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football.” was discussed for over an hour. Proposed amendments to this clause include:
Amendment 1 (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay & Lord Markham) - leave out “the sustainability of”
Amendment 2 (Lord Hayward) - after second “the”, insert “success and”
Amendment 3 (Lord Moynihan)- after second “the” insert “financial”
Amendment 4 (Lord Maude of Horsham & Baroness Evans of Bowes Park - leave out “sustainability” and insert “growth and success”
Lord Maude of Horsham, one of the Lords who has been vocal on the bill (not in a positive light), is proposing to remove the word sustainability, went on record at the Second Reading as saying;
“I start from a position of scepticism about whether the introduction of a state regulator is likely to improve the position of an incredibly successful activity. We have heard from many about how the Premier League is the richest and most-watched league in the world; the EFL is immensely successful and wealthy, and all credit to it. That is despite the lack of regulation, and it is not obvious that self-regulation has failed. My position is also one of disappointment at the outcome of the review, because it was not clear that the introduction of a regulator was needed;”
during the Committee debate he also went onto say:
“I would want nothing better than for the regulator to be inert and willing to intervene only on the most extreme occasions. My fear with the Bill is that the regulator has pretty much unlimited power to expand its size….We heard at Second Reading how so many noble Lords were already canvassing extensions to the scope and mission of the regulator. Inertia is not to be sneered at in this context.”
and:
“Sustainability is a very unambitious target or purpose for something like English football, which has seen such spectacular growth and success. We should want at the very least to see growth and success imported into the purpose of the Bill, so that it may have a chance of encouraging the regulator to see that as its purpose as well.”
When you watch the recording or read the transcript of the reading and the committee debate it does not take a long time to realise that disruption is at play. Tactics to slow down the process.
Lord Maude sits as Chairman of FMAP Ltd paid by the Government of Saudi Arabia to provide advice on efficiency, implementation and public sector reform, the same Government with ownership links to Newcastle United Football Club.
Also evident was the lack of understanding, from the Lords and Baronesses who were proposing changes to Clause 1 about the struggles football clubs outside of the “big-six” teams of the Premier League face, the teams that will benefit from the introduction of Independent Regulator. The teams for which sustainability is vital.
The words from Baroness Twycross at the Second Reading (below), seemingly brushed aside.
“Despite its phenomenal success, we know that irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation have cast a shadow over too many of our clubs. Too often, fans have had to fight to protect their club’s identity, heritage and even its very existence. In recent years, we have seen the devastating impact that losing these battles can have on communities, such as with Bury and Macclesfield Town.”
Independent Football Regulator (IFR)- Organisation and Salary Amendments.
There has also been a number of amendments related to remuneration and size of the regulating body once introduced. As well as requirements for members who sit on the new regulators Expert Panel are expected to meet.
Amendment 40 proposed by Lord Parkinson of Whitely Bay & Lord Markham looks to cap the salary of any IFR employees, including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), to £172,153 per annum.
At first glance this seem like a hefty salary, but if approved, when you look at the task at hand, the salary may not be competitive enough to attract the expertise required to lead the new independent football regulator. Time will tell.
It is not clear if the cap proposed has been benchmarked against similar roles from around Europe.
My (cynical) gut tells me it is most likely a lower salary than the annual earnings of the members of the House of Lords that are looking to chop and change the bill.
The Expert Panel which will play a key role within the regulating bodies decision making process has also been a target of the Lords.
Amendment 47, which was proposed by the same Lords who wish to cap the IFR’s CEO salary, also looks to cap the salary of persons appointed to the Expert Panel to no more than £91,346 per annum. The same two lords are also requesting the following provisions under Amendment 45; “No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”
This would mean that vocal supporters of the IFR, like Garry Neville for example would not be allowed to sit on the panel, if he maintained his current line of employment.
Gambling Advertisements
Two amendments that are very timely and close to the Pitch Inspections heart are related to the control of gambling advertisement and sponsorship deals within football.
Amendment 143 proposed by Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Eddington, if approved would require clubs to consult fans on gambling advertising and sponsorship deals.
This is still not enough to stop the damage gambling advertisements has on our communities, it is however a positive step towards removing gambling advertisements all together.
Amendment 255, proposed by the same Lords, takes a ban on gambling advertisement a step further with the introduction of a new clause:
After Clause 53, insert the following new Clause—“Duty to prevent gambling advertising and sponsorship in football - English football must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”
Member's explanatory statement:
This amendment prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.
These amendments have note been debated at the committee meeting and you would expect challenges, especially considering Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, who is also proposing amendments throughout the Bill, has a paid advisory role at the biggest gambling company on the planet, Flutter.
The same Flutter who own Sky Bet, the league title sponsors of the EFL. The same Flutter whose brands Paddy Power and Betfair are displayed thousands of times a week during football matches up and down the country via pitch side digital advertising hoardings.
This is another potential conflict of interest.
Thanks for taking the time to read our work. Please feel free to comment, interact and share.
More to come…