Football Governance Bill [HL]

Committee (7th Day)

Clause 60: The mediation stage

Amendment 295A

295A: Clause 60, page 49, line 21, after “given” insert “and to the extent that the question or questions for resolution relate to financial distributions, that mediator must be appointed in accordance with the requirements in section (Appointment of mediator) to section (Guidance and review)”

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 295A and to speak to my other amendments, 297A through 297G. While I have, of course, had expert help in the drafting, the approach in these amendments is entirely my own. They are my response to discussions I have had within football and right across this House about the single most radical measure in the Bill: the process for determining fund flow down the football pyramid.

I have already made clear my conviction that the precious and unparalleled role that football clubs play in their communities justifies regulation. Fans should be listened to, and they deserve protection from the occasionally bad, if generally well-intentioned, stewardship of owners and management who take ill-considered risks and lose control of their finances—the overwhelming reason why clubs fail and falter.

I wholeheartedly welcome the provisions in the Bill for promoting good and prudent management. They should have a major and beneficial—indeed, radical—impact on English football. I believe, however, that the precise mechanism set out in the Bill for determining fund flow carries severe risk and could adversely impact the whole of the English game. I note the cogent reservations about the mechanism set out in the EFL’s own briefing paper from last November. I note, too, that the Bill’s progenitor, Dame Tracey Crouch, described the backstop mechanism as the “nuclear equivalent for football.” She observed, quite rightly, that in a nuclear conflict, he who pulls the trigger may not be the winner.

The backstop is an inappropriate measure to resolve issues between two groups who live cheek by jowl and whose membership is interchangeable every 12 months. Next year, any club might find itself sitting on the other side of the table. The essential task of establishing an appropriate flow of funds down the leagues is to balance two public goods, and “balance” is the key word: on the one hand, to maintain the extraordinary success of the Premier League; and on the other, to share sufficient of the fruits of the Premier League’s success to encourage the healthy operation of the whole of the football pyramid and to ensure that any well-managed club can rise to the very top.

My Lords, I have added my name to amendments in the next group that also propose changes to the resolution process, to which I will speak shortly. However, if the Minister is favourable to the proposed arbitration approach of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, as set out in these amendments— as opposed to those I have added my name to—and would be willing to accept and reflect further on the noble Lord’s proposal, I will be fully in support of that as I believe that his model is unquestionably preferable to that in the current legislation.

The intent behind the noble Lord’s approach is the same as mine—as he eloquently set out, to avoid the divisive approach currently contained in the Bill that could lead to both sides simply facing each other down, and instead to propose a mechanism that would ensure a tailored solution to the distribution of revenues that balances the interests of all sides and encourages constructive dialogue and collaboration to the benefit of the game and clubs at all levels.

As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, set out in his remarks, arbitration is a proven process; it is widely used in a range of commercial contexts and would lend itself effectively as a mechanism for helping to determine the revenues that flow through the football pyramid. In appointing an independent, experienced arbitrator to oversee the process and work with a set of detailed published principles, the regulator itself would remain one step removed, which the Minister has referred to in previous comments. I very much hope that she will look favourably on this well-considered and credible proposal.

My Lords, the amendments in front of us seem very appealing on the face of it, but I wonder why we have not got there already. If the Minister has some idea about the process that led to the position that we have, which does not seem to have been universally popular, I would be grateful to hear it—and I think the Committee would benefit from that.

I wish all noble Lords a happy new year, because this is the first time I have been here. I wish that my noble friend Lord Parkinson was joining us here instead of being in the Caribbean, from where he sends his best wishes. I really appreciate the time, effort and work that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has put into this, although I am not sure about his statistic that 40% of the best players worldwide play in the Premier League. I would be interested in understanding where that statistic comes from, particularly as there seemed to be a Liverpool bias in that statistic.

The point behind all this, as the noble Lord said, is that a redistribution power gives unprecedented power to a regulator—unlike any other regulator in the country. As noble Lords have heard me say before, you do not see the FCA giving money from one bank to another or Ofwat giving from one water company to another. This has to be at odds with what the Sports Minister said just today—that they were looking to put in place a light-touch regulator. Instead, they are giving the regulator more powers than any other regulator in the country, which feels as if it is going in the opposite direction. The amendments in the second group seek to address that by suggesting that maybe we should not have those redistribution powers. But given a scenario in which we have those powers, the noble Lord has tried to set out a thorough and well thought-out process that is designed to foster compromise and avoid gaming. That is my concern about this.

I particularly appreciate the amendment on the criteria for settlement, which would make sure that there is a wider set of criteria in all this—looking to the competitive nature, audience appeal and continued investment. Without that, you are really just asking the expert panel to go back to the original objectives of the Bill, which are very simple and talk only about the financial resilience of the league, safeguarding heritage and financial soundness. There is a very easy way in which to achieve all those things, pointing the expert panel to saying that whichever suggestion gives the most money is going to achieve that, without having any other objectives. We could say, “Hang on a moment; going with the one that gives the most money does not at all take into account the appeal of the Premier League or the competitive nature of it all—it just makes sure that it is financially sound by giving it as much money as possible”. That cannot be right, but that is what we are setting up the regulator to do, if those are the only criteria and measures that it has to guide by. That is why I appreciate the wider set of measures set out in the amendment, which is very much a guide to how to do that, similar to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson, which are in my name as well, on having a financial investment duty on the regulator in deciding any final proposal.

Before the Minister responds, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who sat through many hours of Committee and held his council until this moment, when he has made some very forceful and powerful points geared specifically towards having a co-operative, thoughtful and collaborative response to mediation. The legislation at present is not like that; it is divisive and nuclear, to use two of the words that the noble Lord used. This is one area where there can be agreement across the Committee, and I hope that there will be agreement from the Minister that we can return on Report to look at this, so that we can be more in line with other regulatory mechanisms for mediation. None is as divisive and polarised as the one in the Bill, and I very much hope that the support will be universal for the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I am grateful to him for the thought that he has given to this.

Will the noble Lord acknowledge that you can have mediation only if both sides are willing to participate? What we have seen from the Premier League in recent years is that it is not willing to do that.

I disagree with the noble Baroness on that. Through the history of the backstop powers and the parachute payments, this has been subject to consistent and constructive negotiations. Some negotiations are tougher than others; there is no doubt that in recent months and the last couple of years there have been examples of both sides failing to reach an agreement. I do not believe that putting this regulatory pressure into a binary system is going to resolve that. Yes, negotiations are tough and are frequently going to lead to detailed iterations before a satisfactory position is reached—but the last round of negotiations in particular was very close to reaching an agreement. I do not believe that the imposition of regulatory pressure is going to resolve that beneficially for the future of the Premier League, or indeed the EFL, at all.

My Lords, before the noble Lord completely finishes his point and before we get to the Minister, from whom I think we all want to hear on this, does he accept that there has not been any progress in negotiations for 18 months? That is a very long time. The Premier League has to come somewhere close to where the EFL is if there is to be some sort of progress, and there has been no progress in that time—so I am not sure that the noble Lord is right.

I am equally keen to sit down so that we can hear the Minister respond. I was party to the letter from the EFL and to the reply from the noble Baroness, who set out clearly the steps taken during these negotiations, and it is simply not true to say that over the past 12 months no progress has been made. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is a far more efficient, professional and collaborative way in which to make progress, and I very much hope that the Minister will echo that in her response.

My Lords, my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the experience in litigation over recent years is that a requirement on parties to acrimonious disputes to mediate does often ensure a consensual settlement of disputes that seemed unable to be resolved—the formal process of mitigation. I declare, as I always do, my interests as counsel to Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings. I am a season ticket holder at Arsenal. I am interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is in the Caribbean; I had intended to go to the Emirates Stadium tonight to see Arsenal play Tottenham Hotspur, but I decided, on the basis of their recent form, that it would be far more entertaining to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and other noble Lords.

I just make two points about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I agree that they deserve close attention and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The first is on Amendment 297A, on the appointment of a mediator. The noble Lord proposes that the person to be appointed must have held high judicial office. I say to him that, based on my experience, the best mediators are not necessarily those who have been judges. A mediator is not deciding anything; a mediator needs empathy and the ability to build a relationship of trust with the warring parties. I therefore respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that he may want to think about that point.

The second point that I raise with the noble Lord and the Committee is on his Amendment 297F. If I have understood his scheme correctly, there is a mediation stage, then there is an arbitration stage and then the ability for either party who is dissatisfied with the arbitration to take the matter to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I point out to noble Lords that it is customary, where there is arbitration, that the power to take a matter that has been consensually arbitrated to a court or tribunal is very limited. That is the whole point of arbitration; it is to reduce the possibilities of further lengthy and expensive proceedings. The Arbitration Act, in most circumstances, limits the ability to go to court or to another tribunal thereafter to very specific and limited grounds. Again, the noble Lord may want to give thought to that.

My Lords, during the Second Reading debate, I made a contribution in relation to this specific issue and I disagreed with some of my colleagues. I indicated that I had worked for many years as a negotiator on behalf of management, on behalf of some of the largest corporations in this country. I negotiated with trade unions. It is easy to talk about mediation, arbitration and swing arbitration, which is in fact what is proposed in this Bill by the Government, but they all tackle an issue in different ways.

I am impressed by the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I said at Second Reading that I was not averse to the proposal, but I wanted to see what the alternatives were. I will listen to the Minister with care, because I think it is important that one addresses the different forms of mediation and arbitration that are available to two sides, whether they are, in my case, management and trade unions, whether they are industrial organisations or whether, in this case, they are particular bodies that have an interest in coming to an agreement.

That is my observation, but I put one specific question to the Minister. According to press reports, the Chancellor is meeting regulators tomorrow to emphasise to them that they should prioritise growth. Given that so much of our debate has been about maintaining the growth of the football industry while tackling issues, I just seek clarification as to whether the shadow regulator has been invited to that meeting with the Chancellor. If so, is he going?