Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Jon Pearce Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

Hopefully, the Minister will be able to reassure us that even if there is no Government support for the amendment today, the discussion can be carried on in future. The sooner we get on with one of the three key points of the regulator—to redistribute funds from those who have a lot to those who do not have quite so much—the more popular the regulator will be, and the more we will all be able to argue that it has done its job.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I make my usual declaration of interest, which is that I am a member and former chair of the RamsTrust. I rise to speak in support of amendment 141, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.

The purpose of the Bill is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Parachute payments are arguably the greatest source of systemic unsustainability within the game at the moment, and must therefore be addressed as urgently as possible. I have made this point on a number of occasions, because it is incredibly personal to me and other Derby County fans: parachute payments nearly cost Derby its football club. We came within hours of disappearing completely, because we had an owner trying to compete with clubs that had parachute payments, and that became entirely unsustainable.

Championship clubs are currently relying on owners, on average, for about £16 million a year. That means that the Championship is unsustainable, because it is trying to compete with the Premier League and parachute payments. We either accept that the game is for the whole country, all 92 league clubs and all the non-league clubs, or we think it should be run in the interests of the Premier League. I fundamentally think that our game is a national game and is far too important for us to sit back and allow a small number of elite clubs to decide its future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made a really strong case for his amendment. The timescales will mean that we could well be looking at the next Parliament. This is the Premier League trying to kick the can down the road in the hope that they never have to comply with it. I fear the unsustainability of the game will mean that in that period, we could lose other clubs. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s amendment.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, be that as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club or, as of this morning, a newly re-elected member of the Pompey Supporters Trust board.

In the Bill under the previous Government, as we have heard, parachute payments were ruled out. I welcome, along with many fans, the change brought by the Minister to allow the regulator to look at those payments. Because of that, I know that Labour has strengthened the backstop, and, importantly, now puts it within the scope of the Bill. The change comes in part 6, where the critical issue of financial distribution is discussed. That is a key element of the Bill for my football club, Portsmouth, and other English Football League clubs, as it is impossible for club sustainability to be achieved unless there is a change to how money is distributed across the game.

However, like other Committee members, I have one area of concern that I would like to seek clarification on, and it is linked to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s amendment 141. The Bill proposes a two-year period during which parachute payments cannot be reduced at all following a distribution order taking effect. Clubs such as Portsmouth believe that that should be halved to 12 months; a two-year window, as we have already heard, could result in the issue of parachute payments not even being addressed during this term of Parliament.

Can my hon. Friend the Minister give details of this timeframe, and of the possibility of the IFR having the ability to determine for itself the right approach to payments to regulated clubs, rather than having a set timeframe? Could she also comment on the role that reports such as the state of the game report may play in financial regulation?