Football regulator will not take foreign policy into account for acquisitions after withdrawal | American football

Ministers have abandoned plans to require the new football regulator to consider the government's foreign policy when making decisions on club takeovers.

The move follows warnings from UEFA that this requirement could lead to some countries' bids for clubs being favored over others and would constitute political interference in football.

The government will introduce the Football Governance Bill in the House of Lords on Thursday.

The creation of an independent regulator to oversee elite men's football in England was a commitment in Labour's manifesto, based on plans drawn up by the Conservatives in government.

The Conservative-drafted bill stated that the regulator's decisions on future or current club owners should consider “the foreign and trade policy objectives” of the UK government. This was criticized by UEFA because it could mean special treatment for countries with which the UK has close commercial and political ties.

England will co-host the 2028 European Championship with Scotland, Wales and Ireland, but there were some fears this could be jeopardized by UEFA's concerns about the new regulator.

Keir Starmer told reporters last month that he was in talks with UEFA to allay their concerns. The Prime Minister suggested at the time that the proposals did not need to be changed and that the European football body had “slightly reduced its concerns as time went on”.

In 2022 The Guardian revealed details of how Boris Johnson's government pressured the Premier League to approve the controversial takeover of Newcastle United by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund.

Leaked messages published this month suggested that Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was heavily involved in the club's acquisition. the first league He insisted this week that he saw no reason to review the legality of the deal, which is controversial due to Saudi Arabia's human rights record. A CIA report concluded that Bin Salman approved the murder of Washington Post journalist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018. The crown prince has denied personal involvement.

Proponents of the plan to require the regulator to consider foreign policy said it was aimed at preventing clubs from being taken over by people sanctioned or banned from owning other assets in the UK. there is There have been calls to go further. and completely ban foreign ownership of English football clubs.

During last year's consultation period on the regulator's mandate, some leaders first division The clubs pressured the government to prevent nation states from taking control of teams in England. Newcastle's example has sparked debate, while Manchester City, the current champion, has been owned since 2008 by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a key figure in the royal family of Abu Dhabi and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

The regulator aims to help monitor clubs' finances and improve fan engagement. It will require clubs to consult fans before changing ticket prices or relocating their stadium and oversee parachute payments, which are paid to clubs relegated from the Premier League. The secretary of culture, Lisa NandiHe is believed to have told the Premier League and his clubs that parachute payments will continue; the EFL wants them removed.

Clubs will also need to set out what actions they are taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion as part of a new governance code. any club wanting to sell their stadium to related or third-party companies would need regulatory approval, and such requests would be granted only if the club could demonstrate that it was in its long-term best interests and had the support of its fans.

The new bill received a mixed response from the Premier League, which welcomed areas such as fan engagement and encouraging responsible ownership, but said it was concerned about “unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of Premier League revenues”, in reference to the regulator's decision. ability to enforce an agreement on additional funds going to the EFL and decide on the future of parachute payments.

The Premier League said “rigid banking-style regulation” could have “a negative impact on the league's continued competitiveness, clubs' investment in world-class talent and, above all, the aspiration that drives our attractiveness and growth.” global”. has brought £1.6bn into the game and wider communities over the past three years.

Rick Parry, chairman of the EFL, welcomed the bill, saying the EFL will examine “the key issue around the regulator's backstop powers in respect of financial redistribution” and insisting that “our intention is not harm or hinder the strength of the Premier League. ”.

“With our clubs, we will continue to work with the government and parliamentarians to consider appropriate checks and balances in legislation to protect the hard-won position of English football, which is globally admired, a vital source of soft power and an engine of growth. economic. growth across the country,” the Premier League said.

The Premier League has put intense pressure on the bill, while showering British MPs with hospitality in recent years. In the last parliament, Starmer received more than £35,000 worth of football tickets, many of which were for Premier League matches. He also received more than £12,000 in gifts and hospitality from the Premier League itself.

Clive Betts, Labor MP and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on football, he told the Observer this month the gifts were “clearly part of a campaign.” And he added: “I don't think they can influence the regulator that is being created, but they can influence the powers it has.”

Plans to set up the regulator were drawn up by the Conservatives following an attempt by several elite men's clubs to break away and form a European Super League. There have also been concerns about financial mismanagement and the collapse of smaller football clubs, including Bury and Macclesfield.

Nandy said: “English football is one of our greatest exports and a source of national pride which this Government wants to see flourish for generations to come. But for too long, financial instability has meant loyal fans and entire communities are at risk of losing their prized clubs as a result of mismanagement and reckless spending. “This Bill seeks to properly restore the balance, putting fans back at the heart of the game, tackling dishonest owners and, crucially, helping to put clubs across the country on solid financial footing.”

Tracey Crouch, a former sports minister who first proposed the idea after a review of football governance, said: “I am grateful that the government is taking action to protect football from threats from dishonest owners and competitions. separatists.

“The protections in the new bill reflect the fan-led review's recommendations that fans should be put back at the heart of the game and will have a genuine say in aspects such as ticket sales and club assets. “.

Gary Neville, former Manchester United and England player, said: “Football is undoubtedly one of our country's greatest assets, but now more than ever we need an independent regulator to act as a guardian of our game, to ensure that clubs and their fans are protected for the long term.”

Meanwhile, fan groups from several top-flight clubs will stage protests at matches over the next fortnight in response to rising ticket prices. They will support the Football Fans Association's #StopExploitingLoyalty campaign.

The actions, organized over the next two weekends, are seen as a direct response to a series of ticket price increases and attacks on concessional price bands at numerous clubs.

Last weekend, Spurs and West Ham fans protested the withdrawal of preferential rates by their clubs ahead of the match between the two.

FSA chairman Tom Greatrex said: “The Premier League and its clubs really need to hear this message: clubs must value and reward the loyalty of their fans rather than exploit it.

“Fans feel that clubs are often more concerned with attracting one-off visitors who will pay top dollar for a ticket while spending fortunes in the club shop, when they should be looking to reward those who come week after week, win or lose. .”

Additional reporting by Kiran Stacey