Fan-Led Review | FAQs

This review was promised by the current Government in its Party Manifesto for the 2019 General Election.

It will look at the way that football is governed in England across a wide range of issues.

There is no single, definitive list. But the FLR will certainly look at reforms to the way that TV revenues are distributed; at securing a greater role for supporters in the way that their clubs are managed; it will examine the way in which the FA and the various Leagues carry out their functions. Finally, it will consider whether a new, independent regulator is needed for football in much the same way as has been introduced for public utilities.

Partly because of the Manifesto Commitment. But there is no doubt that the recent developments around the European Super League (ESL) have given looking at these issues even more urgency.

It will be chaired by Tracey Crouch MP, and she will be supported by a panel of people reflecting views from different parts of the game. As the name of the review suggests, the views of fans will be especially influential.

Ms. Crouch is the MP for Chatham & Aylesford, a former Sports Minister, and a Tottenham fan.

The Members of the Panel supporting her are:-

It’s impossible to be precise. As we understand it, Ms. Crouch is already meeting key players, and will start taking evidence very soon. The aim is to come up with some interim findings by the Parliamentary Recess in July, with a final report in the autumn, probably around October.

A wide variety of people and organisations from around the game. The views of fans are particularly important, and Ms. Crouch has already said that she wants to meet with as many Supporters Trusts as she can.

We know that she is particularly interested in hearing from supporters of clubs who are in, or have been in, a crisis. That obviously includes us!

Much of it will be written, as there isn’t time to do anything else. But Ms. Crouch will be taking oral evidence as well in due course.

We have a strong relationship with the Football Supporters Association (FSA), and are contributing to their evidence. In addition, we have made a direct presentation (document opens in a new window) to Tracy Crouch and her team on Tuesday 6th June and submitted a detailed written submission (document opens in a new window) after consulting with our membership.

It covered a couple of main things. The first is to tell our, unique story in a way that is relevant to the review. The second is to feed in our own ideas about how the way the game is run needs to change.

It already has – the Review had a fairly low key launch on 20 May; meetings are already underway

The Review may be concluded by the autumn. Our assessment is that it is very likely to recommend some changes that require legislation.

If it does, then the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport will have to secure Parliamentary time for a Bill. And that is very likely to take the process into 2022 at least.

The more radical the recommended changes, the longer it is likely to take to implement them. Our view is that they will probably be worth the wait.

You can submit evidence of your own, if you wish, or write to the Review team to support what LTST have put forward.

Alternatively, you can write to your local MP to express your support for reform. In our experience, if enough of their constituents do this, most MPs feel obliged to take an active interest in proceedings.

Make the LTST website one of your favourites! We will:

There is no one, single reason. One factor is that the behaviour of a small number of club owners has caused concern and continues to do so.

Probably more important is that football club are increasingly being seen as community assets that deserve protection in ways that might not be applicable to most commercial businesses. Fans of football clubs care a great about issues like history, identity and sustainability when they are thinking about the team they support.

How clubs behave is largely going to be picked up by the work that is going on around creating a new and independent regulator. We are publishing separate Q&A briefing about this topic.

The main focus in the area of ownership and supporters rights is likely to be the extent to which football fans have a meaningful role in the way that their club is managed; and to what extent their “rights” are enshrined in Codes of Practice and even legislation.

The example most often cited as a point of comparison is that of Germany, and the so-called “50+1” rule.

Many German sports clubs were in fact 100% owned by Members when originally created, and the 51% ownership model marks a retreat from that. Many German fans want to see the pendulum move back the other way – perhaps to something close to “75+1”.

Although often heralded as a model, German fans are increasingly concerned about what they see as unfair distribution of funding, clubs building up unsustainable levels of debts and selling off assets, and finally, elite clubs dominating to an excessive extent.

Some issues are strikingly familiar. There is much about the German ownership model that we should try to learn from, but it is worth remembering that at most clubs there the fans elect a Board to deliver upon a Manifesto, and regular contact between Board and supporters can be limited thereafter. In that sense, structured dialogue and the way it currently works in England may be seen to be a better approach.

Where German and English fans are coming together is in terms of what they want their club to represent. In Germany, there is increasing pressure to make football clubs:

There is a variant on the “50+1” model in Sweden, which in part reflects the kind of bodies that were originally formed around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. Many Swedish clubs are majority owned, Membership bodies and often run on a not-for profit basis (not dissimilar to the Supporters Trust model here in England).

It is probably also worth mentioning Spain. Here, all clubs are technically member-owned. Those members pay an annual fee, rather than owning shares.

The Spanish system is however a Presidential one, and there have been recent examples of Presidents being elected upon, and then struggling to deliver, very costly Manifesto commitments that put the club at risk.

It’s too early to say. But none of the models described above seem wholly applicable to our situation in England. The depth of our league pyramid, and the huge variations in club values offer challenges that are probably unique. We do know that although we talk about valuing football supporters, this is not codified in practice – which means that what should often be rights are at the moment just aspirations.

Again, it is currently too early to say. One thing we can be confident about is that the extent to which there is real change will depend upon whether there is legislation to bring some of it in. Some issues that are currently under discussion include:

The FSA propose that this should be done through the Supporters Trust, who are run by directly elected Boards and are legally and constitutionally obliged to re-invest any profit they make for the benefit of their members. Of course, not all clubs have a Supporters Trust currently, and those that do would probably need some support through training to carry out a new role such as this

They require careful thought, not least because football clubs also have to comply with the existing provisions of company law.

