Government must introduce an independent regulator for English football (2 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

I think the fit and proper test needs to go further than that.

Companies Act 2006 defines and requires disclosure of persons with significant control. The FA & EFL should adhere to that standard when implementing who is fit and proper. As it stands someone controlling a club doesn't have to be a direct owner or a director and wouldn't necessarily have to be fit & proper. The Companies Act goes much further than the FA or EFL. Most clubs are owned by companies so the details are available.

There also needs to be a following through of the chain of control to an individual, not a limited company owner.

in addition it should be a requirement to take instruction as to running a football club and to pass an examination in order to become a director of a club. Annual courses and certification would not be a bad idea either.

The power to monitor both the regulations and finances needs to be beefed up. I would suggest a levy on all clubs (on a sliding scale depending on division) could pay for that

Yes it is business but it is more than that, these people are custodians of the fans hopes and clubs, presently directors and owners do not have to display any of the skills to safeguard that it is just assumed (far too often wrongly). They just have to tick a few boxes assuming they are a director ...... that is simply not going to be good enough

 

---

[Captain Dart]

I think the fit and proper test needs to go further than that.

Companies Act 2006 defines and requires disclosure of persons with significant control. The FA & EFL should adhere to that standard when implementing who is fit and proper. As it stands someone controlling a club doesn't have to be a direct owner or a director and wouldn't necessarily have to be fit & proper. The Companies Act goes much further than the FA or EFL. Most clubs are owned by companies so the details are available.

There also needs to be a following through of the chain of control to an individual, not a limited company owner.

in addition it should be a requirement to take instruction as to running a football club and to pass an examination in order to become a director of a club. Annual courses and certification would not be a bad idea either.

The power to monitor both the regulations and finances needs to be beefed up. I would suggest a levy on all clubs (on a sliding scale depending on division) could pay for that

Yes it is business but it is more than that, these people are custodians of the fans hopes and clubs, presently directors and owners do not have to display any of the skills to safeguard that it is just assumed (far too often wrongly). They just have to tick a few boxes assuming they are a director ...... that is simply not going to be good enough

There are several plans conceived, for example Supporters Direct and others with various reform proposals, but this is pretty good stuff, I've never seen anyone propose the need for examinations or follow through on the 'chain of command & control' including non-directors to individuals expressed in this way before, though I have to admit my research is not deep. Maybe you should send your thoughts in an email to Damien Collins MP, he is very interested in football reform and is Chair of DCMS parliamentary committee I think.

 

[skybluetony176]

Interesting article in the guardian the other day connected to this. By David Conn of course Premier League failed to enforce ban on Owen Oyston at Blackpool

Another reason independent governance is needed.

 

[TewkesburySkyBlue]

Signed

 

[Pete in Portugal]

Signed - nearly 9,000 now

 

[Captain Dart]

Response, I'll summarise "We are complacent and therefore will be doing sod all"

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “The Government must introduce an independent regulator for English football”.

Government responded:

HMG believes sports are best governed by modern, transparent, accountable and representative governing bodies, able to act decisively in the long-term interest of each sport and its participants.

HMG is aware of concerns that have been raised about the Football Association’s ability to govern the game effectively. As the national governing body for football in England, the FA is responsible for regulating, promoting and developing the game at every level.

The Sports Governance Code that came into force on 1 April 2017 applies to all sporting bodies in receipt of public funding from Sport England and UK Sport. It challenges the FA and all other governing bodies to demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of governance and regulation. The Code requires evidence that sports bodies operate efficiently and successfully while being transparent and representative of society.

We therefore welcome the reforms the FA has made to comply with the Code that include reducing its Board in size from 12 to 10 members, ensuring a more even gender split, and ensuring at least a quarter of its members are independent of football club interests. We believe that moving to a thoroughly strategic, accountable and representative Board with the right mix of skills, diversity and experience is the key to unlocking the long-term potential of football in this country, from grassroots up to the national teams.

The reform of the FA Council; changes to tenure, and the addition of new members will help ensure this body is also more representative of the modern game. The principle that all FA Committees should report to the Board is one we strongly support and is a requirement under the Code.

We are comfortable that the actions the FA has already taken and further actions it has agreed to implement to comply with the Sports Governance Code will improve its governance. This will continue to be monitored and managed through funding conditions which require ongoing compliance with the Code.

The Premier League (PL) and the English Football League (EFL) are not in receipt of public funding and therefore they and the clubs in their leagues are not regulated through the mandatory condition of funding which requires compliance with the Sports Governance Code. However, the PL and the EFL have established their own regulatory frameworks which clubs are required to comply with in order to participate in their respective leagues.

Indeed we welcome the fact that the financial state of football clubs in this country is better now than at any time over the last 20 years. Measures introduced in recent years include the Leagues requiring business cases and proof of funds from club owners, a working relationship between clubs and HMRC over tax owed, and the adoption of financial fair play rules. Together these have helped curb club debt and promoted sustainability. However, football clubs and the football authorities cannot be complacent. They must keep these rules under constant review.

