Football Governance Bill ‘weird’ and regulator could be ‘terrible’, says Brady
West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady has laid out her case for opposing the introduction of the football regulator, arguing that it “could have a really detrimental effect” on the game.
Baroness Brady has been one of the most vocal peers in questioning the plans for a watchdog, the key plank of the Football Governance Bill currently passing through parliament.
Brady says that while she supports some aims of the plans, such as better fan engagement and protecting clubs’ heritage, other aspects are “bizarre” and would prove “terrible for football”.
“The Football Governance Bill, there are certain things about it I really like,” she told the Hammers Business Network Event at London Stadium on Wednesday.
“There are certain things I really don’t like and certain things that could have a really detrimental effect on football.
“Starting with the principle of regulation, regulators are not always good. If you look at Ofwat, with what’s happening in the water industry, there isn’t really a record of success.
“And actually, football is very successful. Certain issues that have happened in football, those clubs have come back, and they have reemerged.
“This sort of scaremongering that every club is about to go bankrupt is simply just not worn out by the facts. So, regulation for regulations sake, seems slightly odd to me.”
Football regulator is untested, says Brady
The Football Governance Bill was first introduced by the last Conservative government but has been strengthened by Labour since they came to power last year.
Tory peer Brady cited concerns about the football regulator’s requirements of owners, the degree of consultation afforded to clubs, and possible ministerial interference — which could jeopardise England’s international status.
But she said her chief objection was the proposed power to intervene in how the Premier League shares its vast financial resources with clubs in the EFL.
“There’s no other football industry across the world that is regulated, so it’s unprecedented and untested,” Brady added.
“But the biggest issue for me probably is the backstop power, where the regulator has the power to go into Premier League revenues, take their money — even if it then forces clubs to breach their own Premier League financial rules.
“The other thing is that parachute payments have been included, and what they don’t seem to understand in government is that parachute payments, if they didn’t exist, would have to be invented.
Governance bill would be ‘terrible for football’
“Ninety percent of administrations in football happen during a relegation event. So, without a parachute payment, you can’t compete when you get up and you can’t cope when you go down.
“The thought that a regulator could damage that or upset that balance would really affect the competitiveness of the Premier League and there doesn’t seem to be any clarity over why they can make that decision or how they make that decision.”
Brady is among the peers who tabled 375 amendments to the Football Governance Bill, sparking accusations from Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy that some Conservatives were now intent on “wrecking” it.
Former Culture, Media and Sport select committee chair Damian Collins defended Tory scrutiny of the plans in Morning Wire this week and Apprentice star Brady insists a regulator would discourage clubs like West Ham from taking risks in order to compete domestically and in Europe.
“All our thoughts are consumed with ‘how can we make West Ham better?’” she said. “If you’re handicapped for being able to do that because a regulator wants to take the least riskiest option, that would be terrible for football.”