The revamped football regulator: what's new in the Labor Party and what can it do? | American football

So the regulator lives again?

Well, he never actually died, he was just resting. The Football Governance Bill returned to parliament this week, relaunched and rebooted by the Labor government. It is largely the same bill that Conservative governments spent a lot of time and energy crafting, only to have to abandon it mid-parliamentary process because their prime minister called a general election.

What does this regulator regulate?

Men's football in England or, to be more specific, the first five categories of the men's competition (from first division to the National League. It has three main objectives: “to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”; “protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”; and “safeguarding the heritage of English football.” Away from the headlines, there are other drivers too, but we'll get to them in a minute.

So what's new in Labour's bill?

The basic operation of the proposed regulator remains the same. It involves making an assessment on the financial sustainability of the clubs and, if they pass the test, granting them a license to operate (or, if they do not pass the test, adding conditions to that license). It involves carrying out tests to assess the suitability of anyone who wants to own or control a club. It must have the “fallback” power to force a financial deal on competencies if agreed redeployment deals are not achieved. It will also enforce rules that help preserve a club's assets; for example, setting the conditions under which a club can sell its ground and move to a new one.

The differences between the new bill and the old bill lie in the details, but these details could prove significant. The main change is that the controversial parachute payments that Premier League clubs receive in the event of relegation will be assessed by the regulator to see if they undermine the “financial resilience” that the regulator must support. yes they are considered problematic, and the English soccer league As they have long argued they are, they could be challenged in any future redistribution deal between the Premier League and the EFL. However, government ministers have been at pains to insist that parachute payments will not be abolished.

Other changes include an expanded requirement on how clubs must interact with their supporters. Clubs are now required to consult with fans on issues relating to changes to ticket prices and other “match day and operational matters”. Added to this are previously announced criteria, such as relocation or changing the club's emblem. In addition to consultation, the bill says, clubs should “take into account” the opinions of fans before making decisions.

A controversial clause that said the regulator should not enforce decisions that could go against the government's foreign policy was removed. This clause was widely thought to relate to the issue of state ownership of clubs and had drawn scrutiny from UEFA for possible government interference.

What the hell could be in these details?

The inclusion of parachute payments and the retention of backstop power means the government is taking seriously the argument of many within football, and especially the EFL, that financial imbalances are distorting the competitiveness of English football. This is reinforced by a secondary set of governing criteria which say the regulator must take care not to take any action that could “have effects on the sporting competitiveness of any regulated club vis-à-vis another regulated club”. The Conservative government spent a lot of time trying to reassure stakeholders that it was only interested in assessing the financial health of the game. This approach now appears to have changed.

It could also be argued that strengthening the areas in which fans should be consulted and listened to has increased the emphasis on the role fans play in domestic football. For the Football Fans' Association, which has led the campaign for a regulator from the beginning, this will be a vindication of sorts. There is also good news for Kick It Out, the anti-discrimination campaign group. He has long called for greater transparency in terms of equality, diversity and inclusion within football. Provisions to make reporting on EDI data mandatory are included in the new bill.

So some of football's least resourced players have been boosted by the new bill. Overall, it seems more cohesive and coherent than it did six months ago, perhaps simply as a result of the additional time spent and the addition of new voices. But the wording of the bill is also clearer, which perhaps bodes well for its implementation. However, it is clear that the government is not happy with the short list of potential candidates to lead the regulator; has announced it will reopen applications for the CEO position starting this week.