The "laws" that govern the game are not written in statute. The FA has "rules of the game & FA Regulations", the EFL simply "EFL regulations". They are basically rules of the competition. They are not like the Companies Act 2006 for example covered by an act of parliament. Many of the rules carry with them an element of discretion for the Board to utilise if it sees fit
I would suspect placing a restriction on property would not suit many of the owners in any case because of the loans & securities that underpin the finances at the clubs. The owners are of course the ones that would have to vote in the change. But how do you force a restriction on stadium owners who are not FA/EFL members
Yes i think all clubs should be self sustaining but not sure i see that ever happening, too many egos and too much money at risk and too many fans demanding money being spent
The regulations carry force with the clubs because to be in the EFL, for example, you have to agree to abide by the rules. The laws that govern The FA limited for example are covered by the Companies Act but the FA regulations are internal and in addition to that (which is how they get away with the football creditors rule)
The problem with HM Government imposing statutes etc on the game is that it could well be viewed as political interference and get the FA suspended from FIFA, so losing its privileged position in controlling the game. I doubt they will take that risk
Also the more rules you put in place often the more loop holes are available.
Its not a bad idea i accept to link a club to a stadium, but as has already been said most unlikely to happen. The best i think you would get is permanently linking a club to a city or town(as is pretty much the case now), but even that has problems