FootBiz newsletter #17: Big EFL win in governance bill, ECA threat and PL meeting update

A nice reminder this week that the good stuff happens on the pitch, particularly so in Real Madrid’s thoroughly enjoyable romp over Borussia Dortmund and Barcelona laying down another marker this season with a healthy win over FC Bayern.

The Champions League’s expanded group stage has taken some criticism for its slightly odd-looking match-ups (Girona vs Slovan Bratislava, anyone?) and one-sided encounters but there has been plenty of good as well.

Meaningful evaluations of the new format will take much longer than three matchdays but there is always push and pull from various bodies, as we are seeing at governance level in virtually every competition.

Today’s newsletter is pretty heavy on all of that, so buckle up.

The lead item is from Matt Hughes on a fairly consequential moment in English football - the introduction of the Football Governance Bill - but we’ve also spoken to some attendees of Tuesday’s Premier League owners meeting and have some news on a potential Champions League final in Azerbaijan.

There were also some fairly punchy advice for smaller clubs from a legal professor, who urged them to challenge the ECA’s structure, where giving the biggest clubs more say in setting the rules than smaller clubs is a “clear violation” of EU competition law.

For Premium subscribers there’s Rob Draper’s insightful look at which league will be first to take a game to the United States, so if you have enjoyed the free newsletters and want more from FootBiz then give it a whirl 🙏 . Otherwise let’s get going.

Table of Contents

• Governance Bill

• Another PL meeting

• Master and servant?

• Stateside league games

• ECA structure a ‘clear violation’

• Baku to the future?

Governance Bill

For Rick Parry the relentless lobbying of MPs, endless tours of grounds and annual jibes at Premier League chief executive Richard Masters in the hospitality suites at Wembley have finally paid off. 

It is over four-and-a-half years since the EFL chairman first described parachute payments as an "evil that must be eradicated" at a Select Committee hearing, and while he has not yet got his wish, the government last night confirmed that the new independent regulator will have powers to alter the amount of money paid by the Premier League to clubs relegated to the Championship.

The EFL are undoubtedly the big winners from the second coming of the Football Governance Bill, which will be introduced to parliament in the House of Lord's today. In announcing the Bill the government referred to the "major changes" it had made to the previous legislation introduced by the Conservative government last April, as well as saying that it had been "strengthened," with Labour seemingly determined to be seen to be taking a tough line on regulation. 

The Premier League have strongly opposed independent regulation of football since it was first proposed by Tracey Crouch's Fan-Led Review three years ago, and have made clear their view that parachute payments are essential to maintaining the competitiveness of the top-flight and its resultant global appeal, so the detail of the Bill published today represents a significant defeat. In another major change from the operations of the previous administration the government only confirmed their plans to the Premier League, EFL and the clubs yesterday, with weeks of radio silence followed by a sudden deluge of information.

The EFL had always been hopeful that parachute payments would be included within the scope of the regulator's powers, as several Labour backbenches had tabled amendments to that effect last April, but there were concerns that the Premier League would succeed in nobbling 10 Downing Street, particularly given all the hospitality Sir Keir Starmer has enjoyed at their hands in recent months. That said, sources with knowledge of the process claim that there is far greater discipline between number 10 and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under this government, with less evidence of policy being made up on the hoof.

For all the tough talking there has been one significant climbdown however, as the regulator will no longer be required to consider foreign and trade policy when approving club takeovers to ensure its independence from government, with the pressure placed on Downing Street by the steadfastly apolitical UEFA having brought Europe's governing body the desired result. The FA are also likely to be slightly relieved by this amendment, as with the regulator's independence from government established, the threat of UEFA stripping the home nations of hosting rights for the 2028 European Championship has receded - something we wrote about at the time. 

With the EFL celebrating, the FA may regard the bill as a score draw, but there is no doubt that the Premier League will be nursing their wounds following another bruising defeat.

Speaking of which…

Another PL meeting

A lot of bluster and posturing but not much in the way of material progress from Tuesday’s meeting of Premier League owners which lasted less than two hours.

In a move that some felt was intentionally provocative, Manchester City sent Simon Cliff, their General Counsel who so irked other clubs with the hectoring tone of a recent email telling them what to think of the tribunal’s ruling over APT rules.

Richard Masters and the Premier League assured clubs that they believe the APT rules can be fixed but have moved from their previous guidance that it could be done swiftly. It is now deemed a complex amendment, while the PL and City still await further guidance from the three retired judges whose June judgement was finally published earlier this month.

No votes were taken, but none were planned. Clubs meet again next month, and if there were to be a vote then they would have to be notified 21 days before.

Master and servant?

There was a surprise for Richard Masters outside the meeting as a fan group reportedly linked to Manchester City accused the Premier League chief executive of being at the orders of puppet-masters Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham.

