Football regulator will not consider foreign policy for takeovers after climbdown

Ministers have climbed down over plans to require the new football ­regulator to consider the government’s foreign policy when making ­decisions about club takeovers.

The move follows warnings from Uefa that this requirement could lead to some countries’ bids for clubs being favoured over others and amount to political interference in football.

The government will introduce the football governance bill in the House of Lords on Thursday.

Setting up an independent regulator to oversee men’s elite football in England was a Labour manifesto commitment, building on plans drawn up by the Conservatives in government.

The bill drafted by the Tories stated the regulator’s decisions on future or incumbent club owners should consider “the foreign and trade policy objectives” of the UK government. This came under criticism from Uefa on the basis that it could mean special treatment for countries with which the UK has close trading and ­political links.

England is due to co-host the 2028 European Championship with Scotland, Wales and Ireland but there were some fears this could be jeopar­dised by Uefa’s concerns about the new regulator.

Keir Starmer told ­reporters last month that he was in talks with Uefa to assuage its ­concerns. The prime minister ­suggested at the time that the proposals did not need to be changed and that the European football body had “slightly reduced their concerns as time has gone on”.

In 2022 the Guardian revealed details of how Boris Johnson’s ­government pressured the Premier League to approve the controversial takeover of Newcastle United by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

Leaked messages published this month suggested that Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, was heavily involved in the takeover of the club. The Premier League insisted this week that it saw no reason to review the legality of the deal, which is controversial because of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. A CIA report concluded that Bin ­Salman approved the murder of the Washington Post journalist and Saudi ­dissident Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018. The crown prince has denied personal involvement.

Proponents of the plan to require the regulator to consider foreign policy said it was intended to stop individuals who were sanctioned or barred from owning other UK assets from taking over clubs. There have been calls to go further and ban ­foreign ownership of English football clubs entirely.

During the consultation period last year on the regulator’s remit, some leading Premier League clubs ­lobbied the government to block nation states from taking control of teams in England. Newcastle’s example has sparked debate while Manchester City, the reigning champions, have been owned since 2008 by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is a key figure in the Abu Dhabi royal family and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

The regulator is intended to help monitor clubs’ finances and improve fan engagement. It will require clubs to consult fans before ­changing ticket prices or relocating their home ground and have oversight over parachute payments, which are paid to clubs relegated from the Premier League. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, is understood to have told the Premier League and its clubs that parachute payments will continue; the EFL wants them scrapped.

Clubs will also need to set out what actions they are taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion as part of a new governance code. Any club wanting to sell their stadium to related or third-party ­companies would need approval from the regulator, and such requests would be granted only if the club could demon­strate it was in their best long‑term interests, and had the backing of their fans.

The new bill received a mixed response from the Premier League, which welcomed areas including fan engagement and encouraging responsible ownership but said it was concerned about “unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of the Premier League’s revenues” – a reference to the regulator’s ability to enforce a settlement on extra funds going to the EFL and decide on the future of parachute payments.

The Premier League said “rigid banking-style regulation” could have “a negative impact on the league’s continued competitiveness, clubs’ investment in world-class talent and, above all, the aspiration that drives our global appeal and growth” It said it had provided £1.6bn to the wider game and communities over the past three years.

Rick Parry, the EFL chair, welcomed the bill, saying that the EFL will scrutinise “the key issue around the regulator’s backstop powers in respect of financial redistribution” while insisting that “our intention is not to harm or hinder the strength of the Premier League”.

“With our clubs, we will continue to work with government and parliamentarians to consider appropriate checks and balances in the legislation to protect the hard-won position of English football, which is globally admired, a vital source of soft power and a driver of economic growth all over the country,” the Premier League said.

The Premier League has lobbied heavily on the bill, while also showering British MPs with hospitality in recent years. In the last parliament Starmer received more than £35,000 worth of football tickets, many of which were for Premier League games. He also received more than £12,000 in gifts and hospitality from the Premier League itself.

Clive Betts, the Labour MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on football, told the Observer this month the gifts were “clearly part of a campaign”. He added: “I don’t think they can influence the regulator being set up, but they can influence what powers it has.”

Plans to establish the regulator were drawn up by the ­Conservatives following an attempt by several elite men’s clubs to break away and form a European Super League. There have also been concerns about the financial mismanagement and collapse of smaller football clubs, including Bury and Macclesfield.

Nandy said: “English football is one of our greatest exports and a source of national pride which this government wants to see thrive for generations to come. But for too long, financial instability has meant loyal fans and whole communities have risked losing their cherished clubs as a result of mismanagement and reckless spending. This bill seeks to properly redress the balance, putting fans back at the heart of the game, taking on rogue owners and crucially helping to put clubs up and down the country on a sound financial footing.”

Tracey Crouch, the former sports minister who first proposed the idea after a review of football governance, said: ”I’m grateful the government is taking action to protect football from the threats of rogue owners and breakaway competitions.

“The protections in the new bill reflect the fan-led review’s recommendations that supporters should be placed back at the heart of the game and will have a genuine say on things like ticketing and club heritage.”

Gary Neville, the former Manchester United and England player, said: “Football is undoubtedly one of our country’s greatest assets, but now more than ever we need an independent regulator to act as a guardian for our game, to make sure that clubs and their fans are protected for the long term.”

Meanwhile, supporters’ groups from a number of top-flight clubs will stage protests at matches over the next fortnight in response to rising ticket prices. They will be backing the Football Supporters’ Association’s ­#StopExploitingLoyalty campaign.

The actions, arranged over the next two weekends, are seen as a direct response to a range of ticket price rises and attacks on concessionary pricing bands at numerous clubs.

Last weekend, fans of Spurs and West Ham protested over their clubs’ withdrawals of concessionary rates before the match between the two.

The FSA chair, Tom Greatrex, said: “The Premier League and its clubs really need to listen to this message – clubs must cherish and reward supporter loyalty rather than exploit it.

“Fans feel clubs often care more about attracting one-off visitors who’ll pay through the nose for a ticket while spending fortunes in the club shop, when they should be looking to reward those who go week in, week out, win or lose.”

Additional reporting by Kiran Stacey