Robert Sullivan, Niall Couper and Simon Orriss gave evidence.

We will now hear from Robert Sullivan, CEO of the Football Foundation; Niall Couper, CEO of Fair Game; and Simon Orriss, head of legal at Fair Game. We have until 4.40 pm for this session. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?

Robert Sullivan:

I am Robert Sullivan, chief exec to the Football Foundation, an independent charity that has been going for 23 years to fund and transform the state of grassroots football facilities in England. We are funded directly by the Government through Sport England and from redistributions from the Premier League and the FA. We work in each of your communities and across England to improve grass pitches, build new artificial pitches, and change the community stock of clubhouses and changing rooms. We think we make a real social difference across England.

Simon Orriss:

My name is Simon Orriss. I am a solicitor specialising in corporate law and sports law. For the last couple of years I have been working with Fair Game, which Niall will speak about in due course, as the head of legal providing general legal support.

Niall Couper:

I am Niall Couper, the CEO of Fair Game. I was a former fan-elected member of the Dons Trust, owners of AFC Wimbledon. I was a sports journalist at The Independent for five years and I have published a number of books on football, which you can get on Amazon.

Q I will begin with a couple of questions for the Football Foundation, then I will direct some questions to Fair Game. The grassroots football in my constituency of Barnsley East is struggling, particularly with facilities and pitch. I know we have communicated about Wombwell Main and Wombwell Town. There is also Worsbrough FC. Is the experience that I have in Barnsley the same across the country? What more do you think the Bill could do to protect grassroots sport?

Robert Sullivan:

We have communicated and I hope we have been helpful. I think it is generically equivalent across the country, but obviously there are local differences according to specific football needs and socioeconomic conditions in each part of the country.

The state of grassroots facilities has always been one of the biggest strategic challenges facing English football. When the FA conduct its annual survey where it asks grassroots players, coaches and participants the No. 1 thing they would like to improve and change in the game, people always say the state of grassroots pitches. We are in no doubt that the primacy of what we do and the importance of the work and the investment of the Football Foundation is fundamental to the future of English football and how we can improve it all. We recognise that there is a huge amount of work to do. The more we can receive support from all parts of the game and from the Government to do that, the better. We are part of the Carney implementation group. It is worth dwelling on what Jane told you a few moments ago, which is that demand for high-quality pitches across this country is set to double over the next 10 years, because of the rise and growth in women’s and girls’ football. That is a massive challenge and a brilliant opportunity for all of us.

That is why I would like to make a specific point about the Bill and some of the provisions in it. The way in which the backstop is currently drafted as part of this potential legislation places primacy on the funding decision between the Premier League and the EFL. Effectively, that means that the Premier League will not be able to work out its other distributions to other parts of the games until it has confirmed the amount of money it will have to give the EFL through the arbitration and backstop process.

As the head of an organisation whose responsibility is grassroots football, I would say that that is a subjective choice: subjectively, I would choose that the Premier League puts the primacy of funding grassroots facilities—it could be women’s football, or whatever your organisation cares about most—at the front of that queue. I do not want the Football Foundation to wait to receive its funding distribution once other causes have been settled first. I believe that our cause, for some of the reasons we have discussed, is the most important in English football.

Q On specific changes that could be made to the Bill to protect grassroots football, do you think that grassroots football should receive the excess money from the regulator—excess money in the sense that it has been gathered in interest, for example, rather than the consolidated fund? If it finds that it has that money, through whatever means, should it come to grassroots sport and what difference could that make?

Robert Sullivan:

I am the chief executive of a charity and my charitable purpose is to raise as many funds as I can to reinvest in grassroots football—all of our funding is welcome. We believe that at the moment we are well funded and well supported by the Premier League, the FA and the Government: I want to stress that. If I may use the term of the day, we are more concerned about the unintended consequence of how the legislation may be written and whether that has a negative impact on what funding may come through to grassroots football from those football bodies once everything else has been worked through.

If I may make a second point about what other changes should be considered, the experience of the Football Foundation and the Premier League Stadium Fund, which we operate on behalf of the Premier League to invest in national league system grounds—and I know a lot of you have national league system grounds in your constituencies—is that investing in facilities, in sustainable assets for clubs, is really important. I would be concerned that money that is passed without requirements to put that money into sustainable facilities that can generate future investment and support future revenues, and instead is just passed over as cash to be spent on running the clubs, without those requirements, would be a missed opportunity to send some of the wealth at the top of the game to the things that will make the game sustainable for the future.

