Last week the government finally issued a response to the fan-led review of football it commissioned, and everyone in the game is still busy trying to work out what it means.
On the one hand it was unarguably a seismic moment. The government, in its response and in the words of the sports minister, Nigel Huddleston, explicitly committed itself to creating an independent regulator.
It also guaranteed an enhanced owners and directors test, with an “integrity test” included, promised fans control over their clubs and insisted the Premier League would have to give more money to support teams lower down the football pyramid.
Then again there remains no clear definition of what the regulator will do, where it will sit and, even, if “independent” could mean sitting within the purview of the Football Association, whose board is made up of representatives from the professional game.
The integrity test remains undefined. With regards to fan representation, plans for a golden share and shadow boards suggested by the fan-led review are in limbo and could be shelved altogether. As for the Premier League’s money, it has been told to offer up more before, with the end result being absolutely no change whatsoever.
The government has said there will now be no more detail on the process until the publication of a white paper in the summer, where even the definition of the summer remains uncertain. All of which means speculation – and lobbying – will continue to be the order of the day for some months yet.
To understand how unclear things remain, including for the parties involved, consider the Premier League which – on the face of things – is the loser under the week’s announcements. It is opposed to the creation of an independent regulator and believes it gives enough money to the lower leagues already. Any changes, it has long argued, could kill the success of the English top flight, a competition that is the envy of the rest of Europe.
In private the league now accepts that an independent regulator is coming. While it has not increased the amount of money it is willing to share, it is discussing how it might be distributed. The offer on the table for the EFL is an arcane one, with payments weighted according to league placing and broken up over three years.
It is an idea that may never see the light of day, but it shows – at least to an extent – that the previously all-conquering Premier League is having to change its ways. Many thought its formidable lobbying capabilities would stop reform altogether. That hasn’t happened.
Others suspect a long game is being played, that with every month that passes without a regulator in place, the more likely any legislation comes up against the deadline of a general election. The response to that argument is that there is such a political consensus behind the idea of an independent regulator now that if a Conservative government doesn’t do it, a Labour one surely would.
This is where the FA comes in. The Premier League would be happy with the FA and not, say, the Financial Conduct Authority, overseeing a regulator. The FA would be happy too. It has been keenly trying to improve its own governance of late, primarily through the appointment of nonexecutive directors in order to prove its suitability.
Huddleston seems unconvinced it has changed enough, telling the media it “would be difficult to imagine the circumstances where it would, at least currently, fit the criteria”. But there is briefing going on elsewhere in the corridors of power that it is not too late for the FA to make the grade.
At the beginning of April the new chair of the FA, Debbie Hewitt, wrote to Nadine Dorries. Among the issues she addressed with the culture secretary were the possibility of an owners’ and directors’ test that held “prospective owners to higher standards than would-be investors in other sectors”, draft regulations that would protect club heritage (one of the key powers of the mooted golden share) and a leading role in negotiating improved redistribution.
Were the FA actually to deliver on these things by the “summer”, the end point for this long-awaited and still uncertain reform might finally become clear.
