National League general manager Mark Ives believes parts of the plan for football‘s independent regulator will put a “burden” on their clubs.
Speaking at the House of Lords on Monday night at an event hosted alongside the Premier League, Ives mapped out areas of concern ahead of the long-awaited second reading of the Football Governance bill.
The Bill to establish an Independent Regulator for men’s elite football was triggered from the Tracey Crouch MP review.
“We didn’t wake up one morning and think ‘we want a regulator’,” Ives said.
“However, we accept it is here and we have to embrace that. That doesn’t mean we agree with everything that is proposed, there are parts we are comfortable with and parts we are not. It is those parts which we are asking to be looked at.
“Naturally, we are concerned about the costs. The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern, it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to our clubs.
“We are worried about mission-creep within the Bill and the additional bureaucracy. There is a lot of duplication of work, such as the licensing system. There is an expectation for clubs to do two lots of licensing. This was all started by the Fan-Led Review and my concern is the expectations are not what they were expecting.
“So things dear to our heart such as, three-up, three-down with the EFL, protection of players and 3G pitches were all raised within the Fan Led Review but are outside the scope of the regulator. I understand but we talk about financial sustainability – and all of these issues have an impact on financial sustainability of the clubs.
“If we carry on with the Bill the way it is, it is going to put all of that burden on our clubs instead of actually having an advocacy-first approach. Let the leagues take control of it. My desire is for the leagues to do their piece first and if we fail to do our piece then regulate us.
“People are talking about the need for a regulator because of the mess the game is in. My view is that the game is not in a mess. All the competitions – the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, the FA – they are obviously all doing something right.
“So allow the people to deal with it appropriately and if we are not doing it in the right way, then let the regulator step in. Otherwise you will put too much bureaucracy, too much burden on the clubs and it will be damaging to them.“
He went on to say: “We urge MPs and Peers for certainty on the Bill. It is written loosely, which allows for mission creep. Think about the impact on our member clubs and don’t put more burden on them.”
Also discussed was the subject of scrapping FA Cup replays – a move the National League support despite a number of their member clubs releasing statements against the plans.
And three-up, three-down into the EFL also came up with Dagenham & Redbridge managing director, and National League board member, Steve Thompson calling for an extra promotion spot into the EFL.
“We are worried that the Bill will be so onerous,” he said. “Some National League clubs work on two or three people and some volunteers, and it worries me that a lot of our clubs, small clubs, are not going to be able to survive with the regulation and reporting required.
“I am also worried about the constraint on the Owners’ and Directors’ Test. There is not a queue of people wanting to buy National League clubs – if the Bill makes it too onerous then people won’t invest in our clubs, and we need people to invest in our clubs.
“I don’t understand why the EFL are blocking the three-up and three-down model in the National League. It should be the format that runs all the way through and that is what has been talked about for several years. This is one of the most important things for National League clubs, yet it sits outside the regulator’s remit.
“It does really worry me that some of our small clubs will not survive with the regulation and the reporting that is required.”
