Tis the season …
Farewell to 2024 and roll on 2025, a brief roundup of some of the season's rolling stories.
December is always a busy month, and especially so for matchgoing football fans. Which for me means less time to write The Football Fan. So this is a brief roundup as we close the calendar year, and reflect on the season so far as The Season to be merry draws closer.
Governance geek alert but much time and fun has been spent following the debate on the Football Governance Bill in the House of Lords. It’s been both entertaining and depressing, and a very good advert for getting rid of this anachronism and establishing a proper second chamber.
There’s been a clear attempt to filibuster, with over 300 amendments tabled and whole days spent on the definition of single words such as “owner” and “sustainable”, and of what “English football” actually means. Special mention here must go to Lord Parkinson, whose 15 mins on why only 22 clubs have proper heraldic authorisation will surely rank in future volumes of Great Political Contributions of Our Time.
Lady Brady – remember her from the last edition? – has been especially busy leading the charge against the folly of regulation, reading out long speeches which bear a remarkable resemblance to arguments used against the proposed regulatory framework by the Premier League. Some highlights have included;
• the assertion that the Premier League is really good at regulating the game and at fan engagement;
• fans are the lifeblood of the game and it is “a moral imperative” that their views are heard with respect;
• football clubs are really great at operating “robust systems to monitor and enforce financial sustainability”.
West Ham fans will no doubt be glad Lady Brady thinks treating them with respect is a moral imperative, and will be working hard to find out exactly who the person claiming to be Lady Brady at West Ham for the last 14 years is.
One of the Premier League’s lines has been that the regulator could have “unintended consequences” and that subjecting football to the uncertainties of changes in government policy would be bad for business. It’s another example of how football likes to claim it is like other businesses when it suits it, and not like other businesses when it suits it. Sensing an opportunity, Lord Pannick (he of Manchester City fan banner fame) said: “We listen to concerns that companies that own football clubs need long-term planning, but surely any company is subject to changes of government policy over the years. There is no protection whatever against those and the consequences thereof. I see absolutely no reason why football clubs should be protected by more than the three-year period stated here.”
Baroness Twycross put an end to much of the nonsense when she said: “I understand that some noble Lords believe that the regulator should act as an overseeing body, only acting through the leagues and only stepping in once the leagues have failed to address a problem or, in some instances, not wishing the regulator to exist at all. Without wanting to disappoint noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others who support this amendment, I am afraid that the model of regulation is not one that we are proposing and nor is it the model that the previous Government proposed.”
One particularly unedifying part of the spectacle has been Tory peers opposing and openly attempting to sabotage a bill that they backed when it was put forward by their own party when it was in power - the point referenced by Twycross. This, along with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch rubbishing the need for the Bill despite having previously written to constituents saying she backed it is a reminder that, whatever the doubts about the current government are – and there are a good few – the previous mob were not fit to be near sharp objects, let alone positions of responsibility.
There have been disturbing levels of ignorance displayed in the debate too, even allowing for the feigned ignorance of the forthright filibusterer. One Lord spoke of the clubs being “different from the competition organisers”. As one friend said to me: “He’s going to get a shock when he finds out who owns the Premier League.” And draw your own conclusions about a line of attack that simultaneously argued against “mission creep” and sought to introduce swathes of widely new material. Oh, and don’t forget Premier League chief executive Richard Masters who, after telling a parliamentary Select Committee he would not lobby for or against the Bill went on to lobby against the Bill. Trust, anyone?
The Government stood firm in rejecting hundreds of nonsensical amendments, and the efforts to have the regulator’s powers delegated back to the clubs and the Premier League beaten back. As the West Ham United Independent Supporters Committee rightly said: “This is a victory for all football fans.” A view Lady Brady is morally obliged to take on board.
There are more battles to come, and I highly commend the commentary on the Bill’s progress on The Pitch Inspection. Martin Samuel’s Clarksonesque howls of anguish in The Sunday Times are also good for a laugh if you have seen all the repeats on Dave.
The other notable feature of the season so far has been the growth of protests against ticket price increases alongside an increase in joint fan activity. the importance of fans coming together across tribal divides should not be underestimated, with the unified protest before last weekend’s Manchester derby arguably the most significant development. It’s also been good to see fans of clubs such as Brighton, Bournemouth and Crystal Palace stand alongside rival fans despite having no particular beef with their own clubs.
The #stopexploiting loyalty hashtag has cleverly moved the conversation on from one in which fans were blamed for paying the prices and supposedly exploiting themselves to one in which the finger is pointed clearly and directly at the clubs who exploit that loyalty. Props to my old Spurs Trust board colleague Anthoulla Achilleos for coming up with that one. More and more fans have had enough and are questioning many things the clubs hoped had been established as given.
Particularly encouraging its the emergence of new faces and a younger energy, and of efforts to assert independence and consolidate unity. At West Ham, where multiple fan groups tussled for years, there is a stronger sense of togetherness; at Manchester City there is a flickering of truly independent general organisation and evidence that fans can recognise the difference between the club and the owners; and at Tottenham Hotspur there has been a mini-revolt – with waves still rippling outwards – as grassroots groups reject the Club’s obsession with control and legitimate questions are asked of a board that has ignored challenge for too long.
All of this provides a bright note upon which to end the last edition of the year. See you on the other side.
The photo at the head of this post shows Ibrox Stadium from the away end. Pre-match info told us there would be no netting in front of us obscuring the view. And there wasn’t. As you can see the netting was at the side of us obscuring the view. Now, I now it’s not the worst. But why does the word disingenuous come up so often in football. Happy holidays!