For a long time now, football has heard the voice screaming in the desert: make way for the arrival of the regulator. This has been the hope that has sustained the rest of the game as the rich have disappeared further into the distance and clubs have been dragged further and further from their traditional communities. And now, with Thursday's launch of the Football Governance Bill, it all seems a little more real, a little closer. This is really happening.
But as details emergePerhaps the most important thing to remember is that just because a regulator exists does not mean that regulations are enforced, as the water industry demonstrates very clearly. Far more important than any individual clause in the bill is the power the regulator will have in practice.
Ticket prices, sustainability, fan representation and equality, diversity and inclusion within the game are important, as is the reduction or abolition of parachute payments, but equally none of the intentions matter much if The regulator lacks strength. And even if the regulator is given significant power, it can only be as good as the people who run it. Perhaps there are experienced, intelligent, sensitive and strong-willed people in football, but will the regulator have enough funds to be able to afford it? Or is there a danger, as has happened in other industries, that those being regulated have deeper pockets than those they regulate and can therefore cherry-pick the regulator's best?
And this is the existential question facing the modern game: is it really governable? It is true that some clubs have always been richer than others. But what is new is that modern owners, whether states, oligarchs or the richest private equity funds, have the financial power to intimidate football administrators into submission. Could they even sue the regulator?
The only way to deal with financial power of that nature is through government intervention. It is therefore a terrible irony that UEFA and FIFA, the same bodies that have failed to address the related scourges of sportswashing and inequality, explicitly prohibit government intervention.
Trying to keep politics and sport separate, trying, for example, to prevent a sports ministry from overriding a national federation to appoint the national coach with all the bribes that may entail, is a laudable objective. But intervening in issues of regulatory oversight favors the very rich and already powerful. Last month, UEFA general secretary Theodore Theodoridis wrote to culture secretary Lisa Nandy warning that England could theoretically be excluded from Euro 2028, which it will co-host, should a regulator “slips” into areas beyond “the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets.”
It should be noted that this is not a government regulator but an independent body, although created by the government due to such concern on the part of the first division who has presented gifts worth more than £100,000 to MPs, including Keir Starmer and nine serving cabinet ministers, over the past three years.
In reality, the prospect of UEFA ruining the financial viability of its premier international tournament is minimal.but the threat suggested how cautious many within the football establishment are about regulation. In particular, the clause on the regulator taking foreign and commercial policy considerations into account in club acquisitions has been removed from the bill, which should help allay UEFA's stated concerns, although it is puzzling. that was included anyway.
While it is realistic to worry about the consequences if a nation with which Britain has strained relations buys an English club, it is baffling that English football is expected to consider trade policy when deciding whether an owner is appropriate, even if it is now clear that Boris Johnson, when prime minister, actively supported the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United after being warned by Mohammed bin Salman. that blocking the deal could damage relations between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The idea of an external government interfering with the functioning of football does not seem to interest UEFA or FIFA.
after newsletter promotion
In any other era it would have sounded ridiculous. Has Edward Heath helped the Shah's Iran buy Coventry City? That? And yet, this is where we are. English football has become a stage on which global politics takes place. This inevitably has an impact on integrity, and sport without integrity is nothing. It's not just about the Saudis, Johnson and Newcastle.
A freedom of information request a year ago showed that the UK government had been in contact with the British embassy in Abu Dhabi to discuss the possible consequences of the Premier League charges against Manchester City, but the emails were withheld arguing that its disclosure could harm the UK's relationship with the United Arab Emirates.
These are enormous issues, which are beyond the reach of football authorities. The truth is, they are likely beyond the reach of a regulator. If the regulator really has the mandate and resources to start addressing issues like ticket pricing and sustainability, then it is welcome.
A regulator is at least a focal point for resistance and potential action, and must be free of the institutional interest that so often ruins football. But no one should think that a regulator is a panacea. And frankly, in terms of the biggest problem facing the game, that of unruly wealth, it may already be too late.
