Richard Masters has laid out a series of detailed objections to plans for an independent regulator for English football, arguing the body will be too risk-averse and subject to too much influence by government.
This new series of challenges to the regulator is perhaps the Premier League’s most forceful piece of lobbying. With the football governance bill passing its way through parliament, Masters fleshed out the league’s longstanding criticism that the regulator would result in “unintended consequences”.
Writing in response to a request from the culture, media and sport committee of MPs, the chief executive of the Premier League said that “despite good intentions” the proposed model of regulation would be too onerous to allow English football to thrive.
“We remain concerned that the bill as drafted may … feasibly result in a risk-averse model, delivered by a complicated and duplicative system,” he wrote. “This will inevitably cause consequences for the smooth running of the leagues.”
Masters revealed the Premier League’s original position was that any regulator should sit above the domestic football authorities, intervening on a “step-in basis” to fix problems. The government’s model instead sees the regulator having a direct role in maintaining the financial sustainability of the English football pyramid, and with the ability to issue or withdraw operational licences for clubs and to subject those licences to conditions.
Masters argued that this system duplicates existing processes and, modelled in part on regulation of the financial industries, is not suitable for football. “Banking is an industry that requires systemic stability,” he writes. “The football industry overall is remarkably stable with just six administrations over the past 12 years. However, what goes on inside the league structure is inherently unstable. Fierce competition, prizes for success and consequences for failure are all part of a highly competitive league system that fans want to follow. These are not deficiencies to be managed out.”
In a series of Premier League counterproposals, Masters argued that the bar for imposing financial conditions on clubs should be raised. He also asked that the government make the regulator more independent, with the current bill mandating the secretary of state to write a football governance statement every three years outlining key priorities, and also a clause which says the regulator must take the UK’s foreign policy into account when considering another of its functions: that of appraising suitable owners. He wrote: “The government appears to have written a stronger role than anticipated for itself into the regime.”
Masters went on to observe that any perceived political encroachment could lead to intervention from Fifa. “If this goes too far it may even conceivably present issues with Fifa and Uefa,” he writes, “whose statutes ban state interference in competitive football.” Supporters of regulation argue that Fifa already tolerates regulatory divergence, with rules such as Germany’s 50+1 fan ownership and imminent Turkish controls on the number of foreign players in its league.
Finally, Masters criticised the proposed “backstop” mechanism for generating a financial settlement between the Premier League and EFL as potentially “hardwiring continuous negotiation and uncertainty into football”. While many MPs want the regulator to be given more control over backstop powers, including the ability to appraise the use of parachute payments, Masters wants the backstop to be harder to trigger, calling it “a novel mechanism, perhaps without precedent” in the UK.
“It will be very important that its design can be shown to be capable of proper consideration of the Premier League and its clubs property rights,” he wrote, adding that “it is important to recognise the significance of changing what has to date been a voluntary agreement based on goodwill and good faith into a compulsory arrangement”.
Meanwhile, Nuno Espírito Santo has claimed the league’s sporting integrity is suffering as Nottingham Forest continue to wait for the verdict of their points deduction appeal. “We have been expecting it to come sooner so we know exactly how many points we have,” the manager said. “But we need it as fast as possible.”
Asked if the sporting integrity of the competition was being compromised, he said: “I totally agree. It is a mess – they have had time enough.”