Q Can I ask what you mean by unintended consequences?

Robert Sullivan:

As I tried to highlight, if the backstop makes the funding of the EFL the primary budgeting step of the Premier League—all other distributions are whatever is left—that is a subjective choice, which may not be meant by everybody in Parliament. Every single Member of Parliament has lots of grassroots community football clubs. Not all of them have an EFL club which they need to support. There is a choice about what is more important. What is the first choice of where the distribution of Premier League money goes—is it to the grassroots or is it to the EFL pyramid? They are both very valid causes. I represent an organisation which is here to represent the voice of grassroots football.

Q I appreciate that explanation. As the Member for Chatham and Aylesford outlined in one of the earlier sessions, it is hoped that it is a backstop and is not used, but it was helpful to have that clarification. As time is short, may I move briefly to question Fair Game? I know that other Members want to come in.

You have been campaigning for a long time on many of the matters that are addressed in the Bill. As a way of giving a view, are you pleased overall with the independent regulator that is proposed in the Bill, and do you have broader comments to add?

Niall Couper:

There are a few things that are missing. When we look at the financial flow within football, the difference is dramatic. We have done studies, and there is a written submission that I hope the Committee has received. At every single level, those gaps are getting wider. At the moment, the decisions are being made by the Premier League, and to some extent by the EFL as well, and that is not actually benefiting those clubs. It is making it harder, and more of a gambling culture, for every single club throughout the pyramid. That is putting clubs in serious jeopardy.

In the very latest statistics, we are aware that 58% of clubs in the top four divisions are technically insolvent. Brighton and Crystal Palace are both technically insolvent as well—I heard them earlier on. There is a real fundamental issue there.

What we want is to see more of that revenue redistributed down the pyramid. At the moment, for every £1,000 that a club in the Premier League gets in the broadcasting deal, 14p goes to a National League North or South club, or 57p to a National League club. Those differences are dramatic. That is why we really need to look at it.

I go on to what the Football Foundation is saying. We want to see the money invested in the right way. We want to encourage and incentivise well-run clubs. We want to see sustainability. That means investing in infrastructure. It means making grounds a 24/7 operation and making them the hubs of the communities that we all want, with the kind of things that we want to see, such as dementia clubs, working groups, walking football and community programmes, which are all are embedded in those local clubs. That is where we should be looking to encourage investment. That is where the investment in lower clubs goes—that is the difference they make.

Combined with what the Football Foundation does, and looking at the parameters of what a Bill should be about, that should be the first thing. When we are looking at a television distribution deal, we need to be thinking about the parameters that deal should be meeting and what it should address, such as closing the gaps that are causing insolvencies and heartache.

When a club goes into administration, we all know the consequences. That is the loss of your local plumber, caterer or whatever. They are the ones that lose when a club goes into administration. It is not some harmless thing. This was talked about earlier on. If it is liquidated, yes, it goes, but if it goes into administration, there is a lot of pain that goes with that. Those things need to be addressed. If we have the correct parameters to define a distribution deal, the hard-working community clubs can thrive and the grassroots can thrive. That is ultimately what we want to see. That is the growth of the game.

You talked about girls’ football. I have got two girls who play football. The issue of pitches that you talked about is a big problem. A lot of the local big National League and National League North and South clubs really want to invest in that as well and give that, but the money is not there. They are struggling to survive day to day. They live hand to mouth. Those are the clubs that fold. Those are the clubs that disappear, because they are not in the public eye.

In the broadest sense, for all the politicians around the table, those are the clubs that we should really be looking to cater for. That is what the Bill can look at: changing the parameters of what it looks like in distribution.

Q Do you believe the Bill as it stands will ensure the appointments to the expert panel and the board of the regulator are free from vested interests? What kind of experts do you think should make up the expert panel?

Niall Couper:

You probably spoke to a couple this morning. I saw the panels and I am aware of some of those people. You have an issue here. Where does the investment come from? Who are the people making the decisions? Where is the funding coming from for some of these people who will be putting their names forward? We have to look at making sure that people who perhaps work for the Premier League or the EFL, who have been making an awful lot of these decisions, are not allowed to be on those boards, or that those organisations that are majority funded are not on those boards.

It is really difficult. I would like to see a whole load of organisations get independent funding. It would be really beneficial to allow them to have that free voice that football really needs. At the moment, the Premier League is the de facto regulator of football.

Q I chair the parliamentary football club and have often said that I am a terrible fan. I have never held a season ticket in my life, but I have played grassroots football, badly, for about 45 years. It is fantastic to see you here today, Mr Sullivan.

DCMS has done a brilliant job in making sure that money gets out to grassroots clubs. I have seen some in my own constituency, even though that is over the border in north Wales and comes via the Football Association of Wales.

You have just said something that I have written down—every MP has grassroots football clubs in their constituency. Potentially, every single MP here has an interest in voting to see money vired directly to grassroots football.

You make the point about the key transaction between the Premier League and the English Football League. I am curious, however, about how that might happen. Is the structure in place to cope with, suddenly, tens of thousands of projects across the UK? Is the FA—I will use the phrase— fit for use, in terms of distributing and monitoring that? What do you think needs to be done from your end of the telescope?

Robert Sullivan:

Let me pick through that carefully. The way in which projects are identified to invest in grassroots football is done by the Football Foundation, who fund us alongside the Government and the Premier League. In Wales, their money goes straight into the FAW, who have set up their own equivalent of the Football Foundation. Without passing comment on whether the FA were fit to do it, which I am sure they would have been, they tasked us with doing it.

I am delighted to say that we worked really hard to build what we call a local football facility plan for every local authority in the country. If any of you go on our website—I am seeing some nods; it is good that you know about your local football facility plans—there is effectively a shopping list of all the projects that we want to do in every part of England. We have built a team and we are building in the investment from our partners to go out there and deliver those projects.

Q You are telling me what is already there, which I understand. Could it cope with the massive uplift that would come from money coming through in the way that you wish?

Robert Sullivan:

Yes, because it would 100% be my job to build the operation or structure to do that. To give you some comfort that we can do that, we have basically doubled what we have done in the last three years. If the Minister responsible for the future investment of any Government of any colour said to me, “You need to double it again,” that is what we would set out to do.

Q Mr Couper, do you have any comments on that?

Niall Couper:

I am very much in favour of more investment going through to the Football Foundation. If we are looking at a body that could potentially help to deliver that infrastructure and that way of doing it and ensure that clubs are investing in the right ways, which I am also in favour of, it is a good thing. We need to look at those lower levels of football and how that comes in. It goes back to that parameter question. When you look at how a distribution deal is decided, having an independent regulator to say, “These are the parameters that that deal must reach” is where you can see a real, fundamental difference.

When we look at the Football Foundation, I think you get 2.5% of the £3.19 billion that is there. What would happen if that was 5%? How many extra pitches would there be? What extra stadiums would we see? There are crumbling stadiums that are outside the Premier League. The extra facilities that could be changed and used for all the community clubs and community assets there, to use a very good Conservative phrase, is levelling up. That is what you could see in all those grounds and areas. That is what you could do, but it comes about only if the parameters of that distribution deal are robust enough and set by the regulator to deliver the change that is needed.

Robert Sullivan:

I want to put it on the record that the Premier League has been far and away the most supportive and consistent funder over the 24-year period of the Football Foundation, and it is really important to say that. I am not sat here in any way saying that we do not feel well-supported by the Premier League.

If I ask more questions, the Whip will start getting nervous about amendments that I might want to lay down. I will just say that every community has churches, pubs and football clubs, and there is a good reason for asking these questions.

Q Can you give us an insight into why clubs benefit from having greater measures on equality, diversity and inclusion?

Niall Couper:

When we look at that area, when Tracey Crouch wrote that original fan-led review it was one of the key recommendations. When you go to our clubs and look at them, the clubs that thrive and are actually forward thinking are the ones where you see that diversity put into the boardrooms and staffing structures, and where they actually try to address it.

It is a travesty of justice when you look at a football ground at a men’s match and it is 80% male. When you go into the club’s shop, nearly all the merchandise is for men. When you look at the toilet facilities, they are pretty poor for women. All those things are naive both financially and in terms of actual gender representation, and those are the things that need to change. The clubs that we have in Fair Game, which are across the pyramid, are the ones that are more forward thinking and realise that actually we cannot live in the dark ages.

A proper code of governance needs to have EDI embedded in it. It needs to be part of the way forward and part of how we look at football holistically, and that has not been the case. Having been a board member of a football club and sat there, there have been far too many instances where unfortunately it has been an awful lot of people looking an awful lot like me being the entire representation. That is not really appealing to wider society. If we want football to grow and thrive, ignoring vast sections of society is completely remiss.

