Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 General Committees

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am astounded by the shadow Minister, or perhaps I am not—I have heard it all before from him. Let me make this clear; I chaired a meeting two weeks ago with the National League on its 3UP campaign. One thing that it wanted to talk about was the football pyramid, and how the “State of the Game” report would then determine the strength of the pyramid in future with the proper distribution of resources, which is a key role that the regulator will have. The National League actually welcomed a possible meeting with the regulator that the football group will have, and the National League will be there to influence the regulator as far as possible to ensure that the bottom of the pyramid, where it sits, is sustained going forward. I think the Act has the potential to strengthen those clubs, rather than weaken them.

Of course, there are two fundamental parts to the Act. The first part is the distribution of resources, the “State of the Game” report and the powers that the regulator will have. The second part is the fit and proper person test for owners. I will just say this to the shadow Minister: bad owners do not wait until the end of the season to destroy their clubs—they can do it at any time. He suggested that we should have postponed all this for a few months and hoped that everything would be alright in the meantime. I would just tell him to look at the mill we have been ground through with Sheffield Wednesday over the last few months.

The EFL has been good; it has been constructive in speaking to MPs and supporters, and it has had meetings with the Supporters Trust to keep it updated. In the end, however, it admitted that it could not deal with an owner who failed to pay the taxman five times, who did not pay players or staff at the club on five occasions, and when part of the ground was closed down because it was not safe. This is a man who waited in his office in Bangkok to sign cheques for a leaking roof in the training ground, or to give the manager the money to buy straps to put on the players’ socks. How can he run a football club like that? This is not a fit and proper person, but the league had no power at all to intervene.

[Mr French]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion as a fan of the club, and we all sympathise with the situation of Sheffield Wednesday. However, his point also highlights the fact that we must reflect on the original test of this individual and whether such tests were strong enough at the time. That is why the Opposition have said that we support strengthening ownership tests, but we need some honesty from the Government in saying that they cannot stop a bad owner from turning up any time in the future for any club.

[Mr Betts]

The problem with strengthening ownership tests is that, in the end, it is a members’ club that currently imposes them—it is the league. Owners do not want to come out strongly against other owners, as they worry that they will be the next ones to be caught. That is why we need an independent regulator to do tests of not just new owners but existing owners, which is a key part of what the Bill does. Yes, owners can pass the initial test, and they can even lie about their circumstances. They can claim they have money, or they might even have had money when they began. The owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Chansiri, did have money, but he ran out of money to the point that the club almost collapsed.

If we had a regulator in place, we could have ended this farce at Hillsborough quite a long time before. In the end, we came very close to the club completely collapsing. Ultimately, it got so bad because of the strength of the fans’ boycott. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will also have had a history of this, given his own connections with Hearts. The fans standing together in a boycott drove the source of income down such that the owner had to go through administration. That was a long, horrible process, and it has not ended yet.

The prospect of the regulator being in the background was always there as a safety net for the fans. Ultimately, they knew that something could be done, even if it could not be done immediately. I think it is an incredibly good step forward not just for football generally but for fans who see their clubs in distress. We have seen fans at Morecambe, Derby and Reading go through the mill on these issues in the past, where a regulator could have stepped in much earlier and helped fans through that process.

I ask the shadow Minister: do I tell my fans at Sheffield Wednesday that a Tory Government would have let Wednesday go under? I am sorry, but that is entirely a possibility. I know there are not many Conservatives in Sheffield who have to worry about their seats in that regard, but nevertheless, that is entirely a possibility that could have happened. The regulator could have stepped in earlier, and been the backstop.

The powers are very clearly set out in the Act—you will be pleased to know I am not going to go through all of them today, Ms Lewell. Part 4 clearly sets out the new tests for owners and officers of football clubs, which are reasonable and proportionate. I draw hon. Members’ attention to an important one, which probably has not had a lot of attention. Section 51 talks about insolvency proceedings, which Sheffield Wednesday is now going through, and states that the administrator and regulator

“must take reasonable steps to keep…fans informed about the progress of the proceedings.”

That is sensible. Currently, they do not have to; an administrator does not have to liaise with fans at all— I am told by colleagues that that happened at Derby. The administrator and the regulator will have to keep fans informed during insolvency proceedings.

The administrators at Hillsborough are doing a good job. They are talking to the Supporters Trust and liaising with it. They do not have to, but the Act means that in future they will have to. I give credit to the Supporters Trust, which has done a brilliant job. On Wednesday night last week, we had an almost complete boycott of a game. By Friday, when the club went into administration, there was a queue along the road to the club shop, and £500,000 was spent by supporters who wanted to keep the club, without Chansiri involved, afloat and alive. That shows the strength of supporters.

I also give great credit to the players. Barry Bannan, the club captain, turned down £20,000 a week—probably not enormous sums of money for some—and is playing for Wednesday for £7,000 a week, for his love of the club. We give awards to players for being good footballers; how about giving awards to people who are just good people and who have that loyalty and commitment to a club? Barry Bannan is there, along with Liam Palmer—great credit to them. Also, the office staff have worked without pay for some weeks—great credit to them as well.

The spirit of this statutory instrument and the Act is about fan involvement. The Act came from the fan-led review—that was its essence. We must make sure that the administrator, the English Football League—which is currently the regulator—and the regulator that will take over, probably in December, bake into any agreement with a new owner the right of fans to be involved in their football club. That is the essence of what we are debating today. This instrument will put the basis of that in place. I just ask that the administrator, the EFL and the regulator ensure that fan involvement and engagement are baked into the administration and running of Sheffield Wednesday football club and any other clubs that they may have involvement with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

With regard to David Kogan, the regulator, he has done an outstanding job so far. If Opposition Front Benchers are going to criticise him, I wish they would criticise what he has done—within a few weeks, a 100-page consultation document on how he will operate for the benefit of football fans. It would be helpful if the Opposition could address the issues to do with how the regulator is operating, rather than some scaremongering talk about some donation many years ago, which has no relevance at all.

[The Chair]

Order. I have allowed some kickabout in the debate, but can we please stick to the legislation before us?