Baroness Brady (Con)

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 302, 303 and 304 in my name, which would deliver two improvements to the backstop mechanism: a funder preference model and the ability for the regulatory panel to select elements of both parties’ proposals. These changes are intended not only to mitigate the extreme risks inherent in the current model but to enable a balanced, effective and generous approach to Premier League funding for the football pyramid. I reiterate that Premier League clubs, and the league itself, are not opposed to regulation per se, and there are versions of the Bill, and indeed the backstop, that could be made to work. I say that notwithstanding the fact that the Premier League already shares its revenues more generously than any other major football league. The current voluntary approach to the distribution of our revenues has helped make the Championship the sixth richest league in Europe. The Premier League and its clubs are not afraid of doing the right thing. I believe that we would back ourselves to be fair, generous and innovative in addressing the needs of the pyramid. While we may not like it and believe it to be unnecessary, we are not remotely frightened of a regulator that is empowered to determine the right answer. However, that is not what the Bill enables. The reality is that this untested idea is just not the right way to achieve the Government’s aims. As drafted, this backstop poses intolerable risks to the Premier League, its clubs and the wider football ecosystem. At its core, the backstop represents an unprecedented and untested intervention in what has historically been a voluntary and collaborative arrangement for revenue distribution. Far from coming up with the right answer, the pendulum arbitration model forces the IFR to choose one proposal in its entirety: either the Premier League’s or the EFL’s. This binary approach is not only crude but inherently adversarial. It incentivises extreme and divergent proposals, turning negotiations into high-stakes brinkmanship. It is important to remember that this model does not simply decide funding levels; it also governs critical aspects of the football pyramid’s structure, such as merit rakes, the conditions of funding and even the existence or form of parachute payments, which we will return to in the next group. As I said in Committee before Christmas, this mechanism therefore periodically throws all the pieces of the pyramid into the air, with enormous uncertainty as to where they might land. The inclusion of parachute payments in the backstop has only amplified these risks. We know that abolition or near abolition is not a hypothetical risk, because it is the clear position of the EFL. Make no mistake: its vision would fundamentally level down the Premier League, stripping smaller clubs of the tools they need to survive and thrive, and replacing aspiration with survival as the ceiling of ambition. This is why a proposal for a funder preference model warrants serious consideration. My amendment would require the regulator to select the Premier League’s proposal so long as it meets all the regulatory objectives: in other words, so long as it delivers, in full, against the issues identified by the regulator. A funder preference model does not mean that the Premier League gets its way; it simply means that, as the sole funder—the people whose property rights are being interfered with—its proposal for meeting the sustainability needs of the pyramid would be given preference if, and only if, it delivers all the regulator’s objectives. This approach would mitigate the risk of an extreme proposal being selected but only if the Premier League continues to step up to the plate. Importantly for the Government and the industry, it would also reduce the likelihood of prolonged legal challenges. Crucially, with parachute payments now included in the Bill, a funder preference model could still oblige the Premier League to adopt the parachute system if the “state of the game” report identifies challenges, but it would do so without the intolerable risk of the near abolition or the destabilising consequences that would follow. In other words, it would enable a balanced calibration of the parachutes rather than creating threats to them. Also important is my amendment to give the panel the ability to combine elements from both proposals, rather than necessarily be obliged to choose one proposal or the other in its entirety. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, compellingly demonstrated the case for a more sophisticated approach, alongside proper principles and criteria to guide the panel in its decision-making. My amendment is different in that the IFR would be far less involved in designing a solution itself but it would also allow for more tailored solutions that address the needs of both parties. This seems far preferable to forcing the regulator into a binary choice. The Premier League and its clubs’ track record demonstrate that it already has incentives to balance its own needs with the needs of a thriving, well-funded pyramid. The Premier League is not perfect but it has consistently stepped up to find the right answer for the whole game to the tune of £1.6 billion of funding over three years. We invented solidarity payments; no one forced us to. We created a stadium infrastructure fund that has helped over 1,000 community clubs. No one made us do it. We designed community programmes that have reached over 2 million young people. No one mandated it. We said that we would stand behind the pyramid and not let any club go to the wall during Covid. None did, because we stepped up to the plate and gave funding to the clubs that needed it. No one made us do that either. We recognise our responsibility as a leader and steward of our national game. From that vantage point of stewardship, it is obvious that the backstop as currently designed is not the right answer for English football. It seems obvious to noble Lords right across this Committee too. As has been pointed out, not even the EFL likes this crude model. The unfortunate reality is that this particular backstop model seems to have no support—zero. We therefore need to change course. The Government should reconsider, especially as UEFA has asked them to, and work with football to come up with a much better and a far less risky solution for the whole game.