Speaking in the Football Governance Bill’s second reading debate, James Wild MP raised concerns that the Bill risks undermining English football through over-regulation, stalled funding talks, and rising compliance costs.
He highlighted how the legislation has frozen funding negotiations between leagues, jeopardising support for clubs throughout the football pyramid. He also raised concerns about the financial strain new regulation could place on smaller clubs, and the potential impact on competitiveness from proposed changes to parachute payments.
As a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town, James called for changes to ensure the Bill supports good governance without damaging the health and success of the game.
James Wild MP said:
“I declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town.
“Other Members have rightly referred to the success of the Premier League and the fact that the EFL is one of the best-attended leagues in Europe. Football is, and should be recognised as, a success story. I want to focus on the risks posed to the game by this Bill and the regulatory framework it introduces.
“Indeed, even the Government concedes that the new regime—particularly its distribution provisions—is unique and unprecedented. While the objectives of financial sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding heritage, and strengthening fan engagement are supported by many, much of this is already being delivered under existing FA, Premier League, and EFL rules.
“My concern, which I raised in the previous Parliament during debate on a similar Bill, is that this legislation risks overreach and over-regulation. We’ve already heard suggestions from across the House to impose further burdens on football—ranging from safeguarding heritage assets to protecting car parks.
“The Prime Minister has stated that the key test for regulation is whether it will make our economy more dynamic and unlock investment. Yet this Bill creates a new regulator that will take £100 million out of the game—including from smaller clubs. The regulatory scope and associated costs will only grow over time. The regulator’s remit is already vast; it will be required to approve business plans for 116 clubs as part of a mandatory licensing regime. Applying this kind of banking-style oversight to a sport is simply inappropriate.
“Revenue provisions in the Bill have attracted significant attention. Let us be clear: the Government is taking powers through the backstop to mandate the division of commercial revenues—an unprecedented step that creates regulatory and investment uncertainty.
“Currently, voluntary agreements underpin funding across the football pyramid. But the backstop, which was meant to be a last resort, has effectively become the frontstop. The EFL has stated clearly that it will not reach any agreement with the Premier League until these powers come into force. The situation has been worsened by the inclusion of parachute payments, which risks discouraging promoted clubs from investing to compete, thereby weakening the game’s competitiveness.
“There are further concerns about the untested “final offer” arbitration model. Rather than assessing both the Premier League’s and EFL’s proposals to identify the best or a balanced compromise, this model forces the regulator to choose one or the other—essentially a game of regulatory Russian roulette. Lord Birt has proposed an amendment in the Lords to replace this with a commercial arbitration model. The Secretary of State offered warm words in response. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government is still engaging with Lord Birt and legal experts to address concerns with the current model.
“To conclude, this Bill introduces unprecedented regulation of our national game. It carries clear risks to the very elements that have made English football such a success—financial strength, community support, and global appeal. That is why I will be opposing the Bill. If the Government gets this wrong, it will be the Prime Minister and his ministers who will be held responsible for the damage done to football.”
