Perhaps not a chant that’s going to echo around the terraces, but yes, the government has published its long-awaited white paper into governance of the national sport (top five divisions of the men’s game only) and proposed an independent regulator.
Not that it means change is imminent. A period of “targeted consultation” with football stakeholders will follow and after that legislation will have to be drafted and put before parliament “as soon as time allows”. The government won’t comment on timings but the expectation is the earliest any change will come is the start of the 2024-25 season.
What will the regulator do?
It will exist to “ensure that English football is sustainable and resilient, for the benefit of fans and the local communities football clubs serve”. The broader mission breaks into four specific ‘thresholds’ a club must cross before being given a licence to compete by the regulator: appropriate resources; fit and proper custodians; fan interests; and approved competitions.
Approved competitions means clubs can lose their licence if they sign up for something not endorsed by the regulator (obviously intended to prevent a super league). Fit and proper custodians means an expanded and unified owners’ and directors’ test with more investigative powers to establish who will own a club and where their money comes from (though how often this will prevent a deal from going through is a moot point).
Clubs will be expected to engage regularly with supporters and fans will have a veto over such details as a change of colours or crest. But as much as this document is a triumph for the persistent campaigning of the Football Supporters’ Association, what the white paper offers fans directly can feel a bit like window dressing. The real meat – which will benefit supporters indirectly – lies in the imposition of new financial controls on clubs.
The first of the thresholds will change the way clubs are expected to manage their finances. They will need cash ‘buffers’ to meet issues with cash flow or unexpected events (Covid is very much in the background of a lot of thinking in the white paper). Clubs will also be expected to conform with what are basic principles in many other industries, such as scenario planning, multi-year forecasting, monitoring and reporting. “For already well-run clubs, these basic requirements should have a minimal impact,” the white paper notes. “For less well-run clubs, standards would need to be raised.”
How will it do it?
In an interesting detail, the regulatory process is expected to be continuous. The regulator will have access to financial information as and when it needs it, and will similarly monitor the eligibility criteria of owners. It will therefore have the ability – so it’s argued – to nip problems in the bud and to do so in partnership with a club. “This ongoing approach means licences would not need to be periodically reassessed and renewed,” the white paper says.
On the matter of who will pay for it, that’s the clubs – and the Premier League more than anyone else, accounting for as much as 80% of the costs.
Do I trust the government to get this right?
Well, quite. There’s been a degree of delay in even getting to this point, with the white paper first promised last summer (the small matter of two changes of prime minister getting in the way). But the government always argued they were taking their time to get things right and although there are some critics there are many more who are happy with what they see and the process which has delivered it.
after newsletter promotion
Flip the question around and you get a very different picture: it’s clear the government did not trust football to deliver meaningful reform by itself.
Is this a bit of a blow for the Premier League?
Well, they’re the ones who have consistently said the game doesn’t need a regulator, an argument which has clearly not won out. The top flight has failed to see off a challenge to its hegemony, and it’s hard to think of a comparable moment in its 30-year history. Many observers expected the Premier League to silently snuff out any changes in the back rooms of Westminster. This has not come to pass and the tone among ministers suggests it will not.
On Thursday the chief executive of the Premier League, Richard Masters, writing in the Times, asked that the government “treads with care to avoid damage both to football and to fans” and avoids making the game “the ultimate political football, leading to short-termism and possible decline”. Whether such a message finds a receptive ear in government remains to be seen.
So all the game’s problems aren’t solved yet, then?
Hardly. And there was one crucial component the white paper did not really engage with. Monitoring of action plans and data on equality, diversity and inclusion were seen as part of the regulator’s mandate when Tracey Crouch published her fan-led review of 2021. It does not form part of the mandate, with the sports minister, Stuart Andrew, saying the emphasis was instead on “making sure the financial components were in place”. Clubs are failing to hit even voluntary targets for equality, diversity and inclusion at board level and progress in coaching is slow. Waiting for an in-game solution may seem hopeful.
The chief executive of Kick it Out, Tony Burnett, called for a change of heart. “If football cannot be transparent about its behaviour and its ability to be more diverse and inclusive, we cannot move forward,” he said. “When people talk about meaningful change in football, this is that change. We will work with parliamentarians as the legislation progresses to implement Kick it Out’s recommendations to ensure that equality, diversity and inclusion is at the heart of its regulation.”
