FOOTBALL INQUIRY

19 June 2008

Members present:

Alan Keen MP (Chair)

Lord Faulkner

Clive Betts MP

Helen Southworth MP

Mark Field MP

Mark Hendrick MP

Witnesses:

Lord Burns

Joyce Cook

Neena Gill MEP

Ivo Belet MEP

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Good afternoon everybody.  I thank Lord Burns for taking the time to come and answer questions this afternoon.  I have been an admirer of yours for a long time, especially from your Treasury days—your name was known to me longer ago than I want to mention for both our sakes.  I was delighted suddenly to find that you were involved in football, which is why we invited you here this afternoon.

This meeting is an all-party group, so we do not have parliamentary privilege—

Lord Burns: So I must be careful what I say.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Slightly careful, perhaps, but not too careful.  Secondly, I apologise to everyone on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who cannot appear before us this afternoon.  I am going to have a private meeting with him later today with colleagues, but he is in the midlands, at Aston Villa, with whom he is having a trial.  Last Tuesday he did well, making five excellent saves in the first 20 minutes.  He came off when he was winning to go back to his Department.  I am sorry to those who came hoping to see him but, hopefully, he will appear later in the inquiry.

I am sure that we have all read your report on the Football Association, Lord Burns.  Obviously, it has begun to implement many of your recommendations.

Clive Betts MP: Welcome, Lord Burns.  We have met before: I was a member of the Independent Football Commission and you came to us to talk about your review when you were formulating your ideas.  On the situation now, do you think that those involved in the FA and other relevant parts of the game have embraced your report with enthusiasm, or do you think in the end that they have done as little as they had to do to tick one or two boxes to get things moving forward, however slowly?

Lord Burns: I feel that they have gone quite a long way in the direction that I indicated.  There was a lot of support for most of the ideas in the report in principle.  However, in any organisation, people are to a degree prisoners of the past.  Arrangements are inherited and people have positions within the structure, and there is always anxiety about change among those who are concerned about how they will be affected.  My recommendations partly were meant to provide a transition.  I said in the report that my suggestions were not what they would have been had we worked from a blank sheet of paper, but I had to suggest the direction in which I thought we should move.

The major issues that I addressed regarding the board, an independent chairman and recasting the council, and proposals for a semi-autonomous regulatory body and a funding formula, have been embraced, but some of the suggestions in the report went a little too far.  For example, there is only one independent director on the board—the chairman—which I do not think is right for the long term.  I believe that there should be more independent representation.  The committee structure is now divided between those that report to the council and the board, whereas I proposed that all committees should report to the board.

There was always great reluctance to accept the proposals that would have given more autonomous power to the two subsidiaries, which you can call the national game and the professional game.  Nobody wanted to be too far separated from the FA—they like the warmth and comfort involved in being part of it—so there was some resistance.  However, in broad terms, I would say that 60, 70 or 75 per cent. of my proposals are in the process of implementation.  I have been out of touch with the situation since I submitted my report and have not kept in close contact, but I have watched press announcements.  Preparing to come here today, I read the FA Vision 2008-12 and thought that it captured a lot of the spirit of what I wanted, which is that the FA should become a more confident and open body, and that it needs to take the lead in football.  It had been through a difficult period and had taken a bit of a battering, and things were discussed in smoke-filled rooms and most announcements came out in leaks.  It did not behave as a body that seized the agenda and had a clear strategy to take forward.  I thought that the document showed important signs of a new atmosphere.

Clive Betts MP: Would it be fair to summarise that we are moving in the direction but there is some way to travel?

Lord Burns: There is fair way to travel.  Many things have yet to be properly implemented.  I have spent a lot of my life looking at organisation charts on pieces of paper, but when it comes to implementing those charts and making them work, you find that there are more hurdles to jump.  It is early days, but I sense that there is spirit of wanting to change and move forward, and a recognition that the game has changed because of the internationalisation of football and the amount of money in the game.  It is a different game from that of 20 years ago.

