Masters outlines Premier League's objections to 'risk-averse' regulator | first division

Richard Masters has raised a series of detailed objections to plans to create an independent regulator for English football, arguing that the body will be too risk-averse and subject to too much influence from the government.

This new series of challenges to the regulator is perhaps the most forceful lobby in the Premier League. As the football governance bill passed through parliament, Masters gave substance to long-standing criticism from the league that the regulator would result in “unintended consequences”.

Responding to a request from MPs' culture, media and sport committee, the Premier League chief executive says that “despite good intentions”, the proposed regulation model would be too onerous to allow English football to thrive. .

“We remain concerned that the bill, as drafted, may… prove workable in a risk-averse model, constructed through a complicated and duplicative system,” he writes. “This will inevitably have consequences for the proper functioning of the leagues.”

Masters reveals that the Premier League's original position was that any regulator should be above national football authorities, intervening “on a gradual basis” to fix problems. Instead, the government's model sees the regulator as having a direct role in maintaining the financial sustainability of the English football pyramid, with the ability to issue or withdraw operating licenses for clubs and subject those licenses to conditions.

Masters argues that this system duplicates existing processes and, inspired in part by the regulation of financial industries, is not suitable for football. “Banking is an industry that requires systemic stability,” he writes. “The football industry as a whole is remarkably stable with only six administrations in the last 12 years. However, what happens within the league structure is inherently unstable. Fierce competition, rewards for success, and consequences for failure are all part of a highly competitive league system that fans want to follow. “These are not deficiencies that need to be addressed.”

In a series of Premier League counterproposals, Masters argues that standards for imposing financial conditions on clubs should be raised. It also calls for the government to look to make the regulator more independent, with the current bill requiring the secretary of state to draw up a football governance statement every three years outlining key priorities, and also a clause saying the regulator must take into account the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. taken into account when considering another of its functions: that of evaluating the suitability of the owners. He writes: “The government appears to have inscribed a stronger role in the regime than anticipated.”

Masters goes on to note that any perceived political encroachment could lead to FIFA intervention. “If this goes too far, it may even run into trouble with FIFA and UEFA,” he writes, “whose statutes prohibit state interference in competitive football.” Supporters of regulation argue that FIFA already tolerates regulatory divergence, with rules such as 50+1 fan ownership in Germany and looming Turkish controls on the number of foreign players in its league.

Finally, Masters criticizes the proposed “backstop” mechanism to generate a financial agreement between the Premier League and the EFL as potentially “integrating ongoing negotiation and uncertainty into football.” While many MPs want the regulator to have more control over backstop powers, including the ability to assess the use of parachute payments, Masters wants the backstop to be harder to activate, calling it “a novel, perhaps unprecedented mechanism.” ” in the United Kingdom. .

“It will be very important that it can be demonstrated that its design is capable of properly considering the Premier League and the property rights of its clubs,” he writes, adding that “it is important to recognize the importance of changing what to date has been a voluntary agreement based on good will and good faith in a binding agreement.”