We shouldn’t need a regulator – but modern football has left no choice
Is it time to kick the Football Regulator into the long grass?
Listen to this article
The Football Governance Bill introduces an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) and a licensing system for professional clubs across the top five divisions in England. However, it is not universally popular and has critics from both clubs, the Premier League, and libertarians.
Originating from the Fan-Led Review of Football chaired by Dame Tracey Crouch, the Bill was first proposed by the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and later endorsed as part of the Labour Party’s election manifesto.
The IFR is tasked with strengthening governance, preserving club heritage, and improving financial resilience throughout the football pyramid.
In an ideal world, the IFR should not be needed. If Premier League owners could be trusted, then fans would have more confidence in their decision-making.
However, Project Big Picture, European SuperLeague, short notice for changes to kick off times, £66 tickets for kids, hints at matches taking place overseas, creative accounting to circumvent cost control rules, charges against its shareholders and a refusal to make even a slightly more generous offer to the EFL indicate that the Premier League is driven by short term self-interest and the fans are seen as nothing more than a backdrop to be monetised and exploited for the atmosphere they bring to matches.
The Football Association, in an ideal world, should be the regulator of the domestic game. Still, it has shown little interest in providing leadership or guidance to the professional game, as evidenced by its behaviour during the SuperLeague debacle when it tutted like an angry aunt at a rave and did little more.
The main powers of the IFR include:
Heritage Protection
Football clubs often represent the cultural and historical identity of their communities. The Bill protects this heritage by mandating fan consultation on matters such as stadium relocation, badge changes, and shirt colours. This provision is designed to prevent owners from making unilateral decisions that compromise club identity or exploit property assets.
Enhanced Owner and Director Tests
Prospective owners and directors will face more stringent tests to ensure integrity and financial capability. Although such measures may not entirely prevent problematic ownership, they strengthen investigatory powers and accountability. Unfortunately, they arrive too late to assist clubs like Sheffield Wednesday or Morecambe, where relations between owners and fans have already caused unpaid wages and fears about the clubs’ futures.
Competition Safeguards
The Bill prohibits clubs from joining non-meritocratic competitions, such as the short-lived European Super League. That venture, led by six Premier League club owners, some of whom rarely attended matches, collapsed after widespread supporter backlash.
Revenue Distribution
The redistribution of broadcasting revenue remains contentious, particularly with the Premier League. While the government prefers a negotiated outcome between the Premier League and the EFL, progress since the original Fan-Led Review has been minimal.
The Bill includes a backstop mechanism, allowing the IFR to impose a resolution if necessary.
The Premier League is reluctant to give the EFL a greater share. Had it not been done since the Crouch Report, there is a genuine chance that the legislation may not have been deemed a priority.
There are other criticisms of the IFR.
There are no such similar bodies in other countries, so why should English football, arguably the most successful in the world, need a regulator? Supporters, however, cite the collapse of clubs like Bury and Macclesfield Town as evidence of the urgent need for reform.
Potential mission creep, with the IFR expanding its remit beyond the initial legislation and interfering with the factors that have made the Premier League in particular a commercial and broadcasting success. The government maintains that the IFR’s approach will remain “light-touch”, explicitly excluding areas such as ticket pricing, merchandise costs, match scheduling, and VAR— leaving such matters under the control of individual clubs.
The costs associated with establishing and operating the IFR may be significantly greater than originally anticipated. The Premier League’s own wage bill has trebled from £14m to £43m over the last decade, so it is no stranger to expanded cost bases, and legal costs have increased too, due to disputes with its member clubs.