Lord Faulkner: How do you see the FA as the governing body of the game?  Do you think that it has moved itself onto ground that you wanted in your report?  You wanted it to be the supreme body and for it effectively to have regulatory control over the constituent parts of the game in England.  Are we any nearer to that situation?  If not, what would you like to happen to bring it about?

Lord Burns: We are nearer to that situation.  Setting up the semi-autonomous regulatory body, which has just started its work, was an important step.  My experience, which I went into in some detail, was that much of the FA’s work on such things was pretty good, but there was a sense that there were conflicts of interest and that people were not given the same treatment depending on the seniority of the club or what kind of representation it had.  We now have an arrangement in which there is greater confidence.  However, to some degree, people have to take charge of some the regulatory issues within their part of the game, be it the national game or the professional game.

The most important step forward would be if the FA board and its members saw themselves as directors of the FA rather than as representatives of the part of the game from which they are drawn, which is why it is important to have independent directors.  That way, you would begin to make people feel that they are directors of the FA, and that that is an important role.  They would have to think of that in every decision that they made.  They should not see themselves as people who must do their best to protect the part of the game from which they have been elected.

The current structure takes us in that direction.  Through that, the FA will get the empowerment and confidence to be the governing body of the game in this country.  For some time, there were difficult tensions between the FA and the professional game—the premier league in particular—the resolution of which requires a certain amount of good will on all sides.  I think we are moving in the right direction—only time will tell whether we have gone all the way. 

You only see how organisations function when they are faced with difficult situations.  It is like playing golf: when the wind is behind you, it is straightforward; you only discover whether you can hit the ball properly when you turn around and play into the wind.  Only when we see how the new arrangements deal with difficult issues that emerge will we be able to judge how much progress has been made and to what extent people will go back to think only of their constituencies.

Lord Faulkner: Would you say at the moment that there is a lack of consistency, especially in the regulatory approaches adopted by the premier league and the Football League?

Lord Burns: There are differences—I am out of touch with the details of the situation—but I would like the FA always to be seen as the governing body, if I can describe it like that.  Therefore, when things become difficult or when a problem cannot be resolved within one part of the game, it should be sent up to the FA, which should have the final word.  There must be a belief or, in a sense, an assumption, that that will happen.  I do not far how far things have gone towards that situation, but it is partly about making the FA’s independence and authority watertight.  When that happens, we will see that people are happy for it to resolve the difficult issues.

Mark Hendrick MP:  Is it fair to say that your review was not far-reaching enough to give the FA the governing powers that it wants and that would be respected by the Football League and the premier league?

In extending and widening the membership of the council, have you not watered down any influence that individual members had?  Has it become more of a talking shop, in which there is more talking than doing?

Lord Burns: What was the first question?

Mark Hendrick MP: It was on the governing powers of the FA.

Lord Burns: Did I go far enough?  I have said this already, but the key to an organisation being the governing body is an appropriate degree of independence, and people in the organisation should be seen to be working for the governing body.  When I began the review, there was a great deal of tension between the FA and the premier league, and, to a degree, the administrative staff of the FA felt disempowered and disenfranchised.  The proposals were about binding those things into an effective, decision-making body.  I believe that the FA has begun that process.

I remain of the view, as I indicated, that, over time, it is important that the FA board has more independent directors.  Having only one independent director, and for that person to be the chairman, is a start, but I can think of many circumstances in which it would not be ideal.

Mark Hendrick MP: What extra authority does independence bring?

Lord Burns: The main thing is that, if you are independent, you are without conflicts of interest.  The problem is that people who come either from the national game or the professional game potentially have an implicit conflict of interest—they have to think of the welfare of the FA, but also of the welfare of the part of the game by which they have been elected.  Even to the most principled people, conflicts of interest are what they are, and must be worked around.  If you had more of an independent presence, people with conflicts of interests in principle will be forced to behave in a more objective fashion when it comes to making decisions.  A single, independent director, who is the chairman, is in a lonely position.  I note that there is a proposal for the chairman to have a degree of executive responsibility regarding the national team.  Over time, I hope that the FA will be persuaded that it is possible to have more independent directors.  Of course, the problem is that neither side wanted to reduce their allocation of places on the board too much, nor did they want the board to be too big.

At one stage, a number of people told me that they did not understand the issue of independence, because they assumed that independent people knew nothing about football, and that once people knew something about football, they could not be independent.  That Catch-22 made the proposals inoperable.  I tried to explain that independence and ignorance are different, and that independence refers to the absence of conflicts of interests.  I hope that over time the FA will become more content that it is possible to find people who will make good directors who are independent, but who nevertheless know something about football and can contribute to the board.  I am not going to get on my high horse about this, because it is partly about living, learning and giving people confidence.

On your second question, I see the council—it is described this way in the document and is the way I wanted it to be—as the parliament of football.  The big issues should be debated there, but it should not have executive power—that should lie elsewhere.  The problem with the former arrangements is that council meetings—I attended one or two—basically involved the receipt of the minutes of the sub-committees that reported to the council.  It was not so much a talking shop as a listening shop.  I hope that it will become more of a talking shop, in which difficult problems are debated and people get the chance to give their views.  A greater degree of involvement and some greater wisdom would come out of that.  I proposed that the executive job of running the FA, subject to the council’s oversight, should rest with the board.  That has been slightly diluted, as I said, because some committees report to the council, but Rome was not built in a day.

Mark Field MP: First, Lord Burns, you said that you believed the FA’s role and mission is to lead the agenda for football.  How, given that the council is 110-strong and that, essentially, in the past decade and a half, the FA premier league, and not least the larger clubs, have been the large, high-profile face of football among the public at large, can it achieve that?

You mentioned that organisations face times of difficulty and problems—I am sure that you would agree with that on with your former Treasury hat on given how things are panning out in the economy.  I appreciate that many such difficulties are unforeseen and unexpected, but can you tell us what difficulties with the FA’s role might arise over the next five or 10 years.  It will be interesting to know your thoughts on the challenges that it will face.

Lord Burns: There is not a big issue with the size of the council if it debates, challenges and provides oversight to the executive body.  If the board becomes the executive body, it should put forward proposals for debate—the equivalent of Green Papers and White Papers—to see whether they command the agreement of football in the widest sense.  That situation is perfectly manageable.  It is important that the executive body, including administrative staff, have the power to take charge of such an agenda, overseen by the board.  They should be able to lead the debate and see what kind of challenge is offered and whether they can carry people along with them.  Proposals should be properly researched and prepared, and then made and debated—they should not come from one member of the board who has read a newspaper one morning, for example. 

What are the main issues?  I believe that the biggest issue for British football is financial stability.  Football has had an extraordinary increase in revenue, and it continues to grow.  Managing such revenue is very important for the long-term future of the game.  For how long will the revenue come in?  Are people going to continue to attend in the same numbers?  Attendances are extraordinary, to say nothing of the way in which the game is watched around the world and television revenues.  How long will they last?  Should the money be spent now, or should some be husbanded for a later date when the game is not as popular?  How much of the money should go into investment in better coaching and providing more facilities for younger people and, for example, those with behavioural problems?  That is a big issue.

We all worry that too much of the revenue goes into the hands of the best players rather than into longer-term investment in the game.  I do not have any clear proposals regarding what to do about that, but if I was in the FA, I would be worried about it.  I would also worry, as the FA does, about the how internationalised the game can become and whether there should be limits on the numbers of domestic and international players in teams to ensure that the former are given fair representation.

Obviously, there is a long-term, underlying issue with the performance of the England team, which is important to people who follow football.  As in some other matters, we are in danger of becoming a nation with the best spectators, but not necessarily the best performers, in the world.  We see that situation in tennis and, to a degree, in the City, and football is going down that path.  Why does that happen?  Why do so few of our players or coaches turn up in other European countries?  The fact that we are not exporting talent suggests something about the relative abilities of our players.  I would be worried about that.  The solution has to start way back with investment and coaching in the game, and with the identification and support of players.

How does the FA maintain the integrity of the game and keep it popular?  How does it ensure that people love the game for what it is rather than spending their time arguing about decisions, administrative complexities or transfers? 

