Regulator will be left toothless if financial divide is not addressed
“Thanks entirely to the broadcasting deal, the gaps within and between divisions are growing wider and wider every year. To succeed on the pitch increasingly there is only one option - to overspend. And hope you come up trumps in the Russian Roulette that is modern-day football finance.”
Niall Couper, CEO, Fair Game
TUESDAY 14 MAY 2024, LONDON, UK - The incoming Football Regulator will be toothless if it isn’t given power to control football’s financial flow, Fair Game has concluded in its official submission to the Football Governance Bill Committee.
Niall Couper, the CEO of Fair Game, a group of professional football clubs campaigning to improve football governance, handed the submission over today and then addressed the opening evidence session of the Committee.
He said:
“Thanks entirely to the broadcasting deal, the gaps within and between divisions are growing wider and wider every year.
“To succeed on the pitch increasingly there is only one option - to overspend. And hope you come up trumps in the Russian Roulette that is modern-day football finance.
“There is no incentive to spend sustainably.”
He added:
“What gets cut when a club tries to compete? Vital community programmes. The dementia groups, walking football groups, and school programmes.
“Who loses out when a club goes into administration? The modern day butcher, baker and candlestick maker - the plumber, the caterer and the printer.
“Go bust and overnight decades of history and tradition that have been the lifeblood of generations of supporters are simply wiped off the map.
“Only a truly independent voice can save football. That voice needs to set the rules, ensure proper consultation and transparency, reward well-run clubs, set acceptable parameters for broadcasting distribution and ensure the whole game benefits.”
Fair Game’s submission goes onto highlight seven other areas of concern with the Bill:
Vested interests: It fails to explicitly rule out conflict of interest in the decision making of the regulator;
Support to clubs: There is a lack of clarity about how clubs lower down the pyramid will be able to afford to implement the changes required;
Owners and Directors test: There remains an issue over transparency and accountability, and the issue on state-ownership has yet to be resolved;
Protection of club heritage: The club name can still be changed without consultation with the fans;
The 'Wimbledon Clause’: As it stands the Bill allows financial considerations to trump supporter’ views when it comes to relocating a club;
Environment: This is complete absent when it comes to address the long-term sustainability of football; and
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: This was a key part of the original fan-led review, but is notably this time by its absence.
The Fair Game submission addresses all of these concerns and also points to the exact clauses within the Bill where changes can be made to rectify these issues.
The full submission can be downloaded here.
