Politics can shape the future of football at the best of times, but after the past five years it’s arguably as important as ever to gauge how Westminster will approach the national sport.
With some clubs facing extinction, attempts at a breakaway league, the rise of the women’s game and state ownership, there are many ways the sport could move up the next government’s agenda.
The most pressing matter will be the landmark Football Governance Bill, which was introduced by the Tory government but broadly enjoys cross-party support.
As football finance expert Kieran Maguire told Sky News, there is an argument football is “so embedded in the fabric of the country that it needs protecting” – which is what this bill aims to do.
“A football club is a monopoly supplier, if you support Wolverhampton and they go out of business, it’s simply not the case that you can just go and support West Bromwich Albion,” he said.
“Because of that intensity, it needs protection – from owners, from changing the identity of club.”
As the England men’s team kicks off its Euro 2024 campaign on Sunday, many eyes will shift between football and politics over the next three weeks.
So how would one affect the other; how could Labour’s plans affect fans and what questions remain?
An independent regulator
Advertisement
Bury FC’s collapse in the summer of 2019 prompted the Conservatives to include a fan-led review of football governance in their general election manifesto that year.
The recommendation was to create an independent regulator to ensure financial resilience across leagues and fans are consulted on club heritage matters – more on this later.
While the bill was brought before MPs in March this year, parliament ran out of time to complete its progress into law when the general election was called, meaning it will fall to the next government.
Sir Keir Starmer is an Arsenal fan and Labour have committed to “establish an independent regulator” in its manifesto.
Jon Tonge, a Bury fan and politics professor at the University of Liverpool, told Sky News he senses the next government “may come under pressure” to soften regulations.
“You’ve got the behemoth that is the Premier League saying these proposals amount to over-governance and it’s possible a Labour government might water down these proposals,” he said.
Sharing the wealth
One of the immediate issues for the new regulator to tackle could be the stand-off between the Premier League and the English Football League (EFL), which runs the three divisions below.
England’s top flight says it gives £1.6bn to the wider game every three years – 16% of its total revenue – including non-league football and grassroots.
The Premier League currently gives about £340m a year in funding to the EFL and new plans by the board would increase this to roughly £500m a year over six years, according to Sky Sports News.
But at a meeting in March, Premier League clubs rejected the board’s plan, insisting they first want to reform the financial system governing them before thinking about parting with more money.
Top-flight clubs spent more than £400m on agent fees alone in the 12 months to 1 February, an increase of nearly £100m from the previous campaign.
If a deal cannot be agreed, a backstop would give the regulator powers to impose an agreement between the Premier League and the EFL.
In the meantime, clubs such as former Premier League mainstay Bolton Wanderers, Bury, Wigan Atheltic and Derby County have entered administration over the past five years.
Tests for ownership
Something fans have been crying out for are more stringent tests and checks on prospective owners of their football clubs, partly as a way to guard against the financial challenges already outlined.
To that end, the regulator would operate a strengthened owners and directors’ test with statutory powers.
It would have access to agencies and branches of government, enabling the regulator to carry out enhanced due diligence on adequacy and source of funds.
Owners and directors deemed unsuitable will be subject to a removal direction giving them a period of time to leave the role and placing them under restrictions on the control they can exert.
While there are many factors for the regulator to consider when it comes to the suitability of club owners, the elephant in the room is likely to remain where it is.
State ownership
The UAE’s purchase of Manchester City more than 15 years ago marked one of the most controversial chapters in the Premier League’s history – the introduction of state ownership.
A Qatari group failed to take over Manchester United last year, while Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund took over Newcastle United in 2021.
It raises questions around sportswashing, with countries with poor human rights records owning beloved community assets in the world’s most valuable league.
But it’s unlikely a Labour government would address state ownership, according to football finance expert Kieran Maguire.
“The bill will not address state ownership, it very much makes it clear the government doesn’t want to get involved in moral or ethical decisions,” he said.
Prof Tonge agrees.
“State ownership is not going to disappear, it’s actually likely to increase,” he said.
“I think Labour would be reluctant to ban it, first of all because the horse has already bolted – if you’ve allowed it for one, how could you stop others following suit?”
The bill itself states in Section 37 (2) the regulator must take into account government “trade and foreign policy objectives” when making decisions on the suitability of new and existing owners.
Women’s football
Missing entirely from the Football Governance Bill is the women’s game.