I do not think that the game is in bad shape.  When I look back over the time that I have watched football, I feel enormously privileged to see the current quality of football and stadiums in this country and to experience going to football matches now.  Also, you can watch on television if you cannot go to the game.  When I started watching football, only one match a year was televised—the FA Cup final.  People used to stand on terraces and were lucky if they saw more than a proportion of the game.  It is now a very exciting experience.  I am far from being in the camp of people who exaggerate the problems.  Football spectators are going through a wonderful period.

Helen Southworth MP: You have had very senior leadership positions in both the public and private sectors so, presumably, you have a lot of experience of using the skills of people at every level of an organisation to make it effective.  How happy are you about the representation of women at a senior level of the FA, meaning the board, the council and right the way through the game?

Lord Burns: It was very striking at meetings of the council—I held a lot of meetings when I was preparing the report—that I came across very few women.  Of course, the sport is growing in popularity among women as spectators and participants.  The FA is aware of the problem—there is no lack of awareness.  However, involving more women is partly an issue of time.  As you know, in the United States the extent to which football is played by women is striking—it is enormously important.  In my time, I have seen a big change in the number of women who watch and are interested in football, which has come about partly because of the improvement of facilities in stadiums.

All bar some were aware of the issue.   There is no doubt that the older you are—I am beginning to find myself in that category—the less likely you are to find women of your generation who are involved in such things.  The document has a section specifically on the issue and there are some proposals.

Helen Southworth MP: We have some stunningly good sportswomen and businesswomen, and some stunningly good women in the public sector.  Why are women not represented on the FA at senior level?

Lord Burns: It is based on how people are elected to the parliament of the FA.  The way in which people are elected is particularly relevant with the FA board.  Those who represent the premier league are effectively the chairmen or senior administrators of premier league clubs.  As things stand, they are unlikely to be women.  In the amateur game, people have to work their way up, and not a lot of women are involved in that process.  Having independent directors could be an important route by which to bring women in.

This is not meant to be disparaging, but when you go to a council meeting at the FA, you will see that the most senior and longest-serving sit on the front row, and you get a clear picture how long people on the FA council have been involved in the game and how they have moved up in the organisation.  If those processes remain the same, it would take a long time to change the council—the average age is quite high.

Helen Southworth MP: You view the council as a parliament.  Do you think that a parliament that does not have women is representative?

Lord Burns: There are some women.  There were one or two under the old arrangements, but there are more under the new arrangements. 

Helen Southworth MP: Two or three.

Lord Burns: There are other statistics.  I still support your case, but we could also look at the proportion of women who play or watch football, or who watch the men’s as opposed to he women’s game.  The development of such things is not surprising when you look at the past 50 years.

Helen Southworth MP: Is it not nevertheless shocking that it still happens?  You mentioned financial stability and money going into the hands of the best players.  Will you comment on the England women’s team in China who got £40 a day?  Do you think that the governors ought to take account of that regarding the best players?

Lord Burns: The best players get the large rewards for much the same reason that the best financiers or musicians get the best rewards.  They do not get the rewards because people think that they are worth it or want to be kind to them, but because of a mercenary process of competition and bidding for the best talent.  There is talent in abundance in the marketplace, but so much money goes to the people who are really top class, because, relative to the rewards for success, it is worth it for clubs to pay such sums of money.  You will see that the funnel narrows in many professions, especially those with international markets, from opera singers to golfers to the City.  Money goes to the players because of competition and the desire to get the best.  That does not explain rewards to women, but the marketplace for women footballers does not work in the same way.  You therefore have to judge what is reasonable and sensible support for people who give their talent and time.

Helen Southworth MP: Finally, do you think that the FA needs to give consideration to make that work more effectively?

Lord Burns: The FA’s challenge is to decide how much money it will invest, including in the women’s game, and how far it will allocate money so that it will find its way into paying for the competition for the better players in the world.  The story in the past 15 years is that the riches of the game have increased, and there is ever greater competition for its stars.  I have not watched that many games in the European championship because I have been doing other things, but it is interesting that, in the games I have watched, the commentary was constantly about the players and how much they would be worth to premier league clubs, be it £20 million or £40 million.  It was all about identifying the small number of people who would make a difference to a top club and how much those clubs would be prepared to pay to bring them to the UK or England.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): I am sure that if you were a part of this panel this afternoon you would agree that this is not a token woman asking questions.

