Kogan’s run

So David Kogan is going to be the chair of the Independent Football Regulator …

Knowing the person who would be the face of the regulator was always going to help get an idea of how the body might operate, and so far the signs look encouraging.

Kogan is a heavyweight figure, with knowledge of how the finances and politics of the football business work. He’s worked with various leagues in England and Scotland on media rights, has been a senior journalist at large media organisations, has experience of governance structures, and he’s a fan with a genuine passion for the game.

There has been some initial nonsense about him not being independent – nonsense largely generated by people who have always been opposed to a regulator or, in the case of the Tory Party, people who want to justify a policy u-turn. Kogan dealt with that head on during a highly impressive 90-minute appearance before the House of Commons Select Committee this week, an appearance that also gave some indication of what his approach is likely to be.

To those accusations of lack of independence first. Kogan is a Labour Party member who has written two histories of the party, chaired the LabourList website, and donated funds to the party. At the Select Committee, Kogan also volunteered the information that he had donated funds to the leadership campaign of PM Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.

The Tories, desperately looking for a way to square their new leader’s radical anti-regulation stance with their previous support for regulating football – the Bill was produced after a review instigated by a Conservative government and was chaired by Tory MP Tracey Crouch – seized on the issue as proof of cronyism, and several Conservative members of the Select Committee made sure the implication was on public record.

Unfortunately for them, as Kogan pointed out in some detail, he had been approached to take the job by the previous government too. So much for Tory objections, but you can be sure the Labour crony line will continue to be pushed by the likes of Times journalist Martin Samuel, who has mentioned the issue twice since the appointment was announced. Samuel has pushed the Premier League’s attack lines throughout the process, and previously put a lot of effort into propagating the view that the regulator would fall foul of UEFA rules on independence from state interference.

The UEFA scare proved unfounded, so expect Samuel to continue with the fall-back argument that Kogan is not independent. The definition of independent in this argument appears to be ‘someone with no opinions’, but Samuel surely cannot be daft enough to believe this. Any person with the experience and heft required to take the job of football’s regulator would need to have contacts, and opinions about policy. As Kogan pointed out, independence is written into the Bill (section 11).

He also pointed out he is “not known for being susceptible to pressure”, a reference to his tough negotiating stance that has prompted phrases such as ‘lack of tact’ and ‘confrontational nature’ to be used in coverage of his appointment. Of course, the football world is not exactly noted for the number of delicate flowers in senior positions, so such descriptions serve as reassurance that Kogan is viewed as no pushover by those who have become accustomed to doing the pushing over.

On the subject, while Kogan has so far come across well to people in the supporter movement, he can’t be portrayed as unduly biased towards fans. This appointment needed to be someone who couldn’t easily be portrayed as anyone’s patsy, and Kogan certainly gave the impression he knew his own mind at the hearing.

He spoke of the job being a “critical and fascinating” one that he was “hungry” to take on, and said the regulator would prove its worth by “doing the things we say we are going to do.” He came across as being mindful of the need to show, sooner rather than later, what the regulator could do, to prove its worth not only to the industry but to the millions who value the game. He wants the regulator to be “not a cop, but an asset”, helping clubs meet the requirements expected as a first principle.

I’ll confess my initial worry was that, while Kogan had the necessary financial and business acumen, he may not fully appreciate the fan perspective. Kogan was frank about where his experience was and where it wasn’t – governance generally but not regulation specifically, for example – but spoke impressively about the need to build a multi-talented team able to deliver on the many fronts required. It’s something he has done before. And he had some encouraging things to say about the role of fans.

He spoke of wanting to ensure “a consistent application of fans’ voices in the way their clubs are run,” observing that we needed to move on from the current situation in which too many relationships depended on how much owners were prepared to listen to fans. He was clear that the regulator could not intervene directly on setting ticket prices, for example, but said: “It’s a matter for the regulator to ensure fans have a view on ticket prices”. Fans, he said, “have an ally in the regulator.”

While Kogan undoubtedly has views on how the game should be run, he was also clear about what the remit of the Bill allowed him to do, straight batting a few of the panel’s questions by saying it wasn’t for him to comment on matters outside the remit of the job, let alone one he had not been formally appointed to. This is someone who understands the power and necessity of process, and it’s safe to say too many in the game have not been across the detail of that for too long.

The prospect of legal challenge from powerful interests was dealt with honestly, with Kogan saying he hoped it didn’t come to that but that the way to deal with it was to do the job properly and to be prepared – and financially able – to defend positions robustly in court.

The Bill is entering its last stages, and I’d like to see some issues around measuring the quality of fan engagement addressed, along with more specific provision to prevent domestic games being played overseas, plus some outstanding questions about media rights and international income resolved. It is the detail of the Bill that Kogan will work to, so it is important that detail covers the ground it needs to.

Kogan will be the chair, the public face people look to for direction, but the role of CEO – yet to be appointed – will also be key as this post will be responsible for day-to-day operations. And there’s a board to be appointed, a body whose composition will also say much about what we can expect. Discussion at the hearing indicated Kogan was keen to get on with recruiting and appointing.

So will fans notice an immediate difference? Will the regulator get popular embrace as A Good Thing? Almost certainly not, because that’s not how regulation works. The purpose of this regulator is to make football more sustainable, to protect football clubs as community assets as much as possible by changing the financial imperatives that promote reckless behaviour. That will take time, and if in five years we can say that there have been no more Burys or Southends or Readings then progress will have been made.

Fans of clubs further down the pyramid will probably see the benefits sooner than those further up, and indeed there was specific talk at the select committee hearing about the need to move away from the current “series of financial cliff edges” and back to a more recognisable pyramid.

For fans of the bigger clubs, there will be less immediate opportunity to judge success, and I’ve already heard disappointment expressed about this. But this regulator was never going to tell clubs what to do. The point was to create an environment in which it was difficult or impossible to do some of the things club owners have done before. So there won’t be an instruction from the regulator to price tickets at a certain price, for example, but there will be a requirement to consult fans properly and justify pricing decisions.

It will come as no surprise to hear that my focus will be on the fan engagement aspects and how that all plays out. There is an opportunity for fan groups to make the regulatory system work, but only if they understand the opportunity it provides, and are prepared to robustly pursue its proper implementation. Kogan’s observation about consultation having depended on how much club owners are prepared to listen is key – and fan groups need the confidence to realise that they don’t have to preserve grace and favour relationships any more. They are stakeholders in the game, alongside other stakeholders.

Proof will be in the actions that occur, not the words that are said. Kogan is correct in observing that the regulator could do with a quick win. Cracking down on some of the evasive and disingenuous manoeuvring by some clubs that have consistently worked to undermine the spirit and effectiveness of consultation would be an ideal place to start.

There is a real chance to move on from the debilitating battles in which club owners had sole discretion over when, how, why and how much they listened to fans. Any change will be couched in reasonable, pragmatic and consensus-oriented language – which doesn’t make for populist slogans, but could deliver a more significant change than many believe.

Header picture © parliament live.tv