Unlock the editor’s summary for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is president of Brentford FC
Football is based on ambition, dreams and sometimes anguish. In Brentford FC, we have lived that trip. We have increased through the ranks to establish ourselves in the Premier League. It has not been easy, but our success demonstrates what is possible when clubs take calculated risks, invest with confidence and dare to dream.
The Government Government Government Law of the United Kingdom seeks to safeguard the future of the game, and its intention is commendable. Fans deserve a regulatory system that addresses poor property, protects club assets and guarantees financial sustainability. But as this legislation takes shape, we urge caution. Regulation should not damage the same qualities that make football in this country extraordinary.
English football is one of the largest world assets in the United Kingdom, admired worldwide for its unpredictability, drama and competitive balance. Yes, the Premier League has been a sports success. But it is also an economic power, which contributes billions in annual GVA and supports tens of thousands of jobs and grassroots programs throughout the country. Its success is not an accident. It is the product of a system that rewards ambition and innovation.
Mechanisms such as parachute payments, which support relegated clubs, have provided, in promotion, with confidence to invest in players, facilities and infrastructure while planning and preparing for any eventuality. Without them, many clubs could not take some of the bold steps necessary to compete at the highest level. However, the proposed regulatory framework threatens to make it difficult for smaller clubs such as Brentford to defy the elite. The introduction of support powers, which allows the regulator to intervene in the distribution of the revenue of the Premier League, creates uncertainty and runs the risk of delaying investment and long -term growth throughout the pyramid.
Fans around the world worship the unpredictability of a league in which 51 different clubs have competed at the upper level since 1992. But this delicate ecosystem could be dumped by the involuntary consequences of the proposed regulation.
Regulation must address sustainability, but let’s be clear about what that means. For example, not all debt is an uncollectible debt. Many clubs operate with debt financed by the owner that supports investment and growth. This type of debt does not make a club unsustainable. Bad management and bad financial discipline do so.
The additional redistribution of wealth in the so -called football pyramid must also go hand in hand with stronger financial controls in the championship. Without them, simply transfer more funds will not solve the root cause of the problems. Directed interventions, not general supervision, are the keys to significant reform.
Last month, Foreign Minister Rachel Reeves rightly pointed out that “each regulator, regardless of the sector, has a role to play by demolishing regulatory barriers that contain growth.” This principle must also guide the football government bill.
The regulation runs the risk of determining the investment, reducing competitiveness and undermining the attractiveness of the league. If we impose a too intrusive frame in the Premier League, we risk losing the advantage that the rival competitions currently enjoy.
In Brentford we support the general objectives of the Football Government Law, but details need refinement. Instead of duplicating the regulation that already exists in football, the approach should be to increase it.
Parachute payments must be preserved as a critical mechanism to maintain competitive balance. And sustainability rules must be framed in a way that fosters responsible investment, does not suffocate it.
Football thrives with ambition, risking and dreaming big. So we protect the clubs that dare to aspire and inspire. The future of the game depends on it.