Lord Burns: I understand.

Alan Keen MP: This is the third session of this series, which will go on until the autumn.  We are holding them because most MPs represent non-league clubs, and football supporters do not really get enough say in the game, which I am sure you looked at.  You made a few comments, which are not unusual, about the FA council.  There are more councillors than when you recommended changes—the number has gone from 92 to 110.  I am delighted at some of the additions, which can only be a good thing, but do you think that there is a democratic deficit?  There are elections to Parliament once every five years.  Is there a democratic deficit because supporters have little say what happens in the game.  There is an enormous FA council, but I do not know whether the councillors are elected by ordinary football supporters, whether of big clubs or smaller, local sides.  Did you spend any time examining how such representation could be increased?

Lord Burns: This goes back to the question whether we are a nation of spectators or participants.  In favour of the people on the council, many have spent a lot of time in the amateur football world, organising football, refereeing or running clubs.  Councillors are not simply pulled out of the air or people who have some spare time in which to sit on the FA council; rather, they have worked themselves up from the grass roots in various roles and are elected at various points to represent their clubs, areas, counties, regions, and finally the council.  There is quite a lot of democracy in that regard.  Councillors are engaged in organising amateur football, not simply football spectators.

Councillors from the professional game tend to be owners or administrators of professional clubs.  We proposed a greater representation of referees, managers and spectators, but any proposal to reduce substantially the number of people who come through the current channels would find it difficult to gain support.  It would be turkeys voting for Christmas, which was pointed out to me clearly from the word go.

However, we should not disparage in any way people who have spent a lifetime making local football at grass-roots level work.  Many of those people, including referees, have given an enormous amount of their time for nothing to make football happen—they are not a privileged elite—and have really worked at it.  The result is that, by the time people get to the top, they tend to be getting on a bit.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Are supporters in the rest of Britain different?  Real Madrid is owned by fans on a one-person-one-vote basis, and Manchester United is owned by a couple of people who have no history in football.  I know that the question is biased, but which system would best serve English football fans?

Lord Burns: I do not have any strong views on that.  I have been a chairman of publicly listed companies and I am chairman of a not-for-profit company in Wales that runs Welsh Water, so I have experience of both types of organisations.  Also, I have noticed how many mutuals in the financial services sector have, for very good reasons over time, decided that they would have more success by transforming into publicly listed companies, because the financially stability of the latter is much greater.

What do football supporters want?  Do they want to vote on their club, or do they want it to be successful?  Obviously, they would like both, but they would particularly like their club to be successful.  When somebody turns up with a lot of money spend on a team, local people are pretty pleased and keen to see an injection of capital that might bring a period of success.  Life is like that.  I am not sure that you can define what are the best ways to do things, because the marketplace, once revenues become large, will have its way.  Even if you tried to stop the water running down hill, it will succeed.  It is about realism rather than some glorious objective.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): I would have expected nothing less than an answer as deep and thoughtful as that.  We are very grateful to you for spending your time to come and answer questions.  Thank you.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): I welcome Joyce Cook, who is the chairman of the National Association of Disabled Supporters.  Thank you for giving us your time.  We have met before, more than once, so I am looking forward to hearing your opinions.  Would you like to make an opening statement before we ask questions?

Joyce Cook, National Association of Disabled Supporters: Thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to speak today.  NADS is a registered charity that was established in 1998 to represent disabled football supporters with all disabilities.  Its key objectives are promoting an inclusive agenda and campaigning for an equality of supporter experiences for all fans.  We estimate that more than 30,000 disabled fans frequently attend football matches in England.  That is a conservative figure and we are not aware of any official statistics for disabled spectators.  Many disabled people still do not realise that they can attend matches.  Simply put, going to a game a football can be life-changing for many disabled people.  Often, it is the first opportunity to introduce them to the excellent work that clubs do for disabled football teams.

As far back as 1990, Lord Taylor’s final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster made several recommendations; namely that there should be provision for safe, spacious seating for wheelchair users, with a seat alongside for a companion, protected from the weather, with access to disabled toilets, and easily reached from the car park.  He also said that facilities should address the needs of the ambulatory disabled and the those with visual and hearing impairments.

In 1998, the Football Task Force published a report, “Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters”—some of you were part of the working group—that made a number of significant recommendations, including that there should be further clarity to part M building regulations in accordance with the “Green Guide”, and for the setting of mandatory requirements for the minimum number of wheelchair spaces and seats for blind, deaf and ambulatory disabled people in new stands and stadiums.  You recommended improvements for fans with all disabilities in line with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including to views, shelter, access, toilets, refreshment bars, parking, ticketing and stewarding, said that annual visits of hit squads to all grounds should take place to conduct audits of facilities and monitor progress on improvements, and proposed that NADS should carry out such assessments.

Alongside legislation such as the revisions to part M building regulations and the 1995 Act, a number of excellent reports, surveys and guidance documents have been produced, including “Designing for People with Disabilities”, “Fans at the Trackside”, “Leaving the Trackside” and, in 1997, “The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds”, the fourth edition of which is known as the “Green Guide”.  Most significantly, in 2003-04, the “Accessible Stadia” guide was published in partnership between the Football Licensing Authority and the football stadia improvement fund, with a working group of representatives from throughout the football family.  The ASG provides guidance on the design of facilities to meet the needs of disabled spectators and others.  It was imbued into part M building regulations in 2004 and stands as best-practice guidance for all clubs.

From 2000 to 2002, NADS carried out access appraisals of all clubs in the professional game with funding from the football stadia improvement fund.  We understand that, further to advice from football’s governing bodies, most football clubs carried their own access audits in and around 2004 in anticipation of part 3 of the 1995 Act.  Some clubs have continued to make improvements to the facilities that they provide for disabled supporters.  However, we fear that many may have put the reports away, and that they have not since followed a considered access strategy for continued improvements in line with their evolving duties under the Act.  I refer you to the Disability Rights Commission’s code of practice under the Act, which states:

“The duty to make reasonable adjustments is a continuing duty”

and that service providers “should keep the duty under regular review in the light of their experience with disabled people” who wish to access their services.  It continues:

“In this respect it is an evolving duty, and not something that needs simply to be considered once and once only, and then forgotten.  What was originally a reasonable step to take might no longer be sufficient and the provision of further or different adjustments might then have to be considered.”

The code also states: “Where there is a physical barrier, the service provider’s aim should be to make its services accessible to disabled people, and in particular to provide access to a service as close as is reasonably possible to the standard normally offered to the public at large.”

Some clubs have made good progress, and it is important to emphasise best practice.  In fact, NADS works hard to encourage the sharing of such information, through, for instance, earlier this year, the first ever disability equality seminar, which was hosted by the Football Association.  The seminar brought together club representatives, disabled supporters and the football authorities.  It is early days, but many clubs want to do more.  Manchester City, for example, has expressed a desire to work closely with NADS.  Clubs such as Wycombe Wanderers, Ipswich Town, Norwich City are using their existing resources to ensure that disabled fans have a good experience and work hard to achieve best practice.

Last autumn, we presented the NADS “State of the Game” report to you, and you have asked a number of questions since, both in the Lords and the Commons, following the well supported early-day motion 615, titled “Facilities for Disabled Football Supporters”, which has been signed by 107 MPs.  As a result, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to the premier league, the Football League and the FA to ask for their help to ensure that all grounds of clubs in those competitions meet their obligations under the 1995 Act.  He also ask those organisations to remind all clubs about the ASG, and noted that it was published to help clubs to undertake access audits to identify features that present barriers to people with disabilities and to develop effective solutions.  The Under-Secretary also asked clubs to work with disabled supporters to ensure that the experience of visiting grounds is equal for disabled and able-bodied fans.