How they came to that conclusion is anybody’s guess, especially when Arsenal fans spent much of the weekend claiming their defeat at Bournemouth was part of a refereeing conspiracy and Manchester United continue to languish in 12th - which would surely make them as bad as puppeteering as they have been at football this season.

So maybe, just maybe, there is no conspiracy after all?

Stateside league games

The NFL has been fairly clear that it intends to have two full gameweeks of their season played overseas when they inevitably move to an 18-game campaign.

With regular season and even divisional games (which carry more importance in the standings) being played in London, Mexico, Brazil and Germany already, it has been announced that Madrid will be added to that list next year. Ireland, the Middle East (Abu Dhabi) and Australia will almost certainly join the club within two or three years.

For the NFL, it is a case of taking a very American property out to the world. Introduce the sport to them and popularise it (with the almost singular intention of commercialising it) after saturating your home market.

For European football leagues, the motive for taking a regular season game of their own to America is virtually the same. Pre-season friendlies played out with weakened XIs in baking summer heat are one thing but a game of genuine importance, with league points on the line? The feeling is that it will be a different proposition entirely.

In a piece exclusively for Premium subscribers, Rob Draper took a look at the race to take a game to the USA, who might win that race… and if it’s even a win.

If you enjoy the newsletters but haven’t yet subscribed, it starts at just £3.99 to access all our premium analysis.

ECA structure a ‘clear violation’

The chipping away at the governance structures of football has been one of the major themes of football in 2024, with UEFA, FIFA and the Premier League all losing key judgements that question their authority.

But one question that people have begun asking is how does that affect lobbying organisations like the ECA who help set the rules?

The ECA and UEFA are now fairly comprehensively intertwined, with Nasser al-Khelaifi at the top of that tightly-wound bond. Speaking with those that know more about the legal and political side of football than me, there are questions about the Memorandum of Understanding that ties them together until 2033 and the legitimacy of that, but moreso the ‘network membership’ structure that doesn’t afford smaller clubs a vote.

Miguel Maduro, Dean of the Católica Global School of Law, suggested at the recent European Professional Football Forum that legal challenges against ECA could be successful under EU law, and urged smaller and medium clubs to do so.

“In the Super League judgement the court acknowledges that football competitions should be organised in ways that take into account, for example, the need for equal opportunities of competition for all clubs and therefore to take into account the need for balanced competition, for redistribution for all the chain of football from smaller clubs to bigger clubs to be supported through the revenues of those competitions.

“While the court highlights systemic problems on how the regulation of football is taking place, those that have taken the opportunity to challenge those rules have been - in the case of the Super League - the bigger clubs.

“If I would have a suggestion for small and medium clubs it would be to for themselves to challenge the current status quo by using the EU ruling. I think… the commission ought to do more in that respect. For example, I think that is - from my point of view - a clear violation of competition law to have ECA organised as it is being organised and to have that organisation in the context of increasing powers to influence UEFA regulations.

“It’s already problematic as the court has highlighted in its judgments, to basically have an association of undertakings, football federations on one hand and and clubs on the other hand, organising and regulating is a systemic conflict of interest.

“But it is even worse if, in that context, bigger companies in that market have a a bigger say on how the rules that regulate that market are to be set. It seems to me that is even a more blatant violation of EU competition rules and so the evolution of the system of football regulation towards a system where clubs seem to have more say in how UEFA rules are being set but, within that, the clubs bigger clubs have more say, it amounts to the same thing as saying that in any other economic market, the bigger companies that are already established in that market will have a bigger say on the rules that will determine how that market functions.

“So… I think there's severe competition problems on how the system is evolving in this respect and and I will argue that small and medium clubs should make use of the opportunities offered by EU law in this respect.”

We reached out to the ECA for a response but did not receive one before publication.

Baku to the future?

UEFA have risked attracting more acrimony from fans and clubs by shortlisting Baku's Olympic Stadium as one of two potential venues for the 2027 Champions League final, along with the Wanda Metropolitano in Madrid.

The Azerbaijan capital hosted the 2019 Europa League final between Arsenal and Chelsea, which was widely viewed as a disaster as the stadium was half-empty until the second half, when there were reports of ticketless supporters being ushered in to attempt to improve the atmosphere. 

Neither club sold out their ticket allocations, many of UEFA's sponsors and commercial partners declined invitations to attend due to the cost and logistical challenges involved, while in an unusually outspoken statement Arsenal condemned the decision to stage the match in Baku as one that was "unacceptable and cannot be repeated".

UEFA had pledged to offer more consultation to fans after the disastrous scenes which marred Liverpool's 2022 Champions League final defeat to Real Madrid in Paris, but Baku would be an unpopular choice with most big European clubs.

The 2027 final was due to be held at the redeveloped San Siro in Milan, but they withdrew after failing to get the required reassurances from local government that the building work would be completed in time, so UEFA's biggest game of the season is now up for grabs. The Italian FA (FIGC) had hoped Rome’s Stadio Olimpico would replace Milan as host but did not make the final two.