Tuesday 21st May 2024
Arsenal Supporters Trust (AST)
Written evidence to the Football Governance Bill Committee Stage
The AST were at the forefront of the fight against the Super League including attending the meeting with then Prime Minister Boris Johnson when he committed to killing it with a ‘legislative bomb’.
In that meeting we encouraged him to set up an immediate wide ranging review of all of the issues in football through the eyes of football fans. The subsequent Crouch fan-led review of Football Governance is a seminal piece of work to which the AST gave written and oral evidence.
The Arsenal Supporters Trust (AST) has long called for and now welcomes the Football Governance Bill and the proposals for an Independent Football Regulator (IFR).
The football sector is dynamic and fast moving and the threats and challenges placed upon supporters are always evolving. It is therefore vital that the Bill has flexibility in its powers to enable the SofS and IFR to address new issues as they arise.
We set out below some of observations on the current Bill and how it could be improved.
Clause 48, Duty not to relocate (preventing club’s moving home games overseas)
The threat of football clubs moving their home games to be played overseas is the next Super League level crisis supporters will inevitably face [1].
Arsenal are owned by a US investment group who have precedent in relocating their other sporting teams thousands of miles and they have rejected requests from the AST to rule out this scenario or to give supporters a genuine binding say in future proposals to relocate home matches.
We advocated the inclusion of the relocation clause in this Bill but are concerned that as drafted it may not be sufficient. The wording needs tightening:
This could be achieved by adding to Clause 48 (4):
Insert c) have the approval of UK based supporters
Clarity is requested as to whether the Bill’s wording would be effective if a competition organiser were to designate a home match to be played overseas. For instance if UEFA or the Premier League were to designate that two rounds of the Champions League group stages or Premier League matches were to be played in Los Angeles or Riyadh.
Clause 55, Part (2) Relevant revenue (for the regulator to consider when setting redistribution amounts)
The problem with relevant revenue as defined in the Bill being only Premier League broadcast revenue is it doesn’t address the reality of the wealth or power in English football. This in turn means the framework the Bill sets for the IFR to direct redistribution isn’t fair or effective.
Increasingly the largest Clubs make their revenues from the UEFA and FIFA club competitions, commercial income (sponsors) and in friendly games they play against each other overseas.
It is this revenue that is distorting sustainability and competitive balance. This issue has recently had the effect of seeing FA Cup replays scrapped (so the big clubs can earn even more in the expanded Champions League).
Premier League broadcast money is distributed on a very even and fair basis (1.6 to 1) but other sources of income are kept entirely by the clubs.
The Bill as drafted will encourage clubs to earn even more revenues outside of the collective broadcast revenue, even incentivising them to push for individual broadcast sales (long sought by the big clubs).
In other places the Bill makes provision for the regulator to take into account all club revenue, for instance when setting the licence fee, and the Bill needs amending so that the IFR powers of redistribution give it jurisdiction over all Club revenues.
This would be achieved by amending Clause 55 (2) (a) (ii) to read
Revenue received by the competition organiser and / or directly by licensed Clubs playing in that competition
Another option would be to delete the reference to ‘competition organiser’ in part (2).
Schedule 4, Section 4, Fan Engagement Effective Fan engagement (must address ticket pricing)
The biggest and most constant issue for fan engagement is ticket pricing.
Football continues to earn ever more money from its broadcast and commercial partners and yet across the game we are seeing fans hit by ticket price increases and the removal of concessionary ticketing.
Shamefully Arsenal, and other clubs, are planning to remove the right of any senior fan to buy a new concessionary season ticket.
This season there have been protests by supporters at many clubs at how their fans have handled ticketing prices for the 2024/25 season. All of the following have raised the fact that they do not feel the current fan engagement processes at their Clubs on ticketing have been fair or effective.
Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust (THST) and the Spurs Save our Seniors (SOS) campaign, Spirit of Shankly at Liverpool, Fulham Supporters Trust, West Ham United Supporters groups, Foxes Trust, Cherries Trust, Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust, Newcastle United Supporters Trust and Wolves 1877 Supporters Trust.
All have provided feedback that ticket price increases have not been properly consulted on and / or supporters genuinely listened to in the current fan engagement channels.
The Bill needs amending to make ticket pricing an issue the IFR requires licensed Clubs to specifically engage and consult on.
This can be achieved by amending section 4 (2) (c) mnInsert ‘and ticket pricing’
We would also welcome confirmation from the Minister that Guidance will be produced which would set out best practice supporter engagement on ticketing – and would include:
This process could be called a Supporter Impact Assessment and should very much replicate the framework Regulatory Impact Assessments [2]
Schedule 5, Corporate Governance (all Clubs to have two iNEDs)
The AST has long called for Club’s governance to be improved and we believe this starts with the requirement that all licensed Clubs with a sizeable turnover (Premier League & Championship) should be required to appoint two independent Non-Executive Directors (iNEDs).
The IFR should base this requirement on the provisions of the existing UK Corporate Governance Code and then add some football specific requirements.
This would include the Club appointing two iNEDS who would be demonstrably independent and appointed on fixed term contracts giving them the security of tenure to act in the wider interests of good corporate governance thereby helping to uphold the principles enshrined in this Bill.
One of the requirement of iNEDS under the Corporate Code relates to consultation and engagement and the IFR should adapt this principle in their governance requirements with key stakeholders at football clubs of course being supporters and supporter groups.
This could be achieved by amending Schedule 5, section 7 with the addition:
(7) A code of practice published under this section must require a licensed Club to appoint two iNEDS
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/impact-assessments-guidance-for-government-departments