The NADS “State of the Game” report provides an overview of the current provision for disabled supporters of premier league clubs, because that seemed like a good place to start.  When disability is mentioned, most people think of those in wheelchairs, but it is important to emphasise that many disabilities need to be considered, and that being a football fan means being able to access all experiences equally, from buying a ticket, to match day, visiting club shops and museums and assessing and enjoying club TV, websites, programmes and so on.  It is important when summarising current facilities in the premier league to mention a few key points from the “State of the Game” report, which is based on our best evidence.  Only two premier league clubs offer full audio described commentary systems for the visually impaired; very few clubs provide for assistance dogs; only three premier league clubs match or exceed the ASG for the recommended number of wheelchair seats, two of which offer only pitch-side seats; and one third of premier league clubs offer only pitch-side, rather than elevated seats, to wheelchair users, and views are often blocked by stewards, police, players warming up, and there is no shelter from the rain or the ball—disabled people can find it difficult to get out of the way

Most elevated viewing platforms suffer from poor sight lines if supporters in seats in front stand, meaning that disabled fans miss all the key points in the game.  That affects ambulatory disabled people, and elderly and young fans.  Some 40 per cent. of premier league clubs sit away disabled supporters with the home fans, which gives a very different experience from that of other fans.  You do not feel close to your fellow supporters, which is part of the enjoyment of being a fan.  Home supporters often shout abuse, and it is not uncommon to be told not to celebrate goals by stewards, the better not to incite the crowd.  Some 50 per cent. of premier league clubs offer only single-figures of seats to wheelchair users who support the away team, some offering as few as three.

Many club websites are not fully accessible, and audio programmes are available from only a few clubs.  Many clubs do not provide an adequate service to their hearing-impaired fans, and some clubs seem to struggle to understand the needs of those with learning difficulties.  Some in the game hold the opinion that we are asking for what cannot be achieved, because stadiums are old and nothing can change until they move, but, Everton, for example, which is not too far from moving, added an elevated wheelchair platform last season, and Port Vale which, despite dropping to league one this year, is adding 20 wheelchair spaces.  We firmly believe that with will and some careful planning, a great deal can be achieved, certainly reasonable things.  Without doubt, all clubs should be able to provide a full audio-describe service, and we would like TV companies such as the BBC, ITV and Sky extend the audio commentary that is already afforded to certain popular programmes—it makes a huge difference to the blind or visually-impaired spectator.  Likewise, hearing-impaired supporters could be better accommodated.

There is an often-misquoted defence that many non-disabled fans cannot get tickets to games.  It is true that some clubs routinely sell out of tickets, there is no comparison to the problems that some disabled fans face.  One top premier league club has had to close its wheelchair-user membership because it is so heavily over-subscribed—more than six times, in fact.  We fear how many have absolutely no access to tickets.  Last season, the club did not sell out to its non-disabled members for its local derby—tickets went on general public sale, but still did not sell out.  Such an unequal deficit in demand and supply is similar at other top clubs. 

Why build extra disabled seats when they will not be filled?  Shrewsbury Town was nervous about putting the ASG quota into its new stadium, but said:

“We have been delighted by the much-increased attendance by people with disabilities who may have previously been deterred by the limited facilities at Gay Meadow”.

NADS would like to propose a plan for change that we believe most clubs would be keen to take up.  The goal is equal access and experience for all supporters.  First, there should be an independent access audit of all clubs, their facilities and services, with the necessary improvements identified and costed, and a clearly defined business plan described.  Secondly, disabled supporters and all stakeholders should agree on what is truly achievable and reasonable, and a time line agreed.  A central fund should be set up to help clubs lower down the pyramid to make improvements.  That could come from football and/or Government—above all, we are football fans, and we would not want to push any club into the abyss.  The independent assessors should monitor progress at each and every club and ensure that improvements are made.

