Can an Independent Football Regulator help clubs like 1997 Brighton?

It is 28 years since Fans United, the final game at the Goldstone and the Albion facing the trip to Hereford United with the prospect of dropping out of the Football League. All of which was caused by the asset stripping ownership trio of Bill Archer, Greg Stanley and David Bellotti. Nearly three decades on and moves are afoot to introduce an Independent Football Regulator – the sort of body we all hope can help clubs avoid what Brighton went through in 1997.

Since the Albion were left homeless and almost of business, a long list of other clubs have faced bankruptcy, sale by disreputable owners or financial demise.

Amongst them are Reading. Macclesfield Town. Blackpool. Charlton Athletic. Bolton Wanderers. Chester City. Hull City. Doncaster Rovers. Coventry City. Wrexham. York City. Southend United. Morecambe. And Bury, who paid the ultimate price.

It is not just the Football League with ownership and governorship issues. At the top of the pyramid in 2021, the Big Six tried to separate from the rest of the Premier League by joining a European Super League, playing other giant clubs from Italy and Spain.

Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs were willing with zero consultation to smash the structure of English football which has existed for over a century out of pure greed and gluttony.

The Fan-Led Review of Football Governance

The attempted breakaway prompted a review of English football led by the former sports minister Tracey Crouch in April 2021.

This in turn led to the tabling of the Football Governance Bill in March 2024 by the previous Conservative Government. The bill sought to ensure financial sustainability and improve club governance.

Most significantly, the Crouch Review proposed the establishment of an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) for the first time. Designed to bring in in a “backstop” to protect clubs and fans.

The bill was picked up and revised by the current Labour Government last October. Whilst the original bill acknowledged the importance of fans, it didn’t mandate direct consultation on club decisions. The new revised bill places a stronger emphasis on ensuring that the views of fans are considered.

This includes mandating “effective engagement” with a representative group of supporters. Something the Albion have begun through the Fan Advisory Board.

A useful summary of what the Football Governance Bill now entails has been put together here by the law firm Mills & Reeve.

What to expect from an Independent Football Regulator

In terms of the IFR, it will have the power to license clubs, scrutinise financial management and prevent decisions which could harm club sustainability or fan interests.

Introducing a licensing system is designed to ensure clubs manage their finances responsibly, reduce the risk of insolvency and promote sustainable spending.

Stricter owners’ and directors’ tests will prevent clubs from falling into the hands of unsuitable owners. Hopefully fostering long term stability.

Clubs will be required to consult their supporters on key decisions. Fans will be empowered and see better protection given to the cultural identity of clubs. Including where they play and keeping traditional kit colours.

The IFR will intervene if the Premier League and the Football League cannot agree on a fair distribution of revenue from the top flight downward. It is believed this will foster a more equitable financial landscape.

When the bill was published, the Football Supporters Association backed its introduction: “There’s been nothing since the European Super League announcement) to suggest that the Premier League is able to regulate itself.

“Its clubs have had years to agree a financial settlement which works for the entire game. They’ve repeatedly failed to reach an agreement.”

“The regulator provides a means to intervene and stop clubs being run into the ground. Protect the heritage of clubs. Give supporters a much bigger voice in the running of the game. And prevent any chance of domestic clubs joining a breakaway European Super League.”

Opposition to the Football Governance Bill

Opponents to the Independent Football Regular – which include Brighton based on the form the IFR is currently set to take – have not been shy in laying out arguments against the bill.

Another good summary of the proposals has been made here by Hugh James, summarising both the pros and cons of the bill in its existing form.

The reasons put forward for the IFR being a negative for football include the prospect of stricter regulations deterring potential investors – particularly to the Premier League.

Powers granted to the IFR to intervene in the sport have also been seen as excessive government control by bodies like UEFA.

Brighton stance on the Independent Football Regulator

Speaking to the Albion Roar in January, Brighton chief executive Paul Barber ran through a number of concerns he has about the bill and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator.

Whilst he said there was much in the legislation that he supports, he made the case that football as a business is already highly regulated. He fears costly duplication of some of the roles already performed by auditors, the FA, UEFA and others.

Barber conceded the bill and the IFR have come about because of the Super League proposals and some of the actions of football as a whole.

Many fans would point to controversies and failures on the part of the FA and UEFA in putting money first and fans second.

For Brighton fans, the key benefit of any legislation has to be preventing football clubs falling into the hands of businessmen whose primary concern is sucking money out of them. Like by selling the ground and attempting to personally pocket the profits.

Barber though said the bill as it stands will not strengthen the owners’ and directors’ test. Meaning Bill Archer, Greg Stanley and David Bellotti style situations may continue to happen.

Brighton concerns about the cost of the Independent Football Regulator

One of Barber’s principal concerns is that the IFR is set to have 150 staff and a budget of £10 million. Not enough he believes to licence and financially regulate all 92 clubs.

The fear is it could cost ten times that. It is claimed this would have a severe financial impact on Premier League clubs, who are wholly responsible for funding the IFR rather than the government.

It was the prospect of a huge cost burden falling on the Premier League that led to Barber’s fears as reported in The Times in January. He said clubs may scale back investment in women’s football, stadium infrastructure and academy development to cover there share of the potential £100 million cost of the IFR.

The counter argument to the £100 million claims is that if clubs are already highly regulated and audited, one would that there would be no need for the IFR to duplicate that work in detail.

It would therefore not need to incur that level of cost, simply to ensure at a high level that everything is being properly met.

The Football Supporters Association have also battled back against Premier League concerns over the cost of regulation.

They said: “The Premier League is currently spending around £50 million per season on legal fees fighting cases. These could be handled by a regulator costing one-fifth of that, whilst protecting a lot more clubs.”

The Independent Football Regulator and parachute payments

Barber also cited two fears regarding the IFR’s power to change parachute payments given to clubs relegated from the Premier League to the Championship.

If the IFR opted to reduce or remove parachute payments in future, it would be a disincentive to investment and make signing players on expensive longer term contracts difficult to afford. Teams making the drop would face a “fire sale” of talent.

On the other hand, if the Independent Football Regulator were to increase parachute payments, a team like Brighton may find themselves funding clubs relegated to the Championship who have wealthier owners than Tony Bloom.

These wealthier owners then become direct competition to the Albion if and when they return to the Premier League. Helped there by money from Brighton.

Although these appear to be contradictory concerns, both are valid points to consider. Particularly as the IFR in its current proposed form will not act as an arbiter or negotiator between the Premier League and Football League. It will simply come down on one side or the other in any dispute.

Currently, the Premier League gives 16 percent of its revenue to the Football League. If the Football League demand 25 percent, the IFR either picks the 16 percent figure or the 25 percent figure. All done without any consultation.

A bigger issue than parachute payments, however, is the distribution of money through the Football League. 80 percent of Premier League funding goes to the Championship. Barber rightly pointed out that it is often League One and League Two clubs who need support.

Ticket prices and protecting supporters

Barber added that the IFR will have no powers to stop changes to ticket prices or discounts. Nor will it actually prevent liquidations like Bury from happening again. This is largely the point of the whole review and legislation in many people’s eyes.

He said that licensing of clubs – again a duplicate of a UEFA function – could lead to some being forced to put large deposits in the bank.

Easily affordable by bigger clubs but a potential hindrance to someone like Brighton, reducing the funds available to operate in the transfer market.

Barber said that it is his job – alongside Tony Bloom and the Board – to take the emotions that we all feel as supporters out of the financial decision-making process. He must ensure the club is on a secure and sustainable footing for the future.

Whatever our gripes about ticket sales or catering at the Amex, we all know we are very lucky as Brighton fans to have the ownership and leadership team we do. Arguably one of the best in English football.

And of course we should respect those views and concerns experienced professionals like Barber have about the bill, the Independent Football Regulator and what it might mean for Brighton & Hove Albion in 2025 playing Premier League football.

However, as he Barber himself admits, football has brought the prospect of the IFR upon itself. The bill has wide support in football, politics and the media.

Despite recent criticism form leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch, who called the IFR a “waste of money” 11 months after it was first introduced by her own party.

Brighton politicians support for the Independent Football Regulator

Whilst the Albion might be lukewarm at best to the bill in its current form, it has the broad support of politicians representing Brighton and the wider Sussex area.

Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven MP Chris Ward specifically referenced the journey of the Albion when speaking in support of the bill during a Parliamentary debate:

“I want to briefly tell the story of my local club, Brighton and Hove Albion. It is very much the story of the recent highs and lows of English football,” said Ward.

“In summary, I have been a Brighton fan for 30 years. The first 15 of those were pretty terrible. But the second 15 have been fantastic.”

“In that time we have played in all four leagues. We were one game away from going out of the football league. Now we have spent nearly a decade in the Premier League. And we have enjoyed European nights against teams such as Marseille and Ajax.”

“In the dark days we experienced the very worst of ownership. Our ground was sold and we ended up playing in Gillingham or in a rented athletics stadium.”

“Despite the gloom, we always had two things on our side. First, we had the strength of our fans. They stuck together through thick and thin. Raised money. Went on marches. Did everything we could to keep the club going.”

“We found Tony Bloom”

“Secondly, we found a saviour in new ownership. A Brighton fan and a genius. Everything you would want in an owner in the shape of Tony Bloom.”

“Because of those two things, we have gone through the lottery from the worst to the best of ownership. We heard in the opening speech about the test of the Football Governance Bill being the Reading test. But I want to impose a Brighton test.”

“Could the bill have stopped the first 15 years of my life. Where we experienced the worst of ownership? A second test: will it encourage more owners to come forward who are in the shape of Tony Bloom?”

“Rooted in the community. Serve the community. And deliver a fantastic football team? I hope very much that the Bill can do both.”

When the bill reached the House of Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton submitted dozens of amendments. A long-term Albion fan, amongst the changes he wanted to see was banning state ownership of clubs like Manchester City and Newcastle United. This though this was not taken forward.

The Premier League and self regulation

Football is an emotive business. As the money and international interests have become ever more significant over recent years, fans want a backstop. A government sanctioned body that can protect their clubs, domestic leagues and everything that goes with them.

Clubs are more than a brand to be bought and sold. Moved from city to city like Wimbledon. Changed at the whim of whatever an overseas businessman, government or sports franchise decide. Like Cardiff City wearing red or the ill-fated attempted to rename Hull as Hull City Tigers.

Businesses will always push against regulation and constraints. They want freedom to make money, get a return on their investments and dominate the market ahead of their competitors.

In too many other fields though, we have seen that self-regulation cannot be relied upon to safeguard the interests of customers. And in this case, for customers read fans.

What football needs from the IFR

Fans will want a level playing field and a competitive league. Protection from people stepping in purely for their own financial benefit.

They want the essence of their clubs – and every other club – protected. No walled-off Premier League elite watching League One, League Two and below wither.

A successful football business leads to success on the pitch through better signings and a stronger backroom staff. This in turn should lead to better deal for fans in terms of stadia, facilities, ticket prices and match day experience.

It should not lead to situations where clubs exist purely to take the profits from TV revenue and stadiums full of corporate boxes. Rather than people who have been attending games for decades or kids attending for the first time.

There has to be a balance between the demands of TV screenings on match scheduling and the ability of fans to plan their attendance.

Not to mention the wellbeing of players faced with an ever more demanding fixture list as new tournaments are created in the pursuit of ever greater TV revenue.

What next for the Football Governance Bill?

The bill has now passed the House of Lords, but an amendment banning sports betting sponsorship in the sport controversially fell.

There have been recent claims the government would drop the bill as part of an effort to reduce regulation. But its safe passage through the Lords suggests these are fanciful.

A government spokesperson said: “We are absolutely committed to introducing an independent football regulator to put fans back at the heart of the game.

“Ministers have been consistently clear that the bill, which continues to progress through Parliament, will introduce a light touch set of rules to improve the sustainability of clubs and help ensure the game continues to thrive in communities for generations to come.”

The Independent Football Regulator is a compromise the sport needs

There are multiple conflicting and complementary aspects to the business of football that the IFR will have to contend with.

As the bill moves through parliament and despite those claims it might be jettisoned by the government, the Premier League must accept regulation is coming. So, it is surely incumbent on everyone to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

All the concerns of Barber and other chief executives must be listened to. And at least be addressed if not fully conceded to. There should be a constructive dialogue with ministers. MPs are there to help facilitate that if needed.

Ultimately, the Premier League may have to live with more regulation than they would like. And fans may not get all the protections they want.

Football will face major challenges in the years ahead. New leagues and wealthy state-backed owners from the Middle East. Growing financial interest from the US boosted by hosting the 2026 World Cup.

That could translate in attempts to form a US Super League. Or more American owned Premier League clubs beyond the current 10.

Under the existing one-club-one-vote Premier League system, just five more US owners are needed to give America the two-thirds super majority needed. Premier League Gameweek 39 between Brighton and Everton played in New Orleans, anyone?

A potential revival of the dormant European Super League – now called the “Unity League” – cannot be ruled out either.

More clubs deserve the journey Brighton have been on

1997 is an age ago in football business terms. But it is all too fresh in the memories of Brighton supporters who lived through it.

We are almost at the pinnacle of the football pyramid now. But back then we were at the very bottom of it. Facing oblivion.

Every football fan in England deserves some guarantee that via a new Independent Football Regulator, their club will not only survive but can – given a great owner like Tony Bloom – make the journey to the Premier League and Europe as Brighton and Hove Albion have.

Warren Morgan @warrenmorgan