Q How do you think EDI can be best incorporated into the regulator’s regime without going out of the scope of the Bill?

Niall Couper:

When you look at it, there are a couple of things that clearly can be part of the Bill, such as the governance code. When you look at the governance code, that needs to include EDI representation, as you would see in nearly all other sports governance codes that exist. That is an obvious place. The other thing is the state of the game report, and I think we need to look at having proper benchmarking and seeing where we can improve. Fair Game has looked at a lot of this—we have done a lot of stuff on the gender divide and we are doing a lot of research on that—but we need to look at this issue as constantly going forward and improving. We cannot perform just tick-box exercises; it needs to be about developing real outcomes so that women and people from ethnic groups can feel safe within a football ground, and that is not the case.

On a side point, we have been doing some work on the women’s game and there is a significant difference in how that operates compared with the men’s game. The issue we have seen is that women are not feeling safe, and that is an area that we really need to address. Until we get to that position, we will have loads of steps and things we need to improve. Every single element in the Bill needs to address that and ensure that that goes forward and improves what we have. Going back to the Bill, I would say that 90% of it is pretty good, but there are bits that can be improved, and that is definitely one area that can be.

I have been looking at the regulations that UEFA and FIFA have on their involvement generally in the governance Q of football, and their requirements about what Governments can and cannot do. We have tried to be very careful with setting up the regulator. How do you feel that interacts with some of the changes that you would like to see? Is there a big barrier, or is there anything that you think could be changed on that level that might be useful? How do you feel that affects the scope of what we can achieve? Has that been a big problem for you, would you say?

Simon Orriss:

I don’t think it has. I have discussed it with a couple of colleagues—barristers and other people that I know in the profession—and the general consensus is that it is unlikely that some of the FIFA statute articles that prevent Government interference in the governance of the game would be enacted. In particular, we have looked at institutions in France and Spain, which don’t have a completely identical remit to what the IFR is proposed to do, but they have some role in regulating the sport in those countries, and FIFA has largely left them to that. Although it has been noted, as you have just done in your question, it has not been something that has got people terribly agitated.

Q I want to ask quickly about grassroots football. My constituency has benefited from the Football Foundation, as I think most people’s around the table have. What positive role do you see this as having in encouraging more partners to work with organisations such as yourself? Is the Independent Football Regulator in a good place to help drive that, or is this again something where we are looking at the overarching security of other organisations that are going to be the ones pushing it? Is there a role for the football regulator to do more with your organisation?

Robert Sullivan:

To be honest, I am not sure yet. I would be cautious about passing a judgment on that. If you pull back a level, what does the Football Foundation need? It needs two things really: it needs a very healthy and thriving elite end of the game that generates lots of excessive revenues that can be distributed back into the grassroots; and it needs the grassroots of the game to be excited, growing and wanting to have lots of kids getting out there and playing. To answer in a very broad sense, if the regulator is allowing that ecosystem of English football to continue to thrive—not only at the top end with more sustainability, and all the things that people talked about today, but with the game still generating crazy passion and demand from kids getting out there— that is brilliant for English football and the Football Foundation. There are going to be lots of people needing great pitches, and we are going to get out there and give everyone a great place to play.

Q Do you think the Bill does enough at the moment to ensure that fans have a meaningful say on what matters most to them? Also, are there areas where you would like to see the Bill go further, with further say for fans?

Niall Couper:

I think there are gaps. We heard of one earlier, about the club heritage and the name. To my mind, these are simple amendments. Making sure that there is a proper fan consultation about a proposed name change is, to me, important. You strike on a cause that is close to my heart—I am an AFC Wimbledon fan. Today, 14 May, is a significant day for me: in 2002, the three-man FA commission began its deliberations about moving the club to Milton Keynes. I have had loads of messages about that—they all knew I was coming here—and for me, making sure that a club cannot move from its area is fundamental.

At the moment, that is not clear enough in the Bill, and I think it needs to be made fundamentally clear. It talks about financial considerations still being part of the conversation. As a Wimbledon fan, it was the financial considerations of a three-man commission that allowed us to lose the club. We would describe it as our place in the Football League being given to a town in Buckinghamshire. Effectively, that is what happened. For any other club, that needs to be addressed, and fans need to have their voice heard first in that particular conversation. At the moment—I will use this phrase, although I was trying desperately not to say it—the unintended consequence of the Bill is that it legitimises franchising. That is the bit that needs a red line put through it.

