[Football] Football Governance Bill / Independent Football Regulator

[Cotton Socks]

Named the Golden Shower package.

 

[studio150]

There are only a certain amount of times you can see The Lion King as the ending is always the same.

Bit like Brighton with a 2-0 lead going into the last ten minutes

 

[studio150]

Totally different product, that's a bit like comparing champagne to a can of beer

Both of tax are subject to alcohol duty

 

[Bozza]

This is option number 3 that football doesn't want to address. Surely an agreement between club to lower the wages of players is the more sensible and sustainable answer to many/most of football's financial ills.

I just can't see that coming about, alas.

You'd need every league in every country agreeing - that's simply never going to happen, particularly when new leagues come into existence, eg Saudi Arabia, who will want to use money as a tool to accelerate growth.

 

[El Presidente]

I’m not ideologically in favour of an IFR, to have one would be an indictment of the existing three regulatory bodies, in the shape of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL. These bodies have shown themselves, like many self regulating organisations, to be concentrating on self interest rather than the broader good of the industry in which they operate. Therefore, reluctantly, I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

PB makes reference to ‘unintended consequences’ of the IFR and perhaps rightly so. He however ignored the unintended consequences of having two bodies such as the PL and EFL with different PSR rules so that Leicester City avoided sanctions from the EFL and PL over the last 12 months as they managed to convince a commisdion or two that they were not part of either body when relegated at the end of 22/23. This allowed them to not have to abide by a business plan whilst in the EFL or have a 7 point penalty at the start of the 24/25 season.

EFL clubs cannot take the profits from property sales into account for PSR purposes, yet PL clubs can (great if you’re in West London with high property prices) , so what happens if those clubs are relegated.

PL clubs now have a made up interest charge allocated to owner loans, but no guidance as to whether they are at market rates taking into account creditworthiness of individual clubs. But in the EFL such loans do not come with an imputed interest charge, so what happens if a Championship club is promoted? Does this mean that these clubs will now be burdened with interest charges for the years in which they were in the Championship?

There‘s reference to the cost of running the IFR. These costs are estimated at £10m a year. The three PL execs who complained about the IFR earned respectively £2.4m, £1.4m and £1.4m (for a part time job in the case of one of them).

The Premier League’s total administrative costs for 22/23 were £124m for just 20 clubs, compared to £10m for the IFR looking over 116 clubs. The AVERAGE cost of employing one person at the PL is £141,000. The IFR chair will be paid £130k. PL also happy to fork out £50m+ for legal costs in the Manchester City case as well as millions more on Everton & Forest.

If the Premier League genuinely, from an investor and integrity perspective, want to avoid the need for IFR then there’s a simple solution. All it has to do is put a more generous offer to the EFL, such as the one that was made in 2022 when Johnson was PM, before being withdrawn when the Truss clown show rode into town and the idealogues of the IEA and Co meant that the IFR proposals were cancelled.


The reason why no such offer has been made is that the PL has crunched the numbers and realised that by delaying the IFR through utilising Brady and others to delay the bill through the Lords it was more cost effective than making an offer to the EFL which gets signed off and all of a sudden one of the main justifications of IFR disappears.

As for the comments about abolishing parachute payments, there’s no evidence that the regulator will move in that direction. The overwhelming evidence is that PP’s improve competitiveness in the Premier League, albeit it reducing competitive balance in the Championship.

For the sake of complete transparency I’ve written two research papers for the government on the state of finances in the professional game, and have been paid nothing for them.

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Is anyone remotely surprised. Corporate greed ripping out the games heart and sole. Would have thought we would buck that trend, apparently not with him. Quite pissed off tbh.

 

[beorhthelm]

so many in favour of regulation, what do you think they will actually do that will markedly improve football? will they cap wages, prevent the foreign ownership of clubs, stop clubs going into debt or administration? a lot of focus on the EPL money is made and not a lot about over all governance. and why only football needing this special oversight? smells like something to be seen to do something, state over reach into something they dont understand.

 

[Easy 10]

I have a creeping concern at the increasing amount of American ownership in the Premier League, which currently stands at 9 (Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Ipswich, Fulham, Palace, Chelsea, Bournemouth, Villa). If say Burnley, Leeds and WBA were promoted then that would make 12, assuming none of the others went down. Thats getting dangerously close to the 14/20 votes required to carry forward new EPL rule changes. Such as, say, that pesky concept of relegation which is so alien to our American friends.

So yes, for that reason amongst many others, I can see an independent regulator potentially being a "good thing" to put the brakes on gubbins like that. But then just like when they brought in VAR, there's inevitably going to be a lot of potential unknown consequences and side effects which we may not like the look of further down the line.