The Lionesses won England’s first international trophy since 1966 when they won the Euros in 2022 and made it to the World Cup final the following year.
This season, the Women’s Super League has continued to shatter several attendance records, with Arsenal topping 60,000 tickets sold on two occasions.
But its success comes despite a stark contrast in funding compared to the men’s game.
Premier League clubs enjoy around £88m each year in investment into their academies for young talent, whereas the FA’s budget for women’s academies is just £3.25m per year.
The top flight says it is investing £21m into women’s and girls’ football between 2022 and 2025.
Kelly Simmons, former director of the women’s professional game at the FA and consultant for Run Communications’ women’s sport division, says funding would “transform the game overnight”.
“The game is growing at an incredible rate and I said at the FA I think women’s football will be the second biggest sport here in my lifetime after the men’s game,” she told Sky News.
“And yet it’s absent a lot of the time in big discussions that go on with football stakeholders.”
The ban on women’s football was only lifted in 1971 in the UK and Ms Simmons believes it may be time to consider reparation payments for the time lost.
“There’s just not enough cash in the women’s game and the answer would be to include them in solidarity payments from the Premier League,” she said.
“All football would benefit from that… it’s opening up football to half the population that has previously been excluded.”
Super League
Meanwhile, in the pursuit of even greater revenue streams at the top of the men’s game, the idea for the European Super League was born in 2021.
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur were going to join the likes of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus in a hugely lucrative new league.
Backed by an initial £3bn debt-financed loan from US investment bank JP Morgan, the 15 founding clubs were in line to receive an “infrastructure grant” of up to £300m just for signing up.
Free from the threat of relegation or failure to qualify, the founding 15 would have been guaranteed a spot in the league each season regardless of their results.
The move was deeply unpopular and the fan backlash in England was so fierce each of England’s contingent pulled out.
Some in Europe have refused to totally let go of the idea, but Labour’s manifesto is unambiguous on the matter.
“We will never allow a closed league of select clubs to be siphoned off from the English football pyramid,” it states.
FA Cup replays
While a new government is likely to greenlight powers to ban new leagues, it probably won’t get involved in changes to longstanding competitions such as scrapping replays in the FA Cup.
“I think it would be a backwards step, because we’d be allowing an operational issue to be impacted by the regulator,” Mr Maguire says.
“FIFA and UEFA have specific rules over government interference and that would play into the hands of those who are opposed to the introduction of a regulator.”
FIFA has previously suspended national associations over undue government interference, meaning their clubs and national teams are unable to compete in FIFA or UEFA events.
Heritage
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The loss of FA Cup replays may be mourned by some fans as a blow to the country’s football heritage, but they’ll likely have a greater say in their club affairs.
Labour’s manifesto states: “Labour is committed to making Britain the best place in the world to be a football fan.
“We will reform football governance to protect football clubs across our communities and to give fans a greater say in the way they are run.”
Travel costs
Costs associated with matchdays have priced some fans out, with rising ticket prices and increasingly expensive train travel forcing some to miss out on games.
Going to support your team away from home – as tens of thousands do each weekend – can cost north of £100 if travelling by rail, sometimes for a service that may be delayed or overbooked.
The party said the taxpayer would save £2.2bn each year – but would that mean cheaper fares?
Shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh admitted there is no agreement to reinvest those savings into the railway, meaning that money could be given to other priorities in health or education, for example.
A murder investigation has been launched after a woman’s body was found in the boot of a car in east London.
Detectives said a murder inquiry has been launched into the “suspicious” discovery in Ilford.
The woman, who has not been named but is from Corby in Northamptonshire, may have been the victim of a “targeted incident”, police say.
“Fast track” enquiries were made after the force was contacted by a member of the public with concerns about the welfare of the woman.
This led to the discovery of a body inside a car boot.
Northamptonshire Police said: “The investigation is ongoing and there will be continued police activity over the weekend in various locations, including Corby and Ilford.
“Although we believe that this was a targeted incident and there is no wider risk to members of the public, extra patrols will be taking place in Corby in the coming days for reassurance purposes.”
Detectives from the East Midlands Special Operations Unit major crime team and the Metropolitan Police are working on the case, to try and establish the circumstances that led to the woman’s death.
Essex Police say they are investigating an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred, after Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson said she was “dumbfounded and upset” when officers knocked on her door last Sunday.
Ms Pearson revealed she was told she was being investigated over a year-old deleted post online.
