Why should the government be regulating football?
That does sound strange.
googles
This has more.
UK to Set Up Football Regulator to Stop Clubs Going Bust
-
Regulator will prevent teams from joining breakaway leagues
-
Plan for club oversight to start in 2024 may be pushed back
The UK will establish an independent football regulator for England’s Premier League and lower divisions, to protect the financial health of smaller clubs and prevent the biggest teams from joining breakaway tournaments. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak included a Football Governance Bill in his government’s legislative agenda, announced by King Charles III on Tuesday. Bloomberg first reported in July that legislation to set up the football regulator would feature in the King’s Speech.
The collapse of historic clubs such as Bury FC and Macclesfield Town in recent years prompted a government-backed review of English football.
Each team in the top five tiers of men’s English football will now need a license to operate as a professional club, according to an overview of the bill. The regulator will have powers to monitor and enforce compliance with financial regulation requirements, corporate governance and club ownership. Clubs will need to seek the regulator’s approval for the sale or relocation of its stadium.
The King’s Speech marks an attempt by Sunak to set-out his priorities for the run-up to a general election expected next year. Appearing to be on the side of football fans, after a number of local clubs collapsed in recent years, forms part of his pitch to voters as he continues to trail Keir Starmer’s Labour Party by about 20 points in opinion polls.
Still, plans for the regulator to start its work in 2024 may be pushed back, Bloomberg previously reported. A recent job advert for the interim Chief Operating Officer for the regulator, reported by The Athletic, showed the government will pay a maximum salary of £128,900 per year.
The new regulator has also faced opposition from football executives, with Leeds United Chief Executive Angus Kinnear comparing it to Maoism.
Sunak’s administration will also establish a compulsory governance code and prevent clubs from joining breakaway leagues, after an attempt to set up a European Super League in 2021 threatened the success of the English Premier League. It will also create a new test for owners and directors to guard against mismanagement and require clubs to seek fan support for changes to the club’s badge, name and home shirt colors.
The historical dominance of England’s most financially powerful teams, such as Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool and Arsenal, has disguised the underlying fragility of the English football pyramid, the government argues. Poor governance and industry self-regulation has increased the risk of financial failure of clubs, with Championship teams making collective pre-tax losses of over £3 billion ($3.7 billion) between 2010 and 2022, with levels of borrowing and debt increasing.
The regulator will also be able to intervene to redistribute broadcast revenue between clubs if leagues do not reach voluntary agreements, to ensure smaller teams remain financially sustainable.
Hmm.
Well, from that, sounds like it’s either a crowd-pleaser for people worried about their favorite team going under or protectionism against international leagues. Maybe both.
So that says that it’s a response to the European Super League.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Super_League
The European Super League (ESL), officially The Super League, was a proposed seasonal football competition for club teams in Europe. Initially, the league was supposed to include 20 teams, with 12 of them being founding members of the competition.
The formation of the ESL led to widespread condemnation from UEFA, The Football Association and Premier League of England, the Italian Football Federation and Lega Serie A of Italy, and the Royal Spanish Football Federation and La Liga of Spain. All governing bodies issued a joint statement declaring their intention to prevent the new competition proceeding any further, with UEFA warning that any clubs involved in the Super League would be banned from all other domestic, European and world football competitions,[62] and that players from the clubs involved would also be banned from representing their national teams in international matches.[62][63] In addition, the French Football Federation and Ligue de Football Professionnel of France, the German Football Association and Deutsche Fußball Liga of Germany, as well as the Russian Premier League and Russian Football Union released similar statements opposing the proposal.[64][65][66][67]
UEFA began immediately looking into making further reforms to the Champions League in a €6 billion effort to prevent the proposal moving forward.[68] The Premier League and the Football Association released a statement “unanimously and vigorously” opposing the breakaway league but ruled out barring the six breakaway clubs from domestic competitions and preferred to not take legal action against them.[69]
Numerous politicians expressed their opposition to the proposals across Europe, the most prominent coming from the British government, with the objections to the ESL uniting political parties completely behind its prevention. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the proposals “very damaging for football” and vowed to ensure that it “doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed”,[93] a position which was supported by Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer.[94] In addition, the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said in a statement to the House of Commons that “this move goes against the very spirit of the game”, and pledged to do “whatever it takes” to stop English clubs from joining.[95]
I’m not worried about what it will start out as, I’m worried about what it might become.
Football already has independent regulatory bodies, it doesn’t need a government regulatory body - it needs legislation to stop all the fraud and bribery that the current bodies commit, not a new body that funnels bribes to politicians.
-
Now that’s an image showing broken humanity.
A man dressed in ermine robes and a bejewelled crown, sitting on a golden throne, announcing plans to tackle a cost of living crisis.
Recent events have brought a lot more attention to the monarchy, I would hope that would make more people think about that juxtaposition.
I don’t know. Using a 7th hand piece of old furniture. A hand me down robe made for his grandfather when his mother had a new one made to fit her. And a 177 year old hat. Sorta seems to meet the ideal of the cost of living. If little else dose.
Its not like the UK selling of such history is going to make any measurable difference to the lives of people today. While it will prevent future generations from looking at their past even if we ever dump the royal family.
If he really wants to capture the modern British pensioner he should take out a reverse mortgage against the fancy hat so there is nothing left for when his kids get older
Exactly. I saw people criticising the state coaches being used. While it looks fancy, it’s being driven by the military who are paid a wage anyway, it’s a historical artefact so would be maintained anyway. So really what cost is there, the fact if it’s used that they’d need to pay someone to repaint the wheels every now and again? And what about the money generated by people lining the mall to watch a coach go past.
