Impact assessment

Fact sheet: Football Governance Bill - Government amendments at Commons Committee Stage explainer

Updated 23 May 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Financial distributions

Summary of key changes

• Regulator determination - Moving away from a binary final offer mechanism to an expert regulatory determination. This means the Regulator will have the ability to create its own solution based on the relevant information it has gathered or choose to adopt one of the proposals suggested by the leagues. This will reduce risk, increase investor certainty in the process, and allows for a Regulator-designed solution based on evidence.
• Collaborative process - These changes enable negotiations between the leagues themselves at the proposal stage alongside the Regulator, fostering discussion by allowing them to make representations on each other’s proposals as well as their own. Following representations, they will then be able to resubmit proposals in light of feedback and discussions.
• Evidence and the State of the game report - It will be explicit that the Regulator must use the State of the Game Report as a basis for their decision. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals which the Regulator must take into account, making it a more evidence based and data driven process.
• Timings - There will now be increased time for the proposal stage due to the increased complexity of the Regulator’s decision-making, the need to be able to request additional evidence and for the leagues to resubmit proposals. This stage will be 60 days, with the ability to extend if needed.

The process

Application: This process will remain broadly intact with minor amendments and a new consultation requirement

The Bill currently requires the leagues to apply to trigger the process, ensuring these powers are not used to intervene without industry consent. The amendments we have now tabled will add further clarification on how the questions for resolution will ensure the scope of the process remains narrow and focused. The Regulator will now consult the FA at this stage, specifically about the questions for resolution, to ensure it does not stray into issues beyond the remit of the legislation. Due to these changes we will also be making the decision to trigger the process a reviewable decision alongside the existing provision that the decision not to trigger is reviewable. This will ensure the responsible use of the backstop as intended, as a last resort.

Mediation: This process will remain primarily a flexible mediation phase.

The process for appointing the mediator and the statutory timeline for this process will remain the same. The goal is a specific targeted discussion, led by a skilled mediator, designed to broker an agreement between the parties.

Proposal stage: This stage will change from a binary final offer process to one where the Regulator can choose between one of the proposals submitted by the leagues or impose its own solution. As the changes proposed to the mechanism put more responsibility directly on the IFR than the binary mechanism, the Expert Panel will no longer make this decision but rather the IFR Board. They will be best placed to design a solution in line with the IFR’s objectives and be accountable for all interventions.

Key steps:

1. Proposals: Competition organisers will each submit an initial offer and evidence to the Regulator and to each other. This should clearly outline their proposed solution to the questions for resolution in light of all the evidence submitted and should be in line with the standards set in the notice.

2. Initial assessment: Once both parties have submitted their offers, and made suitable representations, the Regulator will review the proposals and produce feedback on their viability. The Regulator will assess the proposals’ consistency with its objectives and duties, and request any further evidence or information they require to make a decision. This could include bringing the leagues in to discuss their offers. The leagues are then invited to make any further representations they feel necessary including amending or resubmitting their offers.

3. Final determination: The Regulator will then choose to adopt one of the proposals suggested or create its own solution based on the relevant information it has gathered. This must include evidence from the State of the Game, its own research, information gathered during this process, and its discussions with both parties. The Regulator is required to have due regard for the proposals submitted and can choose to, but is not required to, directly utilise aspects of proposals submitted by the leagues. The bill will also now be explicit that the order must have regard for the regulator’s general duties in section 7 (in particular the IFR’s general duty to exercise its functions in a way that advances one or more of its objectives and to have regard to various matters). This provisional determination will then be submitted to both parties and they will be able to make representations to the Regulator on this offer, which will then be finalised to create a distribution order.

Implementation: This process will not change.

The Bill requires distribution orders to include:

• a summary of the questions for resolution,
• a copy of the final order,
• information detailing the reasons for the decision,
• and information on potential consequences of non-compliance.

We consider this drafting comprehensive and balanced in ensuring both that distribution orders are enforceable, and that they provide suitable clarity and certainty for the leagues in regard to their implementation.

Technical amendments

These technical amendments to the Bill are to aid the implementation and effectiveness of the regulatory regime, reduce some potential burdens on both clubs and the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), and to simplify how costs are covered by the IFR.

1. Invite suggestions on State of the game report

Legislative Change: Amendment enabling the Shadow Regulator to ‘invite suggestions’ on the State of the Game Report on behalf of the IFR.

Currently, the Bill allows the Shadow Regulator to undertake general consultation on behalf of the IFR which is important to enable swift implementation of the regime. However, this does not currently extend to the specific consultation requirement on the IFR to ‘invite suggestions’ for the State of the Game Report due to the specific phrasing of this requirement, making it distinct from general consultation. This change will allow that, ensuring that the State of the Game Report is delivered at pace and that clubs and leagues can begin to feed their views into it as quickly as possible.

2. Allow the IFR to re-specify mandatory licence conditions

Legislative change: Amendment allowing the IFR to re-specify mandatory licence conditions.

Although the Mandatory Licence Conditions (MLCs) apply to all clubs, the Bill gives the IFR the power to vary some details when specifying them. However, the Bill is not clear on whether the IFR can re-specify MLCs, and so whether these details within them can be adapted to changes in the industry. Football is a rapidly evolving industry and this amendment will ensure clubs are not being held to licence conditions that are outdated or no longer necessary and in doing so will reduce the risk of needless bureaucracy.

3. Retention of information from investigation

Legislative change: Amendment increasing how long information obtained as part of an investigation can be kept.

The IFR can seize and retain information under its powers as part of the investigation process. The Bill currently only allows the IFR to keep such information for 3 months. Investigations may take longer than this and a time limit on information retention could result in the IFR having to re-request information. This would be burdensome for the IFR and clubs. This amendment follows Home Office guidance which sets out that property obtained under powers of entry should be retained for as long as it is needed.

4. Litigation costs of non-leviable functions

Legislative change: Amendment to remove the concept of non-leviable functions.

While litigation costs related to most functions are covered by the levy, some (limited) functions are non-leviable. For these functions, the IFR sets its own rules on how costs will be covered separately. It is currently ambiguous in the drafting whether the IFR can cover some of the costs related to these functions, which could risk these processes being ineffective and slow. Removing the concept of non-leviable functions provides legal clarity and ensures all costs can be funded by the IFR. This is a technical change to ensure legal certainty of the existing policy.

5. List of appealable decisions

Legislative change: Amendment to remove some minor and procedural decisions from the list of appealable decisions.

The Bill sets out which specific decisions made by the IFR are appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) via the statutory route to appeal. There are some minor decisions in the Bill where a statutory route to appeal is not appropriate and could unnecessarily delay processes and drive up the costs of the IFR and therefore the cost on clubs through the levy.

These decisions are:

• The IFR’s decision to open an investigation and to ask questions as part of it.
• The decision of the IFR to reject a commitment in lieu of investigation.

Those affected will still be able to appeal the outcome of any investigation to the CAT. Affected persons will also still retain the ability to judicially review any decision taken by the IFR (as can be done with any public body). We believe this amendment strikes the right balance between the important right to appeal and the need to ensure an efficient cost effective IFR.