A Fairer Future for Football

The Football Governance Bill is making its way through parliament. The Bill will, for the first time, look to fix football’s ills and introduce a new Independent Regulator

There is no doubt football is broken.

  • The financial divides between divisions are getting wider across the pyramid;

  • Vested interest is rife;

  • Clubs don’t have the cash to implement the proposed changes;

  • The Owners and Directors’ test is not fit for purpose;

  • Fans have little say in the protection of history and traditions of clubs;

  • Equality standards are no more than lip service; and

  • Net zero goals are almost non-existent.

At the heart is a system that benefits the elite and has left the cherished football pyramid on the brink of ruin, putting the local businesses and communities that depend on their local football club at risk.

Only a Bill that fixes the economic divide can deliver the ambition of a fairer future for football and one that turns football into a force for good.

Deliver a Fairer Financial Flow in Football

Why it Matters?

There is no incentive to be a well-run club. In fact, under the current arrangement, the very opposite is true.

Each year the Premier League receives £3.19bn in media rights. They control how it is distributed throughout the pyramid. 

The Premier League's remit is to protect the interests of its stakeholders - namely the 20 owners of its clubs. They do not need to care about the wider interests of football in England.

In 2007, the Premier League introduced “Parachute Payments” a payment given annually to clubs relegated from the top flight. Since then, the financial divide within the Championship and between divisions has grown wider every year. 

There is an indisputable correlation between the amount spent on players’ wages and league position. So it is no surprise that clubs that receive these funds are becoming more and more statistically likely to be promoted back to the Premier League. At the same time the gap between the Championship and League One, and League Two and the National League has also significantly widened. This means that clubs are increasingly encouraged to spend more and more on players’ wages to progress up the pyramid. 

Nearly every club in the Championship now spends more money on players’ wages than it gets in revenue. And a vast majority of clubs rely on an owner-benefactor just to survive - 58% of clubs in the top 92 are now technically insolvent. Clubs often prioritise the wages of a third-choice left-back over stadium improvements, community projects, or backroom staff - all of which benefit a club in the long term. 

In short, the financial flow in football is deeply flawed and does not encourage a sustainable approach.

How to fix it?

The Independent Regulator must have the powers to approve any distribution deals and define the parameters that any deal must address.

The Regulator’s core objective is to “Protect and Promote the financial resilience of English football as a whole”. Without these powers it will fail to have the teeth required to deliver.

This is commonplace within most regulated sectors - ensuring that the consumer (in this case the clubs and the fans) are protected.

Earlier this year, the previous Government published its version of the Football Governance Bill. On the area of financial flow, Fair Game identified the following seven areas that still needed to be added:

  1. Providing for flexibility in the identity of the parties to the distribution agreement (i.e. not assuming that there will be just two specified competition organisers); 

  2. Ensuring that any agreement reached by the specified competition organisers meets certain minimum requirements and requires regulatory approval; 

  3. Including in the minimum requirements: closing financial gaps between divisions; compensation for player development; incentivising clubs to be well run; and any issues flagged by the State of the Game Survey, which will assess existing distribution agreements against the principles in the Bill; 

  4. Enabling the triggering of the mediation process by the specified competition organisers but also by the Regulator independently; 

  5. Ensuring that any agreement entered into under the mediation process must meet the minimum requirements and, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, empowering the Regulator to impose its own deal on them; 

  6. Ensuring that, if the specified competition organisers enter into an agreement after a distribution order has been made, it must still meet the minimum requirements and be approved by the Regulator; 

  7. Ensuring that the Regulator covers clubs down to National League North and South levels; and 

  8. Removing the exclusion of parachute payments from the Regulator’s remit. 

Key stat

New Regulator Free of Vested Interest

Why it matters?

The regulator must be independent and look after the whole of the football pyramid. There cannot be any vested interest.

The Premier League's remit is to look after its shareholders, the 20 owners of the Premier League clubs. 

Although, no league is set up to look after the interests of the whole of the football pyramid, the Premier League's economic control is almost total.

  • The League decides the distribution of £3.19bn media rights each year.

  • A large number of football campaign groups now rely on the Premier League for a majority of their funding. 

