What are regulators doing there?
In short: keep football clubs solvent. The Independent Football Regulator (IFR) will be able to check whether clubs have sufficient funds to operate sustainably and take action if it finds this is not the case. It will try to work with clubs and leagues to resolve issues, but will ultimately have the power to impose tough sanctions if needed, with the force of the law behind them.
What about those dodgy owners?
This is the second duty of the regulator: to assess the suitability of football club owners and directors. With access to HMRC data and consultation with the National Crime Agency, the government promises regulators can carry out more rigorous due diligence on potential investors than before. It can also force owners to give up their shares if they are found to be (very) unsuitable. At the same time, regulators must also “take into account the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government” when assessing the new owner.
Why is IFR needed?
The idea of a governing body for English football goes back a long way but became feasible in the wake of the game’s recent financial chaos. At the top level, clubs chase new funding from the spin-off Super League. At the bottom, Macclesfield and Bury went bankrupt, while other companies – such as Southend and Reading – were or remain at risk. Football’s argument that it can look after its own affairs no longer rings true for politicians or many people in the sport.
When will it be in place?
No one knows for sure, but you can chart a course that might have regulators up and running by the summer of 2025. This is subject to the Football Governance Bill being passed quickly through Parliament (as it should be, it has cross-party support), the birth of the organization is well underway (key staff are being recruited) and a report assessing the state of the game is being completed. From that point on, the IFR can begin the process of granting a provisional license for an initial three-year period, meaning that the club has assessed its finances and agreed a plan to make its business sustainable (and in some cases, Clubs are already sustainable, whereas in many other cases they will not be).
Yes and no. A long-running debate over how much money the Premier League should provide to the English Football League to ease the financial problems of lower league clubs erupted as the Premier League abandoned a deal last week. Once the IFR is established, it will have the power to force an agreement if it remains elusive. But the “new deal” is also relevant to many other issues in the game, such as how many games should be played and how much clubs should be allowed to spend on players; factors the government says are outside the regulator’s purview.
Newsletter Promotion Post
Why is the Premier League so frustrated?
Both the Football Association and the EFL have issued public statements welcoming the regulators. The Premier League does not. Instead, it said it remained “concerned about any unintended consequences that the legislation might have on reducing the competitiveness and attractiveness of English football”. The Premier League has called the shots in English football for 30 years, so it’s probably no surprise that the arrival of a new body telling clubs what to do sounds irritating. At the same time, clubs are uncomfortable with having to shoulder the lion’s share of the regulator’s operating costs. But the Premier League is indeed a British success story, yet it is often painted as the villain in this debate. It can also be irritating.
Finally, what about the fans?
Supporter groups were the first to make the argument that football was not an effective self-regulator and the arrival of the IFR vindicated their campaign. The final responsibility of the regulators is to ensure that clubs regularly engage with fans and listen to their views, even if they do not do what they want. Clubs must also obtain fan approval before changing certain aspects of the club’s “tradition”, such as the color of the jersey or club crest. But proper fan representation at board level (for example in Germany) is not on the agenda.