She said she wasn’t informed which post had been reported, but suggested it could have been related to the 7 October attacks in Israel or pro-Palestine marches.
She claimed the officers told her she was being investigated for a NCHI (a none crime hate incident) an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, but is not illegal.
NCHI reports have long been controversial, with many citing free speech concerns, and Ms Pearson’s account of the police visit has led to widespread support from Conservatives and online commentators, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.
But an Essex Police spokesperson has told Sky News its investigation was never for an NCHI, and that the matter was always being treated as an investigation into an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Speaking on her Planet Normal podcast on Wednesday, Ms Pearson said she found the visit “chilling”.
More from Politics
“I was dumbfounded, upset, it’s not very nice,” she said. “I was in my dressing gown on the step of the house, these two coppers were there just outside the door.
“There were people gathering for the Remembrance Day parade so there were people watching from the other side of the road.
Advertisement
“Whatever I did or didn’t tweet, if somebody found it offensive, that to me is still not a reason for two policemen to come to my house on a Sunday morning.
“You know, they don’t do that for burglars, do they? We know policing is under-resourced and they are unable to attend often quite serious crimes.
“This was the most extraordinary overreach and state intrusion into my private life and I don’t think I did anything wrong and I think their response was outrageous.”
In a statement, Essex Police said: “Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.
“They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.
“For clarity: a complaint of a possible criminal offence was made to the police and this is why we called; to arrange an interview.
“Everyone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.”
They said an officer told Ms Pearson: “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.”
Essex Police say they have complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over what they call “false reporting” regarding the ongoing investigation.
What is a non-crime hate incident?
Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are defined by the government as an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.
Those characteristics can include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
These incidents do not amount to a criminal offence, but they are reported to police and recorded in case they escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions.
It can be reported to police by anyone, whether they are directly affected by the alleged NCHI or not.
Not all incidents reported to police are recorded as NCHIs.
They need to meet this threshold, according to the government: “A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual’s, group’s or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.”
Furthermore, the personal data of the person reported should only be included in the reports if the incident in question presents a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may take place against them.
The origins of NCHI recordings stem from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, who was murdered by a gang of racist attackers in southeast London as he ran to catch a bus.
An inquiry into his death in 1999 called for the creation of “a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes”.
The first guidance on NCHI was published in 2005, but there have been updates over the years in response to scrutiny over protecting free speech.
The latest guidance was published in June 2023, when an updated code of practice set out a “common sense and proportionate approach that should be adopted by the police”.
The guidance, introduced under the Conservative government, clarified “that debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI” and that an NCHI should not be recorded if police deem a report to be “trivial” or “irrational”.
In an interview with The Telegraph published yesterday, Kemi Badenoch said police visiting a journalist over a social media post was “absolutely wrong” and that “we need to look at the laws around non-crime hate incidents”.
“There has been a long-running problem with people not taking free speech seriously,” she said.
She challenged the prime minister to review the laws, saying: “Keir Starmer says he is someone who believes in these things. Now he needs to actually show that he does believe it. All we’ve seen from him is the opposite.”
Ms Badenoch added: “We need to stop this behaviour of people wasting police time on trivial incidents because they don’t like something, as if they’re in a nursery.
“It’s like children reporting each other. And I think that in certain cases, the police do it because they’re afraid that if they don’t do it, they will also be accused of not taking these issues seriously.”
Essex Police said the officers went to the address to invite Ms Pearson to attend a voluntary interview as part of their investigation, which was passed to them by another force.
“The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed,” the statement read.
“An investigation is now being carried out under Section 17 of the Public Order Act.”
Essex Police also said they made attempts to contact Ms Pearson before the visit.
Other prominent Conservative voices such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Chris Philp have also leapt to Ms Pearson’s defence online, as has X owner Elon Musk, who quoted a post about the incident and said: “This needs to stop.”
Police commentator Graham Wettone told Sky News the police are “duty bound to investigate allegations of crime”.
“They’ve had an allegation of crime made there,” he said. “They will investigate it. If at the end of this they decide that no criminal offence has been committed – and we’re not at that stage yet – then it can still be recorded as a none crime hate incident.”
The police, he said, are duty bound to keep a record of none crime hate incidents.
“Parliament said they want the police to do this, to investigate and record incidents like this. So they are doing exactly what parliament and society asked them to do, and they are getting criticism for doing what people want.”
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.