The fan-led review one month after publication

Now the initial noise has died down, what are the details we need to get to grips with to ensure the review delivers?

I’ve waited before writing anything about the fan-led review; waited until initial reaction has percolated and until there’s been some time to get to grips with what it means in practical terms. So what follows are some observations on the review and how it’s been received, and some questions that those of us who work in whatever capacity in football are trying to find the answers to. Use the comments function if you want to participate in what I hope will be a work in progress.

The review is broadly a good thing, going further than I expected in setting out a framework that – if implemented properly in the spirit intended – will deliver significant improvement in English football. The proposed independent regulator is key, something that could enable us to return to a position where the game is run by a body that has the best interests of the game itself, rather than of its leading clubs, at heart. The proposed redistributive elements show that, contrary to the ideology peddled over the last 30 years, progressive measures can also be good for business. And the recognition that fans can and should have a more formal say in a greater range of issues than they currently do finally dispenses with the need to argue about whether this is necessary or desirable.

The broad-brush paints a positive picture. There has been criticism that the review fudges or avoids the difficult detail, and that it could have been more radical. I understand where those criticisms come from, but I’m not as pessimistic as some of those voicing them. Because I think the review is focused on achieving practical progress.

The way this review was conducted was different to the approach chosen by those that went before. Previously, reviews were set up and conducted by people who promised to consult everyone, and then to sit down with everyone and reach an agreement. What that did was enable all the vested interests to chip away at the proposals by refusing consent until they got their way, resulting in a lowest common denominator set of recommendations. What Tracey Crouch did was different. She promised to consult all parties, and she did so. But she then made it clear she would be the final arbiter of the proposals put forward. That cut out the horse-trading and compromises that have derailed previous reviews, while also ensuring no party could claim they were excluded from the discussion. Her decision to publish an interim report, setting out some of the basics the report was to deliver, also reduced the government’s room for manoeuvre by establishing some basic principles in public.

That’s pretty skilled politics from someone who understands how football, football politics and parliamentary politics works. So credit must not only be given where it’s due, the achievement must be recognised and built on.

Having avoided the usual ‘death by consensus’ fate that has befallen previous reviews, I believe the review has, by beginning with broadly-framed proposals, improved the chances of securing real progress once the detail is worked out. If the report had been as precise and prescriptive as some of its critics wanted, it would have immediately established battle lines as the game’s vested interests had clear targets to aim at. Instead, it sought to maximise support around broad principles, all the better to bring people along with the detail later.

What that’s meant is that anyone attempting to monster the recommendations has made themselves look very stupid and very extreme. Such reaction was to be expected from the various saloon-bar entrepreneurs and social media faux-economists who are never slow to flaunt their lack of knowledge. But when Premier League club executives liken the review to North Korea or the Maoist collectivisation of agriculture, all they succeed in doing is ruling themselves out of consideration in any serious debate. The self-marginalisation of these extremists is an early victory achieved by the review, and we can hopefully proceed on the basis that anything more they have to say can be discounted by any reasonable person.

It’s notable, by the way, that none of the self-appointed Premier League Big Six have spoken out in public, other than to mumble some words of general welcome. This is probably wise as, for example, criticising something for potentially “killing the golden goose” is significantly harder to do when you have yourself attempted to kill the golden goose.

It is possible that the accusation that the proposed transfer levy constitutes some kind of communist revolution could take hold, especially because club loyalties can be manipulated, and this country is not very good at having sensible discussions about tax. But those attempting to leverage this argument run the risk of further marginalising themselves by showing they either haven’t read or understood the proposal. The idea is not to take a percentage of all Premier League transfer fees and give it to Football League clubs to do what they want with. The review is very clear on saying that all clubs would need to sign up to a system of financial regulation that would ensure clubs could no longer make the kind of foolish decisions they have, and indeed goes further in recognising that the incentive to gamble on reaching the Premier League by spending unsustainably needs to be removed. The levy is proposed as part of a framework of solutions, and it has widespread popular support.

To be clear, anyone arguing against the transfer levy is in fact arguing against a framework that would make the whole of English football run on more sustainable business principles. And the reason they are doing that is because they don’t care whether the game is run on sustainable principles, they are interested only in the money their own club can make. But the great flaw in this argument is that clubs need other clubs to play against, preferably as many as possible, for there to be competition of the kind that makes the business attractive.

The independent regulator for English football, or IREF – and yes, I do see what they did there – is absolutely key. The Football Association abrogated responsibility for the game many years ago, and the IREF could be the start of redressing that. Establishing a powerful regulator that acts in the best interests of the game as a whole could be the most important proposal in the review. It would start to loosen the grip of the small number of rich and powerful clubs who have constantly sought to bend the rest of the game to their will.

The criticism is that this will make individual clubs less attractive to states seeking to sportswash their image, oligarchs seeking respectability, or other such investors. To which the answer is ‘good’. Our football clubs and our national game are too important to become pawns in other people’s battles, and it is perfectly possible to generate enough money and to run a sustainable enough model without the dubious benefits of this kind of investment. If your club is bought to further the interests of a nation state, what happens when that nation state’s interests don’t need your club? Sustainable means sustainable.

Of course, one of the first battles will be to ensure the independent regulator is truly independent, and that it works better than the regulators in some industries where corporate capture has inveigled its way in. The review proposes not a single person but a body, well-staffed and resourced and funded via the licence fee clubs must pay to be accredited. Again, that increases the likelihood that the regulator will be less susceptible to lobbying and pressure, but the reality is that it needs to be given as much chance – and power – as possible to assert its will. What the findings of the review, and some of the initial reaction to it, prove beyond doubt is that football cannot be left to regulate itself any longer.

The issue of fan representation is arguably the most complex and detailed. There are many questions raised about how this will operate in practical terms, how to ensure the right balance between professional expertise, commercial sensitivity and grassroots representation, what will be required of various parties and various bodies and what real power anyone will have.

The golden share idea, giving fans an effective veto on decisions about important issues such as club name, colours, ground and the competitions played in, is a big step forward and something that embeds the idea that fans have an absolute right to properly influence such key decisions. But one immediate question is how will that be organised? Such votes won’t often happen and will only happen when there is a fundamental difference of opinion on a key heritage matter between clubs and the body holding the golden share. But how many fan organisations can organise a ballot of hundreds of thousands of people? Is this something IREF would run? Or would it be subcontracted to a body such as the Electoral Reform Society? The idea is good, but how does it work in practice?

The same can be asked of many of the proposals on fan representation. I was disappointed the review didn’t put forward the idea of directly-elected fan directors on club boards, something we argued for strongly in the submission I helped the Trust I co-chair to write. I understand the potential issues, and I also agree that other proposals in the review have a chance of delivering what directly-elected fan directors could deliver. But that means the other proposals have to be enacted properly.

The reality is that clubs, particularly at the top end of the Premier League, will attempt to establish a system that gives the maximum veneer of involvement and representation while delivering the minimum of actual power or influence. And so this is going to be quite the battleground over the coming months as individual groups thrash out arrangements with their clubs.

I’ve listed some of the questions that need addressing below, and I’d welcome readers’ thoughts.

The immediate issue is to secure legislation to underpin the review’s proposals. Anyone who broadly backs the review is urged to write to their MP asking them to back legislation to embed those ideas. The initial battle is already underway, and we know the lobbyists and captured voices are already attempting to weave their webs. So far, the sheer gormlessness of the attempts to undermine the review have only served to strengthen it, and undermine the myth that the Premier League bigwigs are masters of the universe. But the opponents of the review will learn, and they will adapt to try and get their way. It’s up to those of us who care about the future of the game to get to grips with the detail and keep reducing their room for manoeuvre.

To close, those questions – your answers appreciated.

• How will Shadow Boards be constituted? 

• Will properly constituted Trusts get weighted representation on the Shadow Board as the most organised, democratic and independent fan groups?

• Will key votes be run by IREF?

• What are the qualifying requirements for Shadow Board members likely to be?

• What are the precise powers of the Shadow Board and the responsibilities of Shadow Board members?

• Is the agreement of the Shadow Board required for any issues or is it just consultative?

• How are Independent Non-Executive Director’s (INED’s) selected?

• What is the relationship between INEDs and the Shadow Board? 

• How are INEDs accountable?

• How can potential NDA requirements for Shadow Board members be squared with the need for Shadow Board members to be accountable to those who elect them?

Photo by Thais Cordeiro from Pexels