A football regulator is finally coming - but Premier League greed will make progress hard

Having been proposed and shelved earlier this year, plans for a new Independent Football Regulator are back under the new Labour government – and as with all good sequels, it seems to be bigger, stronger and possessed of a wider scope than it had in its first incarnation. But what difference with the regulator really make, and how will the Premier League and its elite clubs respond?

A bill to introduce a regulator into the national game was initially introduced by the previous Conservative government, but failed to pass into law before the general election was called, causing it to be shelved indefinitely. Now, a beefed-up bill, championed by culture secretary Lisa Nandy, will be put before the House of Commons on Thursday in the hope that it can be passed into law before next season.

The fundamental scope of the planned regulator remains much the same, but some key specifics have changed. At its core, the regulator’s duties will be to ensure financial sustainability in the English game, to make sure that fans are given a voice in crucial decisions made by their clubs, and to attempt to put stronger controls on the ownership of clubs.

So what’s changed since the Conservatives put forward their plans in the spring? Firstly, the powers to change the financial structure of football have been extended, with an explicit statement that the regulator will assess the continued viability of the parachute payments currently given to relegated teams. The EFL have long argued against them, believing that they entrenched the financial advantage of the teams at the top of the Football League pyramid, while Premier League sides are understandably keen to keep them for the same reason. Those payments now have a clear target on their forehead.

Secondly, a clause in the original bill which forced the regulator to avoid contravening British foreign policy has been removed. There are two possible reasons for that, both of which may apply – firstly, UEFA had raised the prospect that such rules could constitute government interference in governance of the game, which could be grounds for expulsion from Euro 2028, which England is co-hosting with the Republic of Ireland and the other Home Nations.

Secondly, it could allow the regulator to act against state ownership of clubs. Nations like Saudi Arabia, who own Newcastle United via their Public Investment Fund, are often allies and trading partners of the United Kingdom. Attempts to force such nations out of club investment could have diplomatic ramifications, which would have been averted by the original bill. The Labour government appear ready to face such potential problems.

In the short term, the potential for the removal of parachute payments seems like the most significant step forward, because specifying a review within the bill makes it plain that part of the plan is to address the immense financial imbalance between the top flight and the EFL, which has spoken about concerns over the rapidly-widening gulf before.

The apparent willingness to try and reduce that yawning economic gap is good news. While Premier League sides inevitably enjoy their immense advantage, it is eating away at the competitiveness of the league ladder, without which the game becomes more predictable while essentially excluding smaller clubs from a chance of reaching the top table.

Precisely what measures the regulator will introduce remains hard to foresee. Right now, there is a void in the financial regulation of the top flight – clubs have already voted to get rid of the existing profit and sustainability rules but discussions over what might replace it are ongoing. The Premier League will have time to vote in its own preferred solution before the regulator gets up and running, but if it acts too greedily and in a way that is obviously self-interested, then the regulator will have the excuse it may need to make sweeping changes.

The issue facing the regulator – the bill is almost certain to pass, likely with cross-party support – won’t just be figuring out a way to govern football’s finances which creates genuine balance while ensuring stability and protecting clubs from reckless owners, but also forcing the Premier League to accept their decisions.

The Premier League is, predictably, deeply averse to the regulator’s very existence. “We remain concerned about the regulatory framework,” said a statement. “Specifically, we believe rigid banking-style regulation, and the regulator's unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of the Premier League's revenues, could have a negative impact on the league's continued competitiveness, clubs' investment in world-class talent and, above all, the aspiration that drives our global appeal and growth.”

Concerns about remaining competitive in comparison with other top leagues are likely overstated, given that the Premier League’s income towers over those of other nations’ top tiers. It will require truly sweeping changes to knock it of its pedestal. The real problem Premier League clubs have is that they are far more interested in being the richest clubs in the world and in ensuring that they are in a position to retain their place at the top of the game by having access to far more income than those in more lowly positions in the game.

The Premier League will almost certainly resist any changes introduced by the regulator to the fullest extent that it is able. The regulator will have the backing of law but it’s specific mandates will still be subject to legal challenges, and we can expect court cases to come thick and fast if changes which disadvantage the biggest teams come to pass. The biggest sides have no interest in creating a more competitive and balanced environment in English football when they are those enjoying the view from the high end of a less-than-level playing field.

Nor do big clubs want to have their spending curtailed – if they were happy to live in a more sustainable financial world, they would not have dropped the profit and sustainability rules, which have capped their spending quite effectively over the past few years. Furthermore, clubs like Manchester City would not be waging their own, separate war against the Premier League itself in order to push for even greater advantages.

Unless the regulator takes truly unprecedented actions, the top teams will continue to enjoy a healthy advantage, of course. They are owned by petrostates and billionaire investors. Few EFL clubs can even hope to compete with such riches. It is relatively unlikely that any new regulations introduced will completely upend the existing landscape, especially once the lawyers have gotten involved. The paradigm will probably shift in relatively small ways.

Where the biggest impacts could be felt is in the powers to potentially rein in overspending owners or exclude owners who could be unsuitable for the role. The existing Owners and Directors Tests have been regularly pilloried over the years for their toothlessness, and many unsavoury characters have ended up owning football teams.

We are just a few months removed from a point at which 777 Partners came close to buying Everton, with the Premier League’s existing rules highly unlikely to prevent them. Amid accusations of fraud, the investment group has now collapsed, risking the future of several football clubs which they own around the world. Everton only narrowly avoided being swept up in the same crisis.

State ownership will also prove to be incredibly difficult to deal with, even if the desire to do is there. Even free of the shackles of government policy, refusing to allow some nation state or Emirate to purchase a club would cause a storm, with fans just as likely to attack the regulator as any snubbed prospective purchaser. Besides, with two clubs in the top tier already directly owned by Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, it’s probably a horse that has long since bolted, and doubtful that any regulator could do much more than dolefully close the stable door.

Part of the problem that the Premier League has in preventing problematic owners from involvement in the game is that they are hamstrung by the law of the land – the club, for all their history and community importance, are still companies which can be bought and sold just like any other, and unless potential new owners would be disqualified from holding directorial roles of any other company, it’s challenging for the league to legally prevent them from buying a club. The regulator, backed by government and the force of law, could be in a far better position to shoo the vultures away.

There will still be awful owners in the future, but at least there could be some fightback against dodgy venture capitalists and global ownership groups – in other words, against the more foreseeable issues modern ownership throws up. If there was, it would be good news for the future health of the game.

But ultimately, the waves the regulator makes may be closer to ripples, at least at first, and even then the Premier League will try to turn even that gentle tide back like a latter-day King Canute. All we can hope for, as fans, is that those appointed to run the regulator have the force of will to ensure that they aren’t dissuaded from making the changes required for the long-term health of English football. Because right now, as the fat cats thrive at the top table, much of the rest of the game is starving.