Football’s independent regulator should be subject to a “sunset clause” allowing legislators the option to change or even scrap it after five years if it is not working, a Conservative peer has said.
Lord Francis Maude described the Football Governance Bill, which has the creation of a regulator at its heart, as a “monster in 100 pages”.
He believes it is essential a clause is written into the Bill giving the legislation a five-year expiry date, which would require the law to be reviewed at that point and either renewed, changed or abandoned depending on MPs’ and Lords’ assessment of its success.
Maude told the PA news agency: “I’m generally in favour of sunset clauses (in Bills). It gives you a moment to properly assess. What has the effect been? What are the benefits? Has it really helped?
He said a review of the regulator after five years was “reasonable”, and while admitting the idea was in its “early days” he said support for it had coalesced among a group of Conservative peers.
He added: “It’s hard to see what the downside (of such a clause) is – I don’t see why it could be objectionable.
“The case for having it needs to be rebutted (by those who oppose it) – I don’t see what the reasons would be.”
Maude is “very sceptical” about the need to regulate football at all.
“I think the concern a number of us have is to try to get the Bill amended to make it genuinely light touch, and genuinely not interfere where interference is going to make things worse,” he said.
“English football is the most successful in the world, you’ve got something incredibly successful and a powerful export-earner, and it’s not obvious that heavy-handed regulation is likely to make any of that better.”
The Conservatives included a pledge to commission a fan-led review of football, which ultimately recommended a regulator, in its 2019 General Election manifesto. That was published months after the demise of Bury, which placed the financial sustainability of clubs and their protection from irresponsible ownership into the spotlight.
However, Maude argues football is comparatively stable at the side of other sectors.
“Overwhelmingly, the clubs that were in existence 100 years ago are still in existence, and that, in terms of any business sector, is pretty rare,” he said.
“You would expect to see much more attrition in other sectors, so it’s hard to see that there’s an obvious market failure which is the justification for going down this path.
“But if you’re going to do it – and the die is pretty much cast – let’s do it in a way that doesn’t make things worse.”
Maude also objects to the regulator possessing backstop powers to impose a financial settlement between the Premier League and the EFL if they cannot agree a deal.
“You’ve got a (Bill) that gives (the regulator) the power to force changes to the way money is distributed down the pyramid. But actually the very cost of regulation is going to reduce the pot available for distribution,” Maude said.
“I think the way (the Bill) is currently drafted has a risk of creating an incentive not to do a deal for the lower leagues, and that’s obviously not helpful because the ideal would be to have an agreed approach.”
The Bill brought forward by the new Labour Government could also allow the regulator to consider the impact of parachute payments to clubs relegated from the Premier League as part of its decision-making on a settlement, but sports minister Stephanie Peacock insists the payments will not be abolished.
Talks between the EFL and the Premier League over a ‘New Deal’ over how television revenue is split have been on hold since March.
Niall Couper, the chief executive of the Fair Game group which campaigns for improved football governance, said in response to Maude’s comments: “The debate is long over. Football needs a regulator.
“Football’s finances are a mess. Vested interests are rife. The owners and directors test is deeply flawed.
“The football authorities have had decades to sort out it out and have failed. Football needs true independence to ensure it will be sustainable, not just now but for the long term too.
“Undermining it now risks allowing those who don’t want a regulator to pay lip service to much-needed reform.”
The Bill will reach the committee stage next week where its contents will be examined in detail.