Q I will ask a second question about grassroots football. I was thinking about this, because I have two kids who used to play and had regular problems with waterlogged pitches and other issues: how would you describe the state of grassroots pitches and provision across the country?

Robert Sullivan:

It is a huge challenge for the game, but we are definitely on an upward trend. For the first time, we have been able properly to map and record, and to improve grass-pitch quality by use of digital data. That has been a big change, because with 30,000 grass pitches in England, it is hard to get out to reach them all, but we can now use technology through phones, so we can assess those pitches remotely and help clubs to improve them, to do the simple things, and give them funding that can address some of the waterlogging situations.

We now have more than 8,000 of what we have rated as good-quality grass pitches. That is a big step forward on where we were five or 10 years ago, but we are perhaps only halfway through that journey. We are going to do everything we can to escalate that number as quickly as we can, and to build many more artificial grass pitches, because of the difference. On a good grass pitch that does not waterlog, we get maybe six hours of play; and on a good artificial pitch, we can get 60 hours of full-on community usage for kids, disability or vulnerable groups, older men who are coming for dementia classes, and whatever it might be. Those artificial grass pitches, which is what we want to invest in, are the game changers that will help us to support that growth in the women and girls’ game and all other parts of grassroots football.

Q The original fan-led review had a transfer levy recommendation that was proposed to the panel by somebody from the Premier League. The Bill was not necessarily the right place to include that proposal but, presumably, given the fact that it was designed as a policy that would invest in grassroots sports, certainly further down the pyramid, is that something that you would still at some point be interested in seeing?

Niall Couper:

Yes is the answer. I think it is something that we need to look at, considering that—in my mind—a lot of it depends on what happens with this Bill. It is important, because it is about redistribution and giving support to a lot of the clubs that are trying to do the right thing in the right way. Again, to go back, it needs to be caveated to make sure that it is ringfenced where possible to support the grassroots pitches.

I talk to clubs like Tonbridge Angels, Maidstone United, Sutton United and so on. Those clubs will talk about wanting to have the 3G pitches and their training pitches in there so that they can be put to community use—those 60 hours a week. That is really what they want, because that is where they see the big growth. That is where your club becomes a community hub. That is where it makes the difference.

For me, the money that you talk about from the transfer levy, if you give it to those sorts of pitches and so on, is where you can make a real fundamental difference. Where it will go, I do not know, Tracey. It is one perhaps that we can talk about once we are post the Bill. It was something that I was really excited about when you proposed it—it really appealed to me. It is something that came a bit from left field, but it is something that we should look at in the months and years ahead.

Q That is what Tracey proposed for the grassroots. This question is more to you, Robert. You do fantastic work, undoubtedly. Some of the Football Foundation hubs are magnificent—we have got four in Liverpool—but there is an issue around cost, and I am wondering whether that comes under regulation scope, as we go down the line with implementation. In an incident last year, an under-13 team was getting charged £194 an hour to use one of the hubs. That takes away totally the ability to play football. With the huge rise in the popularity of football through the women’s game and given the absolute need for the pitches, as you said, who will regulate the cost to ensure that they are affordable for every single person in the country?

Robert Sullivan:

It is a big challenge, Ian. When we fund a site, we will put in terms and conditions on such sites that should provide a check and a challenge on the affordability. So, if that is happening on a site that we have funded, we should pick that conversation up separately, because when we provide a grant, it comes with terms and conditions: we need to see, basically, an income and expenditure plan that has sensible and appropriate pricing policies with it.

If I may go back to pick up on Tracey’s offer—

For the money—

Robert Sullivan:

For the money. I am agnostic about where the money comes from, but we have a massive challenge, and we need as much as possible going into grassroots facilities.

To make one supplementary point about what Niall said, he alighted on a really interesting example. Sutton had a fantastic 3G pitch that was doing brilliant community things, but when Sutton went into the EFL, it had to pull that pitch up. That is an interesting question, although it is inadvertent. I understand all the competition reasons why that might be the case in the EFL, but Sutton went from having a very sustainable community asset to one that was not when it moved up into the EFL pyramid. That is an issue that I would potentially raise as well.

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much for coming.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Mike Wood.)

Adjourned till Thursday 16 May at half-past Eleven o’clock.

FGB01 Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA)

FGB02 West Ham Supporters Trust

FGB03 Fair Game

FGB04 Women in Football

FGB05 English Football League (EFL)

FGB06 Everton Fan Advisory Board