Compare that with a car, you may need to hire one out, pay a chauffeur for the day, etc.
Security costs would be the same whether or not it’s a President or the King. So seems moot.
So really, what additional costs are there? And do they outweigh the potential tourism loss of being more attractive to an audience?
I thought the king was just a figure head that brings in tourist tax dollars
He’s also a figurehead who announces whatever the government of the day tell him to accounce
Same as here. The monarchy is just for show, but it (sadly) has support by the public.
I want to get rid of it, and make it so that a prime minister is the “highest office” we have. That office has not too much power because everything has to go through the Parliament. No need for useless monarchs or presidents that are just for show.
I want to get rid of it, and make it so that a prime minister is the “highest office” we have.
Fuck that.
If drop the current head of state then I’ll want some from of elected representative, not a pop contest from a bunch of MPs who would pick it based upon whoever gave them the largest donation tell them to vote. We’ve had how many prime minister’s in the past few years? The PM position is a joke.
We need to drop the house of lords and replace with a secondary house populated by an alternative cross section than the current MPs, and both need to represent the UK. England needs its own legislative distinct from the others in the same way that Scotland, Ireland and Wales do.
Haha! Forgot to mention I’m a norwegian that wondered in here without checking where I was. Our parliament does not work that way (yet).
May as well get rid of Christmas if you want to ban fun and cultural traditions, in that case.
Comparing something that people decide for themselves if they want to celebrate with how our political system is set up. Excellent 👍
It’s a bank holiday, the government does fund various events
Yes. That why he is being used as a figure head to announce the policies of an elected (if shit) government.
Figure heads were created to portray an image at the front of the ship.
Our Constitutional Democracy keeps it to portray ann image of stability. (Well historically its cos the parliment of Cromwell was to scared to make a change. He lacked of national support for. Given the actions of that parliment post revolution and beheading. Hardly surprising he lost a lot of common suppor the were religiose nut jobs banning everything. Including most traditional Xmas celibrationst).
But the reason the UK has never successfully tried to remove the Crown since (yet), is that the soft power of such a long term monarch has been huge. Now with Charles support is moving away. Still far from definite that he will be removed. But way more support then in the past 70 years.
Personally I’m not to concerned either way. I can see both sides. But I’d be stunned if Charles ever gets replaced.
There’s very little to gain from a Republic and so much to lose, including a core part of our national identity. People around the world admire our monarchy and funny way of doing things, even if they seem archaic to us.
So much to lose?
Like our strong and stable governments?
People around the world admire our monarchy and funny way of doing things
Just because other people are ignorant doesn’t mean we should keep on doing stupid things.
You say “strong and stable government” sarcastically. Look at most of the world. Then look at our government. Sure, we aren’t the best, but some places have it far worse. Our government has done enough powergrabbing, without a monarchy it could be far worse. I don’t trust the tories as head of state.
Yep. The government wrote the speech. He was just addressing the Lords and the Public about his government’s intentions.
Plans to ban smoking is a stupid one. Prohibition never has worked and never will. More are moving to vaping anyways. You have to ask why vaping was not included in this.
The ban on no fault evictions has a stay added until the loop hole can be added.
The ban on leaseholds is credible. Leaseholds are just a con to make home ownership a subscription scheme. I do not understand why flats are excused. It is very easy to add a tenancy agreement. This does not need to be leasehold.
Oil and gas licensing is just another scheme to rob the country of money. People want a focus on the climate. This is just a lead balloon.
Tougher prison sentences are a joke when we have to release prisoners early now because they are at capacity. Where was the funding to build these prisons?
Self driving vehicles looks like it is having loop holes added. Now we know why Musk was invited to the AI conference.
The football regulator remains to be seen, but I have no trust the Tories can actually get anything right, or do it without expecting a backhander.
National holocaust memorial? why. Are we going to have one for the many other atrocities that have happened in history? I could understand this being suggested in the 1940’s, but atm it is just a popularity stunt. Someone needs to point out that the British were the inventors of concentration camps.
Great British railways just sounds like another sell off project. It is just a stunt to make nationalising the railways more expensive when labour come to power.
Plans to introduce new codes for Netflix is a joke. Ofcom is a joke and a waste of tax payers money. They do not enforce the current laws.
So all in all the only good I see is the leasehold law. And yet you have to ask would the Tories actually deliver? Sunak has abandoned the Tory manifesto for his own ideas. They are a party that are holding onto power after having conned the public to vote for them.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rishi Sunak is hoping to make law and order a key election battleground with a series of measures promising tougher sentences for killers, rapists and grooming gang ringleaders.
The prime minister has also used the King’s Speech in parliament to create a dividing line with Labour on climate change, with a new law bringing in annual oil and gas licensing in the North Sea.
The King’s Speech also confirm plans to ban young people from smoking – with the PM aiming to stop children who turn 14 this year and those younger from ever legally buying cigarettes in England.
The plan will deliver on already-announced proposals for killers convicted of the most horrific murders to expect whole life orders – meaning they will never be released – while rapists and other serious sexual offenders will not be let out early from prison sentences.
However, as levelling up secretary Michael Gove said last month, the government will not abolish section 21 evictions until “new court process” can speed up decisions – a move sparking outrage among campaigners who fear it kicks the vital change into the long grass.
Ditching the promise has prompted anger among some Tory MPs, including Alicia Kearns and ex-minister Dehenna Davison – with backbenchers plotting to bring it to parliament anyway.
The original article contains 1,036 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