  • The FA is also heavily dependent on the Premier League due to its reliance on the FA Cup for a majority of its funding. The FA Cup’s appeal depends on the participation of the Game's elite clubs.

This makes it vital to ensure that the Regulator’s board, its expert panel and its employers are all devoid of any influence and vested interest.

At the moment the Premier League is the de facto regulator of English football.

How to fix it?

Earlier this year, the previous Government published its version of the Football Governance Bill. In the area of vested interest, Fair Game identified the following four issues:

  1. It did not clearly define what conflict of interest is; 

  2. The Bill did not say that a person could not be on the board and have a conflict of interest, it just said that the person appointing them had to be satisfied that they did not have a conflict of interest; 

  3. The process for declaring a conflict of interest was quite strange, relying on the appointor ensuring to their satisfaction that there is no conflict of interest; and 

  4. The process for removal of a board member with a conflict of interest only applied to non-executive directors and is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. 

These issues can be addressed by: 

  1. Including a list of circumstances in which a person will be deemed to have a conflict of interest. These must include being employed by, or engaged as a consultant by, a specified competition organiser, any of their group companies, or any company they have majority funded in the past year. It should also include anyone connected with a person who has a conflict of interest; 

  2. Working with relevant stakeholders to check if this list of potential conflicts of interest is sufficient and exhaustive; 

  3. Stating that a person with a conflict of interest cannot be on the board or the expert panel; 

  4. Ensuring all board members must declare their conflicts and their appointors (for non-executive directors) must also ensure that their appointees do not have conflicts; 

  5. Ensuring an individual with a conflict should have 30 days to remedy the conflict, failing which board membership automatically terminates. Any dispute as to whether they have a conflict of interest is resolved by the Chief Executive (or, if the conflict relates to the Chief Executive, by other executive members of the board, provided that they do not also have the same conflict); 

  6. Ensuring the Regulator must report to the Industry and Regulation Committee every six months; and

  7. Ensuring the proposed State of Game Report is published every 12 months (with the first version delivered within a year of the Bill becoming an Act).

Key stat

In the entire 134-page document there is not one mention of the word “transparency” or the phrase “vested interest”. 

Support for all Licensed Clubs

Why it matters?

The highest standards must become the norm within football, but this can only be achieved with adequate support for clubs. 

There is wide acceptance that stronger controls and oversight would improve the governance and monitoring of the game.

Many football clubs at the top of the game employ hundreds of backroom staff, but that number drops off dramatically they further down the pyramid you go. Indeed, some clubs in League One and League Two operate with less than 30 full-time staff and in the National League clubs are lucky to have a pool of more than five full-time staff. They all live hand to mouth, and assuring full compliance with a raft of new regulations could take up a significant amount of time, which would impact on the club's day-to-day operations.

Clubs need help. Additional training, funding and staffing must be included.

Without proper support, it could spell the death knell for dozens of clubs further down the pyramid.

How to fix it?

The original Bill put forward by the Conservative Government stated that all licensed clubs must pay a levy, to be determined in accordance with levy rules which the Regulator establishes. Fair Game spotted two key issues with this: 

  1. The Regulator was given quite wide discretion to determine the extent of the levy. This created a concern that it would not be proportionate to a club's size (notwithstanding the requirement that the Regulator must “have regard to the financial resources of each licensed club”). We do not think it is appropriate to dictate what the levy should be, but we do think that it is important that it is proportionate to a club’s revenue. 

  2. The Bill did not include any guarantees that clubs will be given any assistance in transitioning to the new regime, nor in their continued compliance with its requirements. There is a particular concern that smaller clubs will face a disproportionate compliance burden. We believe the Regulator must provide “reasonable and proportionate assistance” to clubs.

The fee must be a percentage of revenue, not a flat rate, to ensure it does not disproportionately affect smaller clubs.

Clubs lower down the pyramid, particularly those already struggling to survive, must not be burdened with an extra financial burden. 

The Regulator must provide support, which should come from ring-fenced funding, training, and collaborative intervention. 

Key stat

Arsenal employ over 500 full-time non-football backroom staff, at Brentford (also in the Premier League) it is 243, at Luton Town (Championship) it is 60, at Swindon Town and Grimsby Town (both in League Two) it is 25. In the National League Ebbsfleet employ six full-time staff, while at Gateshead it is just three. One step down and it is two at Tonbridge Angels two and not even one at Darlington.

An Owners and Directors’ Test fit for purpose

Why it matters?

Football clubs are institutions within their communities. The owners and directors of clubs are role models and tests for their suitability must have the highest bar.

There are three notable areas to address:

  1. The current tests are opaque at best and vary massively across the pyramid. And when it comes to a minute to midnight, the level of scrutiny collapses, and it has been a case that any deal will do. Football needs to address this constant uncertainty.

  2. The Football Governance Bill refers to the Regulator having "regard to the foreign and trade objectives" of the Government, which would instantly become vulnerable to the whims of the Government of the day. To ensure the sustainability of football clubs is protected, the Bill must, therefore, also explicitly rule out state ownership of football clubs.

  3. When an owner or a director fails to meet the required standards, provisions must be put in place to ensure the club’s future is secure.


How to fix it?

The original Conservative Bill required clubs to obtain a “determination of suitability” for new owners and directors (sections 28 and 29), and gave the Regulator the power to monitor the suitability of incumbent owners and directors (sections 34 and 35). Yet, the original Bill also included a provision stating that the Regulator must have regard to “the foreign and trade policy objectives of [the Government].” 


This was problematic because: 

  • The Regulator’s actions would be dictated by the whims of the Government in power at the time; and 

  • It would exclude state-owned clubs from the same rigour applied to privately owned clubs under the owners test, setting a different regulatory standard for those clubs owned by states with whom the UK Government wants to pursue its interests. 

We believe these issues can be addressed by removing the reference to the foreign and trade objectives, and excluding state ownership of football clubs. 

If the Regulator disqualifies an incumbent owner, it is unclear how the owner might be forced to sell their shares. It could, in the case of a difficult owner (or one who is unable to find a buyer at all – or at the right price), result in a situation where the club is unlicensed and therefore unable to participate in the competition in which it plays, but the owner is unable or unwilling to sell up. It is also not clear how the Regulator would force a director to resign from the board of a club. This is not the fan-focused outcome that the Regulator is intended to seek. To address this: 

  1. The Regulator should ensure that clubs have sufficient reserves to meet ongoing operational costs if an owner is disqualified; 

  2. The Regulator should maintain a central sinking fund to help cover interim costs; and 

  3. The Regulator should insist in its licence criteria that clubs must include a mechanism for the resignation of a director in a club’s Articles of Association in these circumstances.

Key stat

According to Starling Bank, the recommended minimum for cash reserves for businesses is three months.

Only 66 of the 92 clubs filed accounts for the 2021/22 season that included data on wages and cash reserves. Nottingham Forest spent £58,606,000 on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves - just five hours’ worth of reserves.

Of the 66, Plymouth Argyle was the most financially secure, with 413 days’ worth of reserves, followed by Tottenham Hotspur (395), Exeter (303), West Ham United (259), and AFC Wimbledon (222). The full breakdown can be viewed here.

The clubs with the least reserves in that season after Nottingham Forest were Walsall (eight hours), Middlesbrough (52 hours) and Coventry City (54 hours).

Champion and protect Club Heritage

Why it matters?

What is a football club? At its base it is the club colours, the badge, its history, and the connection to its community and its fans. They must be protected.

The original Bill stated that the Regulator's third objective is heritage, stating that it will “safeguard the traditional features of English football that matter most to the fans and local communities of clubs.”

Historically, some of the big controversies around football have come about when a club has ignored its fans: Hull City’s owners trying to rename the club the Tigers; the owners of Cardiff City - the Bluebirds - deciding to change the club’s home colours to red; and controversially Wimbledon FC’s owners moving the club 60 miles to Milton Keynes.

In each case, it should never have been allowed to happen. An owner of a football club is a custodian of decades of history and tradition, they need to be aware of that and listen to the fans.

There also has to be protection of club assets, with some owners using stadiums as leverage for financial purpose. This leaves the club’s core revenue making at risk, which has been seen with Derby County.

