An independent football regulator could facilitate state ownership of clubs because of a clause within the draft bill which activist groups say goes against the core aim of ensuring the “long-term sustainability and resilience of English football”.
Clause 37 of the Football Governance Act states that the authority “must also have regard to the foreign and commercial policy objectives” of the UK Government when determining whether a buyer is suitable to own an English football club. This led to FairSquare, ALQST for Human Rights and fan groups writing a letter to Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Lucy Frazer and Foreign Secretary David Cameron expressing concern in regards to the potential consequences and even the possible consequences of undermining the body’s independence regulatory body in relation to the important thing issues it was imagined to take care of. Some Premier League clubs have already lobbied for a ban on state ownership during previous consultations.
Independent he was told the potential candidate raised further concerns in regards to the regulatory body throughout the wider football pyramid. The letter raises concerns that any state-linked takeover attempt may require government consultation, but sources say this just isn’t the case and that just isn’t how it’s going to work. However, there may be concern that this clause constitutes an “outrageous abuse”.
Nevertheless, it highlights that state-linked ownership is “arguably the greatest threat to the sustainability, integrity and viability of football in England and beyond”. This is primarily since the inferred political goals of such owners and state representation are contrary to the clubs’ role as community representatives, while at the identical time having a history of causing financial inflation, which the regulatory body was established to combat.
The letter identified an apparent contradiction in how the white paper states that “English football is currently at high and growing risk of financial failure for clubs” but “makes no mention of the ability of state clubs to outspend other clubs”. , posing a “specific threat to the integrity of English football by creating unsustainable inflationary pressures”.
In March 2023, Fair Square wrote to DCMS in response to the publication of the Government’s Football Governance White Paper, specifically raising this concern. DCMS responded that “the regulator will have no power to assess… the appropriateness of state ownership”, but concerns were raised about how the bill went beyond this. “This raises the specter of British foreign policy objectives and priorities overriding the IFR’s role of allowing only those with the requisite ‘honesty and integrity’ to maintain or take control of English clubs,” the letter reads.
It further points out that Boris Johnson’s government “made every effort to ensure that a consortium controlled by the Saudi Arabian government could take control of Newcastle United” and the way the present UK government has refused to reveal details about Foreign Office correspondence in relation to the Premier League’s accusations against Manchester City for alleged breaches of monetary rules on the grounds that they were ‘damaging the UK’s interests abroad’.
The case could see the regulator further at odds with Premier League clubs as there are growing numbers of supporters for football’s governing bodies to tackle the problem of state ownership.
FairSquare’s letter also highlighted how the federal government recently introduced laws prohibiting outright ownership of media organizations by a foreign state in response to a proposed takeover Daily Telegraph by a consortium led by the federal government of the United Arab Emirates. “Given the social, political, economic and cultural importance of football clubs, we call for them to be provided with similar protection against foreign state investment,” the letter reads.
The explanation from the federal government is that the clause was added on the idea of the position that the regulator shouldn’t get entangled in matters of foreign policy, foreign investment policy or play any role in setting it. Essentially, this might mean that the regulator shouldn’t make judgments about countries it considers “unsuitable”, but should as a substitute take into consideration the federal government’s position. Similarly, it’s seen as inappropriate for the federal government to unilaterally assess human rights concerns. However, if an owner or associated official is sanctioned under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Laws 2020, he or she is going to likely be barred from being an owner or director of the club. There is a strong belief at DCMS that the regulator reduces the risks related to unsuitable custodians without deterring investment.
Credit : www.independent.co.uk
