Stephen Cleeve: Football regulator role is still far from clear-cut

It seems clear that the Premier League (PL) are not keen on the concept so they are negotiating hard with the English Football League (EFL), hoping that if they can sort out the money issues, then there may not be so many areas for the regulator to get their teeth into. 

David Sullivan, West Ham United’s principal owner, thinks that the concept is, “terrible as the government are terrible at running everything” and he believes costs and staff numbers will soar as the regulator grows and it will result in government interference and not free enterprise.

Interference is an area which could give Fifa concerns - it has often suspended national football associations because of state interference. Article 19(1) of the Fifa statutes provides that, “Each member association shall manage its affairs independently and without undue influence from third parties”, and it could be argued that this would include government interference.

On balance, I cannot see Fifa interfering unless the government started to flex its muscles too widely and started putting its own people into power at the FA – a situation that I cannot see arising.

Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, made some comments recently. Masters seems to accept the case for reform, but feels that regulation takes a rear view mirror approach and only addresses past problems. He questions if regulation could harm decision making and weaken our position relative to our European counterparts and asks if it could damage the quality and levels of investment into the game.

It could be argued that the PL are already being more than generous to the Football League, giving them £1.5billion every three years. However, the EFL still feel the gap needs closing. Norwich City finished bottom of the Premier League last season and earnt £100m whilst Fulham earnt just £10 million for winning the Championship – the EFL would like this gap halved.

My view is that football lives in its own bubble, has its own rules and whenever you take one problem away another one can pop up. As an example, football seems to be one of very few businesses where fixed length contracts are allowed and footballers are not allowed to be placed on sick leave when they are injured or ill, unlike any other UK business – football operates under different rules to everyone else.

Sometimes campaigning can make everyone look at one or two in vogue areas and miss the more important wider points by taking its eye off the ball. As an example, Charlton Athletic is for sale if you have a spare £10m, but that does not buy you the stadium, which is still owned by the previous owner, Roland Duchatelet, and he is seeking a price for the stadium which is in excess of its real value. Recently, we saw Coventry City Football Club purchased by Norwich City fan Doug King, but the stadium was purchased by Mike Ashley.

Surely an easy win and an important piece of regulation and one that could easily be put into practice would be for the FA and government to ensure that football clubs and their stadiums are owned by the same entity and not be divorced from each other?

At King’s Lynn Town, we published our accounts this week – our turnover rose from £677,000 (Covid-affected season) to £1,061,000. Our football and management wages plus travelling expenses cost the club £1,058,000 and £683,000 respectively.  So, every penny that comes into the club goes straight back out onto the football pitch, all other expenses (of which there are many) are paid by myself.

Tracey Crouch - author of 2021’s Fan-Led Review of football governance (Image: PA Images)

The biggest problem with the Tracey Crouch report is that it wants to give more power to fans to run their clubs when normally there is only one person or organisation that pays all of the bills. 

If football can find a way to make clubs like King’s Lynn Town sustainable, with some real help coming down from the Premier League, then maybe everyone’s wishes can be fulfilled.