Many things puzle me about the government's plan for a football regulator, the Independent Regulator for Football, known as IRef. (I'm not making that up). These include why the government thinks this is more important than making exisiting regulators for more fundamental services, e.g. water, actually work. And why it thinks this is more worthy of parliamentary time and ministerial attention than fixing the social care crisis that they said they'd fixed in 2021 (spoiler alert - they hadn't). Or why on earth they want to risk getting tangled up in points deductions that could threaten the viability of punished clubs, ostensibly in order to make them more sustainable.
However the biggest puzzle for me is how it is even possible, as FIFA's statutes prohibit political interference in football. Several national FA's have been suspended under these statutes, including Nigeria in 2014 and Kuwait in 2015.
The Premier League has had things to say about the proposed regulator but the F.A. seems to have been curiously quiet. Back in 2011 the F.A. had said that there was "no justification for government intervention in the governance of the game" and cautioned that FIFA sanctions could be imposed if politicians exceeded their authority in matters related to the sport. Why so quiet now?
The only thing that has changed is the threat of a European Super League. While not a new idea by any means it has become more real. The reaction of fans saw that off though Boris Johnson's threat to legislate against clubs joining the proposed league might have had some impact. FIFA didn't say very much about Johnson's threat at the time - they might perhaps have considered it helpful.
FIFA has been criticised over the years for failing to react to government interference in the bidding for and hosting of tournaments. Government involvement in football and football clubs is now very real through sovereign wealth funds such as the Saudi Arabian PIF.
One would think FIFA would respond to blatant direct government interference in football anywhere in the world. The UK government says it intends the regulator to concentrate on ensuring the financial viability of clubs. But how you can ensure that businesses operating in a competitive environment never go bust, when clubs have occasionally done so since the start of the game, is a puzzle. Sure you can vet business plans. You might be able to insist that clubs change those plans (won't that be popular with the fans!) It might be possible to judge that some plans are unrealistic while others are prudent. But I don't know how you decide that a club's business plan is sufficently rose tinted to require it to be changed. Will IRef decide that, if Manchester United's plan presumes routine Champions League qualification and the concomitant revenues, that is unrealistic? What will the fans in Manchester say if Manchester City is allowed to make such a presumption in its plans but Manchester United, based on recent track record, is not? How would it be fair to allow some clubs to assume European qualification and others not? Equally it would be daft to insist that they all plan on the same basis.
Why should one assume the regulator will have a perfect crystal ball on such matters? Who will take the blame when plans which have been approved by the regulator aren't fulfilled and it all goes wrong?
The regulator will presumably insist on a more prudent approach to plans than hitherto. Which will mean less money to spend and, potentially, a less attractive Premier League. The fans will love it. I can see protests against the regulator rather than the clubs' boards.
The regulator will have the last say over the budgets of not just the Premier League clubs but potentially also all Football League clubs. In deciding how much each club can spend it will be interfering directly in the ability of clubs to compete. Other than getting on the pitch and kicking the ball or intervening in team selection I don't know how much more directly the government could interfere in football than by appointing a separate non-independent* body with powers to intervene directly in what clubs can spend.
Football clubs are businesses and their boards should be allowed to decide how to run their business as they see fit and an on what basis to plan. Some will get it wrong. A small number may go bust. Very few have over many years of football and usually a phoenix club has arisen.
I don't trust the government to get this right. There must be some risk that FIFA could impose sanctions on English football as a result. But when it comes to government intervention in English football, hasn't it already happened when the UK government did just that when it insisted that Chelsea be sold?
In the meantime the evident truth that the Premier League's actions against Everton, Nottingham Forest and other clubs were intended to show that a government regulator is not required was plain to see when Richard Masters, the Premier League CEO, wrote a column in the Times the day after the second sanction against Everton was announced. Having said that I agreed with the main points in his article which included the oddity that the government, after all it has said about artificial intelligence, thinks imposing a football regulator is more urgent. Masters spoke of risk and unforeseen consequences.
However, Martin Samuel had great fun at Masters's expense, noting that the unforeseen consequence of the accelerated timetable for reviewing PSR breaches put in place this season. Now Everton has appealed their case will not be finally decided until a week after the end of the season. So several clubs may go into the last match of the season not knowing what result would keep them safe. Samuel ponders the reaction if, say, Luton go chasing a winning goal deep into stoppage time of their last match, in case they need to win it only to let in a goal and lose but find a week later that the draw would have kept them safe.
As Samuel said this unforeseen consequence could have been foreseen by anyone with a brain and second's thought.
We have government ministers who make clear they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to football every time they open their mouths. And we have the Premier League CEO who makes clear by his actions that he hasn't got a clue either.
It's a wonder the Premier League is so good. But that doesn't mean it will always be so.
* of course the regulator won't be independent. How can it be? Who is going to appoint it's board members?
Yasin Patel discussed government intervention in football and the FIFA statutes in a Church Court Chambers news item, 2 April 2024:
https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/yasin-patel-discusses-government-intervention-in-football-in-law360/#:~:text=There%20are%20numerous%20cases%20in,and%20the%20KFA%20in%202015.
Richard Masters's column Premier League is the envy of the world - government must not put that at risk was in the Times on 9 April 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment