Mr Lee Dillon

A Tottenham fan would be able to sell the dust. Although football clubs are owned by wealthy individuals or investment groups, they belong to their communities. Financial fair play has created unintended consequences such as selling home-grown players to get greater profit, or selling off a women’s team as an accounting trick. As the legislation progresses, we must ensure that it does not do the same. One area where there has been criticism of the Bill is the unintended consequence of increasing ticket prices. That was raised in the other place, and I note that the reasoned amendment, which would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, also raises this issue. My team, Manchester United, who were joined by Liverpool as 20-time league champions yesterday, have already increased ticket prices, without consulting the fans, due to the level of debt. That debt has not strengthened the club, the fans did not ask for it, and it has only benefited the owners. The main focus of the Bill is to ensure the financial sustainability of the English game, so with less debt and more money going through the football pyramid, I do not hold the view that the regulatory burden will increase ticket prices, and paragraph 4(2)(c) of schedule 4 to the Bill gives fans a legal right to be engaged on ticket pricing. I support the principle of the Bill, but I want to explore how we can work with football clubs on fairer dynamic pricing, concessionary ticket pricing and the cost for away fans, alongside how fans can own a meaningful stake in their clubs. Finally, I accept that the women’s game is not covered by the legislation, but the Secretary of State has the power to bring it into the new regulatory regime. In Committee, I will seek more concrete commitments on what trigger is needed for that to happen, as the financial success or otherwise of the men’s game is already impacting on women and girls’ ability to play organised football, and I will ask colleagues to explore these six areas.