And as others have expressed, I have very little faith in this new all-powerful overseeing body actually being fit for purpose. Who will it comprise of ? What, specifically, will be the remit ? What decisions will it be involved in ? What is the process ? Can clubs appeal and/or go Legal if they disagree with it ?

Looks like an absolute minefield to me, tbh.

 

[El Presidente]

I have a creeping concern at the increasing amount of American ownership in the Premier League, which currently stands at 9 (Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Ipswich, Fulham, Palace, Chelsea, Bournemouth, Villa). If say Burnley, Leeds and WBA were promoted then that would make 12, assuming none of the others went down. Thats getting dangerously close to the 14/20 votes required to carry forward new EPL rule changes. Such as, say, that pesky concept of relegation which is so alien to our American friends.

So yes, for that reason amongst many others, I can see an independent regulator potentially being a "good thing" to put the brakes on gubbins like that. But then just like when they brought in VAR, there's inevitably going to be a lot of potential unknown consequences and side effects which we may not like the look of further down the line.

And as others have expressed, I have very little faith in this new all-powerful overseeing body actually being fit for purpose. Who will it comprise of ? What, specifically, will be the remit ? What decisions will it be involved in ? What is the process ? Can clubs appeal and/or go Legal if they disagree with it ?

Looks like an absolute minefield to me, tbh.

If you read the bill the remit is very clear ( and also fairly narrow). Similar with decisions made and staffing.

 

[dazzer6666]

I’m not ideologically in favour of an IFR, to have one would be an indictment of the existing three regulatory bodies, in the shape of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL. These bodies have shown themselves, like many self regulating organisations, to be concentrating on self interest rather than the broader good of the industry in which they operate. Therefore, reluctantly, I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

PB makes reference to ‘unintended consequences’ of the IFR and perhaps rightly so. He however ignored the unintended consequences of having two bodies such as the PL and EFL with different PSR rules is that Leicester City avoided sanctions from the EFL and PL over the last 12 months as they managed to convince a commisdion or two that they were not part of either body when relegated at the end of 22/23. This allowed them to not have to abide by a business plan whilst in the EFL or have a 7 point penalty at the start of the 24/25 season.

EFL clubs cannot take the profits from property sales into account for PSR purposes, yet PL clubs can (great if you’re in West London with high property prices) , so what happens if those clubs are relegated.

PL clubs now have a made up interest charge allocated to owner loans, but no guidance as to whether they are at market rates taking into account creditworthiness of individual clubs. But in the EFL such loans do not come with an imputed interest charge, so what happens if a Championship club is promoted? Does this mean that these clubs will now be burdened with interest charges for the years in which they were in the Championship?

There‘s reference to the cost of running the IFR. These costs are estimated at £10m a year. The three PL execs who complained about the IFR earned respectively £2.4m, £1.4m and £1.4m (for a part time job in the case of one of them).

The Premier League’s total administrative costs for 22/23 were £124m for just 20 clubs, compared to £10m for the IFR looking over 116 clubs. The AVERAGE cost of employing one person at the PL is £141,000. The IFR chair will be paid £130k. PL also happy to fork out £50m+ for legal costs in the Manchester City case as well as millions more on Everton & Forest.

If the Premier League genuinely, from an investor and integrity perspective, want to avoid the need for IFR then there’s a simple solution. All it has to do is put a more generous offer to the EFL, such as the one that was made in 2022 when Johnson was PM, before being withdrawn when the Truss clown show rode into town and the idealogues of the IEA and Co meant that the IFR proposals were cancelled.


The reason why no such offer has been made is that the PL has crunched the numbers and realised that by delaying the IFR through utilising Brady and others to delay the bill through the Lords it was more cost effective than making an offer to the EFL which gets signed off and all of a sudden one of the main justifications of IFR disappears.

As for the comments about abolishing parachute payments, there’s no evidence that the regulator will move in that direction. The overwhelming evidence is that PP’s improve competitiveness in the Premier League, albeit it reducing competitive balance in the Championship.

For the sake of complete transparency I’ve written two research papers for the government on the state of finances in the professional game, and have been paid nothing for them.

I’d have a bet with you that £10m a year running cost is much, much more within 5 years………..

 

[Easy 10]

If you read the bill the remit is very clear ( and also fairly narrow). Similar with decisions made and staffing.

Fair enough. I didn't read the Times article due to the paywall, so was just shooting from the LIP.

I stand by my point though - I'm not convinced that an independent regulator is going to be the panacea to 'set the game right', because regulators still f*ck up on a regular basis. And the fact is, the EPL and EFL are both incredibly successful. Is everything perfect ? No. It never has been, and it never will be. So what is this new body going to fix, exactly ?

 

[Talby]

Is anyone remotely surprised. Corporate greed ripping out the games heart and sole. Would have thought we would buck that trend, apparently not with him. Quite pissed off tbh.

Seen article where BHAFC, West Ham and Arsenal all referred to. We know our ownership status and supposed salaries of executives but, with the potential unaffordability of further investment or the impact of parachute payments ….

WHFC - billionaire majority shareholder who made money as a pornographer and property tycoon. (Minority shareholder owns an energy company & has a £65m house in London)

Arsenal - the majority shareholder - One of the architects of the European Super League. Married to another Billionaire.

Throw in Man City and Newcastle and I’m starting to get seriously concerned that there is simply not enough money in the top flight….

 

[American Seagle]

The "we'd have to charge the fans more" seems to be a favourite reason for the club to use if they really don't want to do something.

It was also used as one of the reasons for not installing Safe Standing for a while.

It's not a great look for a business that has revenues in the region of £200m, paying many employees millions of pounds per year to put on this "we don't have two pennies to rub together, so the fans will have to stump up" act if something comes along they don't like.

Paul Barber is a great communicator and fantastic ambassador for the club, but on this subject he doesn't come across well at all. Might be the one area where he gives a polite "no" to the media requests.

But on the other hand the fans are the first to complain if we reduce wages and transfer fees and drop down the table as a result.

 

[Javeaseagull]

We need a Regulator, of course, another job for “one of us” don’tcha you know. Who’s next in line for a nice fat little Quango? Must have gone to a “good” school. Need to keep the plebs in line, tell them what’s good for them. Knowledge of football is not required but must be one of the “right” sort. Absolutely.

 

[BadFish]

I just can't see that coming about, alas.

You'd need every league in every country agreeing - that's simply never going to happen, particularly when new leagues come into existence, eg Saudi Arabia, who will want to use money as a tool to accelerate growth.

I obviously live in a fantasy world wishing for this but surely this is something FIFA, could or should, facilitate.

I guess with clubs and owners unwilling to make sacrifices to ensure their own survival we are knackered.

I have romantic ideas about putting the fans and community at the centre of the discussion. But I will take my pinko socialist ideas and forget it .

 

[Guinness Boy]

But on the other hand the fans are the first to complain if we reduce wages and transfer fees and drop down the table as a result.

Presumably, with such a massive overhead, every single club would have to either reduce investment on the playing side, the academy / women or pass it on to their fans, as the cost burden would be equal.

Unless PB is being disingenuous of course.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

so many in favour of regulation, what do you think they will actually do that will markedly improve football? will they cap wages, prevent the foreign ownership of clubs, stop clubs going into debt or administration? a lot of focus on the EPL money is made and not a lot about over all governance. and why only football needing this special oversight? smells like something to be seen to do something, state over reach into something they dont understand.

The bill is available online. I skim read it last night. It states the IFR remit. As for “something they dont understand”…there will be an expert panel of at least 6 bods who will have the necessary knowledge and experience.

 

[jcdenton08]

Presumably, with such a massive overhead, every single club would have to either reduce investment on the playing side, the academy / women or pass it on to their fans, as the cost burden would be equal.

Unless PB is being disingenuous of course.

I took his comments the same way as you.

It’s very pass agg in how it comes across, essentially threatening the children to be good or they’ll take away their Christmas presents.

 

[Springal]

I’d start with a transfer levy of 0.5/1% paid by the buying club

Stop clubs from paying agents - make the players pay it themselves.

 

[ROSM]

I think it's important to remember how we got here.

1) the European super league
2) failure to get agreement between the epl and efl and distribution of income
3) inability to align regulations
4) widespread concern that match day supporters are becoming incidental for many / an inconvenience for others. And this just after the Pandemic showed how much football needs crowds
5) cultural and societal impacts of poor football governance over the decades whether its Bury, man city, brighton or newcastle
6) fa cup replays stopped but high profile mid season, pre season and post season foreign tours increase

If only administrators had shown the same level of activity to fix those issues as they are now exercising to lobby against a regulator.

The smearing in the media of good people like steve bassam et al, by rod liddle, Martin samuel, is part of a co-ordinated media campaign.

That baroness brady has tabled more amendments to this one bill than she has on all other bills in the last 3 years also tells us something.

Im also very sorry that our own club who generally communicate well have committed such a misstep on this one and are coming across tin eared and passive aggressive

I too work in financial services and I recall a good number of organisations stating prior to the credit crunch that we had too much regulation in the UK and lobbying labour to go further on the deregulation commenced in the early 90s.

Like many here, I'm not naturally pro regulators, but it's the least worst option on the table unless the fa and epl come up with something better and move some way closer to the efl then in some shape or form it will happen. It would also be better to think of a lot of positive stuff the regulator could achieve such as working with other regulators e.g transport to have a more joined up approach to a matchday experience for the fans