But the FSA believe that they could be provided for in fairly standard articles of association that all clubs could be required to incorporate by law, and which would be monitored by the Regulator

They are very significant. The FSA already provide educational support and training, but there would clearly need to be more, tailored to a new role. And any member of a Supporters Trust Board who was being nominated to sit on the football club Board would have to meet whatever standards were set out in the Owners & Directors Test

The fans of these clubs would have to carefully weigh the increasing benefits that flow from having a Trust, and it is very likely that more of them would be created over time.

Where there is no Supporters Trust, the fans of the club are still entitled to the strongest possible protection (in terms of their rights). The role of delivering this would fall largely to the regulator.

Not immediately. Much of the change under consideration would require legislation, which takes time to bring in. To the extent that some of what is asked for is “best practice”, there will be some potential for clubs, Leagues, and supporters to work collaboratively to make some changes voluntarily.

In this context, it means not controlled by people with vested interests in how it is done. At present it is controlled by the Leagues on behalf of clubs, and largely managed for the benefit of those clubs.

Luton Town fans know all about the shortcomings of bodies like the EFL, EPL and FA. But there is a long list of clubs who have suffered crises in recent years, often brought about by mismanagement. Few, if any, of the fans of those clubs would be satisfied by the level of protection that they and their interests get in such cases.

Obviously this varies from case to case. But fans:

They could, and until a couple of years ago that was what the FSA were pressing for. But the FA’s lack of leadership, and failure to respond adequately to the crises at Bury and Macclesfield were sobering. It is difficult not to see the FA as part of the problem, because it is not offering the overall stewardship of the sport that we are entitled to expect.

Not what the EFL call regulation, by which they mean a host of rules covering not only conduct but also things like competition registration, advertising, pitch sizes and so on.

In this sense, the meaning of “regulation” centres on compliance with rules, owner and director behaviour, standards and governance.

Yes. The FSA evidence to the fan-led review, and our own, both point to the need to do all of the following:

The review needs to come up with recommendations for action on a broad range of issues. These include:

The LTST view is that we think legislation will be necessary to give the new arrangements “teeth”.

If there is to be a Bill, it will probably also need to include provisions to deliver financial reform and changes to supporter rights. It will take time to take these through Parliament – but is probably the best way to deliver real, radical change.

The Panel asked the FSA to do further work on this, which was published on 23 July.

The relevant FIFA statutes require governance of football in Member Associations to be free of political interference, and that the Association (FA here) should lead on certain matters including club licensing.

The FSA view is that this does not mean that regulation cannot be vested in an independent body – in fact, this is likely to make political interference LESS likely. And there are strong precedents in the way that French game in particular is regulated for the approach being recommended in England, which has strong similarities with it.

It is about clubs, the FA and the Leagues all listening to fans, acting upon their concerns and giving them a permanent voice when decisions are being taken that affect them.

There is of course an overlap. But there are many aspects of what clubs and football authorities do that does not fall under the definition of supporter rights. It doesn’t mean that they are not important. Nor does it mean that supporters should not be able to have their say about them and influence how they are handled.

Strong engagement with fans is a key part of the relationship with them. When done well, it helps place clubs at the heart of the local community; it helps footballing authorities to win confidence and trust.

The FSA view is that the picture is very mixed. Some very good work has been done for instance on Structured Dialogue, which is more regular and in-depth than what happens in some other countries. The clubs setting the pace are very good indeed.

However, standards are very inconsistent across clubs, Leagues and footballing bodies. At present, there is no proper mechanism for measuring this, or ensuring that overall standards are driven by the “best in class”. What the individual fan gets by way of engagement is still something of a lottery.

A pretty thorough overhaul of the whole area. Specifically:

It is shorthand for protecting the pyramid, and fighting off threats to it; preserving the overall health of the game and doing a better job of managing the welfare of young players in particular.

The list of things being asked for is quite long, and we have picked out four main areas:

This is an area of football that has come under serious threat in recent times, culminating in Project Big Picture and the European Super League. All the Leagues insist that competition integrity is vital to them, but recent events at clubs like Blackpool, Bury, Macclesfield, Sheffield Wednesday and Derby, and the EPL response to the six clubs involved in the ESL initiative, have raised serious doubts about the ability of the bodies concerned to manage these issues.

What are the FSA proposing?

That:

What is being asked for here?

This is largely covered elsewhere, but the FSA reaffirms that they looking for:

What is the context?

The FSA view is that young players are not especially well served by the way that the game currently handles their interests. Equally, the way the current system works provides disproportionate power to a handful of richer clubs to swallow up talent.

What can be done?

The changes being sought include:

Are they not just a necessary evil in the modern game?

Possibly. But the position of the FSA is that they currently take eye-watering sums out of the game every year in fees and commissions, and the benefit to the game as a whole is at best marginal.

There are also worries about how the role is being performed in some instances, from an ethical viewpoint. It is not unknown for example, for the same agent to represent player, selling club AND buying club in the same transfer. The conflicts of interest are very obvious.