Football Clubs Could Be Named And Shamed For Not Promoting Equality, Diversity And Inclusion
Stamford Bridge stadium is the home of Chelsea Football Club, who will be one of the dozens of clubs affected by the regulations (Alamy)
5 min read
Football clubs will be named and shamed if they do not promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) targets under a strengthened Football Governance Bill.
The Bill, which is set to be introduced into Parliament on Thursday, will set up an independent football regulator as part of plans to bolster the financial security of English clubs.
The previous Conservative government promised plans to reform English football but did not have time to legislate for it prior to the July General Election. Labour leader Keir Starmer promised to bring the legislation back to Parliament if elected as prime minister.
Part of the Bill seeks to increase the levels of EDI within England's top five leagues so that people involved in clubs from staff to players feel welcome regardless of their background. Under the Equality Act 2010 characteristics such as age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race religion or belief, and sex sexual orientation are all protected.
The new law will not impose quotas on clubs to have a specific number of women and minorities.
According to Sports Minister Stephanie Peacock, the push to increase EDI within the game is about asking clubs "what action they are taking” to improve diversity.
“In terms of EDI, that'd be a part of the licensing agreement," she told PoliticsHome. Clubs must obtain licenses in order to compete in England's league competitions.
"Some [clubs] will tick all the boxes straight away. Others will need to work with the regulator over gaps, so that [EDI] will feature as part of that.
“In terms of if clubs aren’t meeting any part of that license, there's a sliding scale of penalties that the regulator can have at their disposal.
“Naming and shaming means one, for example, and then for other issues it could be a fine… through to losing the license. Obviously [it is] not just through the prism of EDI, but through all of the licensing agreement.”
Peacock said the biggest changes to the legislation since Labour entered office centred around fan engagement and increasing their involvement within club decision making.
“We've made it clear that we want fans to be effectively engaged on things like the changes to the home stadium, the changes to kit colours, and in particular, an obligation to consult fans on ticket pricing,” she said.
“It's not a veto. Ticket pricing is a commercial decision. But I've heard from far too many fans about how they find out the night before that tickets are going up by extortionate amounts.”
The Bill will also have 'backstop' powers which were also included in the earlier version of the legislation. Only the Premier League and English Football League (EFL) can trigger the backstop. If triggered, it will force elite clubs to share more money with smaller ones.
The backstop will also include powers to amend the size of parachute payments, which are given to clubs who are relegated from the Premier League to the Championship.
Peacock said the Government was seeking to strike a balance between continuing with parachute payments while understanding the inflationary pressure they put on other clubs.
Sports Minister Steph Peacock, PM Keir Starmer and Lioness Fara Williams (Alamy)
Every five years, a state-of-the-game report will access the financial health of the English game, as part of reforms set out in the legislation.
One major clause which has been dropped since legislation was first brought forward, however, is the requirement for clubs to pay regard to government’s foreign policy of the day.
This proposal triggered concern in international football bodies UEFA and FIFA that the plans amounted to undue state interference in the game.
Fan groups have been broadly supportive of the reforms, particularly plans for an independent regulator.
Calls for regulator have gained greater momentum in recent years, particularly after a failed 2021 bid to create a breakaway 'European Super League' caused outrage. The owners of the English clubs involved in the plan — Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham — were accused of greed and turning their backs on English fans at a time when some lower league teams were on the brink of collapse.
Chief Executive of the Football Supporters Association Kevin Miles said the regulator had the potential to protect “historic” clubs from being “run into-the-ground by bad owners” while rebalancing the game’s finances and protecting the heritage of teams.
“There is a lot to welcome in it: a stronger emphasis on EDI and fan engagement; parachute payments have been included; and the “regard to” foreign policy has been sliced out," said Fair Game CEO, Niall Couper.
“However, the big concern remains fair financial flow. The financial divide between divisions has been growing over the last 20 years. The pressure to overspend to climb the pyramid has reached epidemic levels – 58 per cent of our top 92 clubs are technically insolvent.”
Larger stakeholders have been more cautious on its affects and what it could mean for the leagues structure and the progress of football.
Clare Sumner, the Chief Policy Officer at the Premier League, told the Today Programme they were positive about some aspects of the Bill but were deeply concerned about the “rigid” banking style regulation on finances.
She added that how the “backstop” will work in terms of distributing finances from the top-tier of English football to lower league clubs will be “critical”.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe
