Premier League gets government concession over regulator financial distribution deal

Sports

add

The government has made a late concession to the Premier League by agreeing to let English football’s new independent regulator impose a compromise financial distribution deal on the game, as opposed to having to pick one of two proposals.

With Sir Keir Starmer’s government enjoying a huge majority in the House of Commons, only government-backed amendments to the Football Governance Bill that will create the regulator are likely to be approved.

The government has put forward only one real amendment to the bill before Thursday’s deadline for proposals but it is perhaps the most significant change to how the regulator will operate since Labour introduced its version of the bill last year.

The most contentious part of the bill relates to the so-called “backstop” mechanism for settling rows between the Premier League and English Football League over money, with the original idea being that the two parties would present final offers to the regulator and it would then choose the offer it believed would best deliver sustainability throughout the pyramid.

This approach, however, has been strongly criticised by many Premier League clubs.

In one of her many speeches against the bill during its passage through the House of Lords, West Ham United vice-chair Baroness Brady described it as “legally untested pendulum arbitration” that “throws all the pieces of the pyramid up into the air, with huge uncertainty as to where they may land”.

While she failed to explain how this calamity might unfold, four highly distinguished members of the upper house did propose an amendment to the bill that would give the regulator the power to pick one of the leagues’ proposals, part of a proposal, a blend of the proposals or even make its “own determination”.

The government did not back that amendment at the relevant stage in the House of Lords process but has now decided Lords Birt, Burns, Pannick and Thomas of Cwmgiedd were right. So, what was called the “binary final offer model” will be replaced by a “staged regulator determination”.

What this means in practice is if, for example, the EFL asks the regulator to settle a dispute over the size of parachute payments by triggering the backstop, the regulator will start the process by consulting the Football Association to make sure this is an issue that is within the regulator’s scope.

A mediator will then be appointed to lead talks between the parties, with the goal being a negotiated settlement. If that remains elusive the leagues will then be asked to make initial suggestions, with evidence that their proposal meets the regulator’s goal of creating a resilient pyramid.

Both leagues will be expected to base their proposals on the findings of the State of the Game Report that the regulator will conduct within 18 months of its creation and then repeat at five-year intervals. The regulator will review these proposals, provide feedback, ask for any additional evidence that may be needed and give the leagues a last chance to amend their offers.

It is at this point where the new amendment really changes things, as the regulator will now be able to come up with its own view of how much money relegated clubs should receive in the Championship if it does not agree with either of the leagues’ proposals.

While this change does address one of the Premier League’s main complaints, it also represents a significant increase in the regulator’s powers, which seems like a pyrrhic victory for the top flight given its expensive, four-year lobbying campaign to stop the regulator from ever happening.

It does, however, demonstrate that the government has listened to industry concerns and, in a rare case of a compromise pleasing everyone, the amendment should be welcomed by the EFL, FA, National League and all other interested parties.

But, as the government’s preferred candidate to chair the regulator, media executive David Kogan, put it, the real intention is that nobody will trigger the “nuclear option” of the backstop at all.

“I prefer to think of it more as a sort of tactical weapon,” he told MPs on the Culture, Media and Sports Committee earlier this month.

“You don’t use nuclear options, because if you do, well, you all die. I see it as tactical weapon but it is one I would urge the world of football not to invoke.

“There is probably at least a year where there is time for football to agree among themselves, and the more they agree among themselves, the less we have to be involved.”

(Alex Livesey/Getty Images)

This news was originally published on this post .

Share on

email

Previous

trending_flat

Pat McAfee remembers Jim Irsay with pain and tears: “The greatest philanthropist in the history of this state”

Agency_LATINWEB

Next

trending_flat

Braves’ Matt Olson and Marcell Ozuna go back-to-back, jumping out to an early lead vs. Nationals

mlb