Lords Want "Wimbledon Clause" To Give Football Fans Power To Stop Stadium Moves
3 min read
A group of Lords are pushing the Government to go further in reforming English football by preventing club owners from moving stadiums away from their original locations without fans' consent.
Peers behind what they call the 'Wimbledon clause' told PoliticsHome it would avert a repeat of the 2003 controversy that saw Wimbledon Football Club move from south London to the town of Milton Keynes. The move outraged fans, who broke away to establish a new club called AFC Wimbledon.
They want to add it as an amendment to the Football Governance Bill, which sets out the Labour Government's plans to significantly reform English football. At the heart of these plans is an independent regulator that will be responsible for overseeing the top five leagues of the game.
The legislation in its current form would allow a club to move as long as it would not undermine the financial sustainability of the team and cause no significant harm to the club’s heritage. Campaigners have expressed concern that this is too ambiguous, however.
Lord Bassam of Brighton said that while he was “supportive” of the legislation as it exists at the moment, he was “sympathetic” to the Wimbledon amendment and hoped it would be debated later in the legislative process at the committee stage.
“Hopefully it can put beyond doubt preventing any potential Wimbledon’s in the future,” he said.
"It is worth paying attention to the Brighton scenario which nearly killed the club,” the Labour peer added, referring to when the club faced serious financial pressure as it moved its ground outside the city. “You have to balance the commercial interest with support without tearing up the geographical association," he said.
Another Labour peer, Baron Faulker of Worcester, told PoliticsHome he believed the Wimbledon clause sounded “sensible” and would be happy to “run with the amendment”.
"You have to balance the commercial with the community. Football stadiums act as an integral part of the community, which is far more important than shareholders wanting to make a quick buck."
PoliticsHome understands ministers are reluctant to give fans a total veto and believe that the Bill in its current form will give them sufficient say when it comes to stadium moves.
As the legislation makes its way through Parliament, campaign groups have called on ministers to give it even more powers.
Niall Couper, the CEO of FairGame, told PoliticsHome the Wimbledon clause being pushed by peers was a “vital change” needed from the Bill.
“The heartache and pain Wimbledon fans suffered when their club was ripped away from their community and moved 60 miles north should never be allowed to be repeated. Fans must be given the final say on any such move.
"This amendment does exactly that," he said.
The Premier League, however, is urging the Government to be more cautious in its bid to reform the game, with CEO Richard Masters warning in April that ministers were taking a “big risk with a successful industry”.
While the body representing the country's highest division is broadly in favour of the legislation, it has raised concerns about elements of the Bill. The Premier League is particularly concerned about the use of the potential backstop powers, which would allow the regulator to mediate a financial settlement between the Premier League and English Football League.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe
