James Wild MP has raised concerns about potential overregulation in the Football Governance Bill and risks to the success of English football.
Speaking in a Westminster Hall debate, James highlighted the global popularity of the Premier League, which supports 90,000 jobs across the UK, alongside the Football League's significant contribution to the game. As a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town, James emphasised the importance of ensuring reforms strengthen the game at all levels, rather than undermining the success of English football.
He said:
“All fans would sign up to the key objectives of ensuring financial sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions and protecting heritage, but my concerns are about possible over-regulation and overreach.
With the bill progressing through Parliament, amendments have been introduced in the House of Lords to include a growth duty — a change James called for and has welcomed — but he remains concerned about potential impact of some of the measures.
He pointed to tensions between the English Football League and the Premier League, with the EFL refusing to negotiate on revenue sharing until the bill’s backstop powers on the distribution of incomes come into force. James also criticised plans to include parachute payments in the new regulations, stressing their importance for clubs like Norwich City to stay competitive and invest in their future.
“Currently, there is a voluntary distribution of the revenues through the football pyramid, and that is essential to the health of the game. We are seeing the impact of the proposals: the EFL is refusing to negotiate with the Premier League and has said that it is waiting for the backstop powers to come into force.”
James also highlighted the National League’s 3UP campaign which is seeking to secure an additional promotion place. However, the EFL has told the National League it will not consider this until they have secured a new deal with the Premier League through the backstop.
As debate on the bill continues, James is urging ministers to avoid unintended consequences that could damage the competitiveness and financial strength of English football.
Text of speech
Due to the number of MPs speaking in the debate, speeches were limited to 1 minute 30 seconds – this is the text of the full speech James intended to deliver:
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and declare an interest as a Norwich City fan and supporter of King’s Lynn Town FC.
Every week millions of people watch their team as well as play the game.
The Premier League is the most watched league in the world, drives growth and supports 90,000 jobs across the country.
And the English Football League is very popular.
So football is a success story and in my remarks I want to focus on governance and proposals to create a new regulatory structure.
What the Football Governance Bill seeks to do is unquestionably novel.
Indeed the government concedes ‘new regime and the distributions provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented’.
Given that we should understand the potential implications in terms of international competitions.
And here we have the curious reluctance of the government to make public a letter the Secretary of State was sent by the Secretary General of UEFA setting out their views on the bill.
The Minister in the Other Place has confirmed the letter exists.
But the government refuses to publish it despite the obvious importance for consideration of the proposals.
Indeed, when I submitted a FOI asking for copies of correspondence from UEFA the department said responding would exceed the cost limit and take 3.5 working days to see if it has such correspondence.
That is ridiculous – simply ask the Secretary of State’s office for a copy.
Can the minister explain why the department is refusing to publish? Have they asked UEFA to release it?
The key objectives of the Bill – particularly enhancing financial sustainability, preventing break away competitions, safeguarding club heritage assets and strengthening fan engagement are ambitions supported by most fans.
My concerns and ones I expressed when the Bill was introduced in the last parliament are that other elements will lead to over-reach and over-regulation.
So to avoid unintended consequences we need a proportionate regime.
In the Chamber last week, I challenged the Secretary of State over the government’s resistance in the other place to add a growth duty to the Bill and so I welcome the change in position and an amendment just laid which does precisely that.
However, what must not be undermined by the new regulatory regime is the competitive and unpredictable nature of football.
Football is about promotion, hopefully for Norwich and King’s Lynn the play offs, and passion.
So football is not like a typical regulated sector.
The task of the new regulator will be considerable – to licence clubs it will have to review detailed business plans of all 116 and reach agreement on them.
Clubs already have to do a lot in terms of regulation so the new regulator needs to be careful it doesn’t duplicate requirements
The National League has raised concerns over the compliance costs for smaller clubs.
Anything spent on regulation is not being spent on football.
Of course, it is the provisions on revenues that attract – rightly – much focus.
Let’s be clear on the proposal - the government is taking powers for a regulator through the backstop to mandate how to divide up the proceeds of football.
Currently there is voluntary distribution of the Premier League club’s tv revenue through the football pyramid.
It is worth noting the support to all levels of the game is higher than any comparator league.
This is essential to maintaining the health of the game.
These are unprecedented powers with the potential to cause significant regulatory and investment uncertainty.
Already seen impact of these provisions
This Bill has stalled any deal between Premier League and EFL – EFL has been open it is waiting for these provisions to come into law,
And the government has worsened them by including parachute payments within the backstop.
That is a mistake.
These are important elements in enabling clubs who get promoted to the Premier League to invest, and to take a risk, so that they can compete - knowing that if they go back down the path would be smoothed.
This could weaken the competitiveness and very elements that attract revenues to sustain the game
Rather than being a last resort the risk is the backstop becomes the only game in town.
And then there is the ‘binding final offer arbitration model’.
Rather than consider proposals from the Premier League and EFL and determine the best approach in the round – which may be a compromise between the two positions – the regulator must choose one of the proposals.
This does not make sense.
In any deal negotiation if both sides fell a little disappointed at the deal that is reached then it is likely to be fair. In this scenario however one side will win.
Can the Minister explain in more detail why the Government thinks this is the best approach?
It is not just the main distribution agreement that is now on hold.
The National League is running a 3UP Campaign to secure an extra promotion place into the EFL.
But the shadow of the backstop also hangs here.
Whether the EFL does this is a matter for the league and they say they support it in principle.
But… they have also said they will not address the matter until they have concluded a new financial package with the Premier League through the backstop.
This could take years – and delay a decision when it is 20 years since the national league gained its two promotion places.
The proposals on governance come from the fan led review and my final point is about fans.
During Covid, King’s Lynn Town and others were required to take out Sports Survival Loans.
£13.3 million of loans were issued to 34 non-league clubs.
The repayment of those loans may now threaten the viability of some clubs.
So as we look at financial sustainability there’s an opportunity to create a legacy of fan ownership in clubs firmly rooted in their communities.
To achieve that the government should consider allowing clubs to convert up to say 49 per cent of the loan into equity gifted to Supporters Trusts in perpetuity.
This would reduce burden of repayment on non-league clubs and ensure the majority of a loan is repaid
This would put fans at the heart of football.
To conclude, the reforms included in this bill mark a step change in the regulation of our national game.
There are clear risks to the elements which make football a success.
The government will rightly be held responsible if it gets this wrong and undermines football.