Vital decisions which put the club’s heritage at risk must sit with the fans. 



How to fix it?

The Conservative version of the Football Governance Bill did look to address some of these issues. However, there were a few areas that Fair Game spotted that needed tightening up. These included:

  1. The Regulator must be satisfied that either the disposal of a ground will not affect the club’s continued long-term use of the ground or there must be a suitable alternative home ground for the next season; 

  2. The new Bill must require fan approval of any “substantial changes” to a home ground or the site on which it is located, and the Regulator must also be satisfied that any such changes would “enhance” the facility;

  3. A sale of the home ground must only be made with the fans’ approval;

  4. Any move from where the club plays its home matches must be approved by a majority of the club’s fans;

  5. Having an agreement to play at a ground for the next 20 years should be part of the club license; and

  6. Changing the club’s name, crest or home shirt colours must be supported by a majority of the club’s fans.

All of these should also be enshrined in the club’s Articles of Association as part of the club’s license.

Key stat

In the 2022/23 season, each weekend 890,944 people watched football in the top seven divisions of the English men’s football pyramid, of which: 

  • 45.16% went to a Premier League match;  

  • 25.46% to a Championship match;  

  • 14.31% to a League One match;  

  • 7.81% to a League Two match; 

  • 4.60% to a National League match;  

  • 1.45% to a National League North match; and  

  • 1.20% to a National League South match. 

More people watched a National League match each weekend, than attended a Chelsea home game

Embed equality and environmental standards

Why it matters?

Football cannot continue to be an outlier. A vast majority of other business sectors have enshrined targets for equality and environmental standards - football cannot be allowed to be an exception.

The Government has commitments to achieve Net Zero on carbon emissions. 

The original fan-led review insisted that equality standards should be at the core of any new changes, but this was absent in the Conservative’s version of the Bill. Research has constantly shown a link between embedding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) and financial sustainability. These studies include a UK Parliament Research Briefing, a Cambridge University study, the UK Corporate Governance Code, and a Government Consultation.

Yet, with such limited financial and staffing resources, nearly every club outside the Premier League has made any notable progress when it comes to EDI and the environment. 

The recently published 2024 Fair Game Index revealed that the vast majority of clubs in the men’s English football pyramid pay lip service to equality and ethical standards – only 16 clubs out of the nation’s top 164 clubs scored over half marks, and just three of those are outside the Premier League.

The Women’s Game will also need regulation as it grows.
If there is no requirement to change, then men's football will continue to ignore environmental and equality standards and the Women’s Game will run the risk of repeating the mistakes of its male counterpart.

How to fix it?

The proposed State of the Game Report in the original Bill must include assessments of a club’s performance on equality, environmental, and ethical standards. These standards should also be part of the parameters that must be met in any broadcast distribution deal. 

Clubs should also have a “corporate responsibility requirement”, which would require clubs to: 

  1. Incorporate considerations of the society and the environment into their decision-making processes; 

  2. Take reasonable steps to improve their performance on environmental and EDI metrics; and 

  3. Report in their corporate governance statements on their compliance with these requirements

The Regulator should also have with its remit the power to look at potential regulation of the Women’s Game.


Key stat

Only 16 of the top 164 clubs in the English football pyramid scored over half marks in the Fair Game Index section on Equality and Environmental standards - and a majority of those were from clubs that were in the Premier League and have the spare resources to do so.

  1. Brighton

  2. Tottenham Hotspur

  3. Wolverhampton Wanderers

  4. Chelsea

  5. Arsenal

  6. Forest Green Rovers

  7. Brentford

  8. Liverpool

  9. West Ham United

  10. Crystal Palace

  11. Norwich City

  12. Southampton

  13. Leicester City

  14. Manchester City

  15. Manchester United

  16. Swansea City

CONTACT YOUR MP

POTENTIAL TWEET FOR MPs

📢 Urging my MP [@YourMP'sHandle] to support @FairGameUK's crucial recommendations for the #IFR Bill 🏟️

  1. Stronger backstops for fair financial flow

  2. An end to vested interest

  3. Implement EDI & environmental sustainability

#FairGameUK #FootballReform