Similarly, with regard to ownership of clubs, the onus for the football authorities is ensuring the criteria (known as the ‘Owners and Directors (ODT) Test’) as to whom can hold a controlling interest in clubs is as robust as possible, that due diligence is carried out on owners and conditions on what they can and cannot do are laid down from the start. We are pleased the football authorities have agreed to keep the ODT test under regular review and to listen to supporters’ concerns. This promise was outlined in the report of the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership and Engagement published in January 2016.

We are clear that we do not expect that the PL or EFL’s rulebooks will be superseded but it is right that policy-making on disciplinary issues sits outside the Leagues. The Football Regulatory Authority for example, is a body responsible for regulatory, disciplinary and rule-making for football played in England. The membership of the body is jointly made up of representatives from the national game, professional game and independent non-executives.

The Independent Football Ombudsman is also there to receive and adjudicate on complaints which have failed to be resolved by football clubs or the football authorities. The IFO is an important part of football’s self-regulatory system.

We accept that football governance must keep evolving if it is to keep pace with the challenges of the modern game and the global commercial attractiveness of English football. The Sports Governance Code helps, but the FA and other football bodies responsible for regulation of the game should continue to review how they are set up to ensure the effective running of the sport. At present, the regulatory framework that operates via league regulation through the PL and the EFL demonstrates there is already regulation of the governance of all football clubs. Where regulation is being managed by the existing authorities in football to the extent which it is, this negates the desire or need to establish an independent regulator

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

 

[skyblueinBaku]

Response, I'll summarise "We are complacent and therefore will be doing sod all"

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “The Government must introduce an independent regulator for English football”.

Government responded:

HMG believes sports are best governed by modern, transparent, accountable and representative governing bodies, able to act decisively in the long-term interest of each sport and its participants.

HMG is aware of concerns that have been raised about the Football Association’s ability to govern the game effectively. As the national governing body for football in England, the FA is responsible for regulating, promoting and developing the game at every level.

The Sports Governance Code that came into force on 1 April 2017 applies to all sporting bodies in receipt of public funding from Sport England and UK Sport. It challenges the FA and all other governing bodies to demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of governance and regulation. The Code requires evidence that sports bodies operate efficiently and successfully while being transparent and representative of society.

We therefore welcome the reforms the FA has made to comply with the Code that include reducing its Board in size from 12 to 10 members, ensuring a more even gender split, and ensuring at least a quarter of its members are independent of football club interests. We believe that moving to a thoroughly strategic, accountable and representative Board with the right mix of skills, diversity and experience is the key to unlocking the long-term potential of football in this country, from grassroots up to the national teams.

The reform of the FA Council; changes to tenure, and the addition of new members will help ensure this body is also more representative of the modern game. The principle that all FA Committees should report to the Board is one we strongly support and is a requirement under the Code.

We are comfortable that the actions the FA has already taken and further actions it has agreed to implement to comply with the Sports Governance Code will improve its governance. This will continue to be monitored and managed through funding conditions which require ongoing compliance with the Code.

The Premier League (PL) and the English Football League (EFL) are not in receipt of public funding and therefore they and the clubs in their leagues are not regulated through the mandatory condition of funding which requires compliance with the Sports Governance Code. However, the PL and the EFL have established their own regulatory frameworks which clubs are required to comply with in order to participate in their respective leagues.

Indeed we welcome the fact that the financial state of football clubs in this country is better now than at any time over the last 20 years. Measures introduced in recent years include the Leagues requiring business cases and proof of funds from club owners, a working relationship between clubs and HMRC over tax owed, and the adoption of financial fair play rules. Together these have helped curb club debt and promoted sustainability. However, football clubs and the football authorities cannot be complacent. They must keep these rules under constant review.

Similarly, with regard to ownership of clubs, the onus for the football authorities is ensuring the criteria (known as the ‘Owners and Directors (ODT) Test’) as to whom can hold a controlling interest in clubs is as robust as possible, that due diligence is carried out on owners and conditions on what they can and cannot do are laid down from the start. We are pleased the football authorities have agreed to keep the ODT test under regular review and to listen to supporters’ concerns. This promise was outlined in the report of the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership and Engagement published in January 2016.

We are clear that we do not expect that the PL or EFL’s rulebooks will be superseded but it is right that policy-making on disciplinary issues sits outside the Leagues. The Football Regulatory Authority for example, is a body responsible for regulatory, disciplinary and rule-making for football played in England. The membership of the body is jointly made up of representatives from the national game, professional game and independent non-executives.

The Independent Football Ombudsman is also there to receive and adjudicate on complaints which have failed to be resolved by football clubs or the football authorities. The IFO is an important part of football’s self-regulatory system.

We accept that football governance must keep evolving if it is to keep pace with the challenges of the modern game and the global commercial attractiveness of English football. The Sports Governance Code helps, but the FA and other football bodies responsible for regulation of the game should continue to review how they are set up to ensure the effective running of the sport. At present, the regulatory framework that operates via league regulation through the PL and the EFL demonstrates there is already regulation of the governance of all football clubs. Where regulation is being managed by the existing authorities in football to the extent which it is, this negates the desire or need to establish an independent regulator

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

That's how I read the reply, Captain. The govermment, the FA and the EFL are going to do bugger all to improve things.