In 12 years, football managed to convert most stadiums to all-seated following the terrible tragedy at Hillsborough, so when football and Government put their minds to a project, anything is possible.  We must join together to make things right for disabled supporters.  Again, I acknowledge those in the game who work hard to accommodate their disabled supporters and the many who are keen to do more: in fact, our national stadium, Wembley, stands as a glowing example for all, with world-class disabled facilities.  Football has led the way on other diversity issues, such as anti-racism, and it has the opportunity to lead the way for disabled people.  When you speak to any disabled person or their family or friends, no matter what the disability, they will describe a life full of hurdles.  In fact, the environment around them is disabling; it is not the person who is disabled. 

Finally, on funding and finance, we currently receive a welcome grant from the Football Foundation towards the cost of a part-time administrator.  Beyond that, we have to rely on the good will of volunteers and our own fundraising.  Our work and campaigning are of huge importance to football and all supporters.  We have an ageing population and the demands from those who are disabled and elderly will only grow.  I therefore ask for your help in securing core funding for NADS in line with other supporters groups, so that we can continue our extremely important work and support disabled supporters, clubs and football authorities.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Thank you for such a full summary of the situation—I hope that you will put that in writing for us.  There is a special reason for calling Richard first, which he will explain.

Lord Faulkner: I should begin by declaring two interests: first, I am the co-author of the Football Task Force report of 10 years ago, to which Joyce referred; secondly, I am an honorary vice-president of NADS, so I take a close interest in the subject that Joyce addressed.

I wish to ask only a couple of questions, because your statement was very comprehensive.  First, am I right to think that there is no representation of disabled supporters on the FA council?  We heard Lord Burns a moment ago talk about the expansion of the council to 110 members.  How many of those people are representatives of your organisation?

Joyce Cook: None.  In fairness to the FA, it has a disability equality advisory group that has a broader spectrum.  A representative from that group will sit on the council soon, but there is no disabled supporter representation, which is a big concern for us, given the amount of work that needs to be done.

Lord Faulkner: You talked about the need for core funding.  What would you regard as the minimum sum necessary to do your job effectively?

Joyce Cook: To do the job to a minimum, without massive luxuries, we need £94,000 a year, which would cover the employment of one and a half more people.  On average, we take 250 external inquiries per month, most of which are fielded by people who take their own time and pay their own phone bills.

Lord Faulkner: Finally, what response has been received from the premier league and the Football League to the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to which you referred?

Joyce Cook: We met representatives of the premier league and Football League last week.  As I understand it, the former is going to send out copies of the ASG to its clubs before the new season, and the latter will ask its clubs to provide numbers of disabled seats with reference to it.  Interestingly, that figure is not known at most clubs, which is worrying.

Helen Southworth MP: You have done a tremendous amount of work considering your limited resources.  Certainly, when we have met before, I have been most impressed by the number of people who are prepared to work to make things happen.  That is indicative of the kind of support within football for access for people with disabilities.

You described some of the clubs and what they have done.  Has anybody achieved the full set that you would like to see?

Joyce Cook: It would be fair to say that Arsenal football club comes very close.  Of course, it has the luxury of having moved to a brand new, modern stadium, which helps greatly.  It seems to be very willing to look at things such as providing relieving stations for assistance dogs, audio-describe commentary and programmes for visually impaired supporters.  Other than that, without wishing to sound too harsh, some clubs are doing a good job, but there is still much to do—they could do better.

Helen Southworth MP: You are making a lot of progress getting the issue on to the agenda within the FA.  What are you hoping to see in the next 12 months or two years?  You have had meetings with clubs.  Do you want to see audit reports go to the FA board, or for the FA council to discuss them?  What are your targets?

Joyce Cook: It has to be discussed at the very top of football: that is the only way in which there will be real change.  A lot of people are willing to do something, but there is no joined-up writing, as it were, at the moment.  If things are led from the top, beginning with a full audit of all clubs, we would know exactly what needs to be done and how much things will cost, and then a plan can be laid out, and we would know where we are going and what we are working towards.

Helen Southworth MP: So you are confident in the good will at the moment, and it is now about having some of the skills and abilities to implement things? 

Joyce Cook: Of course, individuals can be obstructive, sometimes by a fear of change and of the cost.  If people sit down and look at what would be reasonable, they would be surprised.  I am sure that Port Vale does not have the luxury of vast sums of money, but if it can put in 20 wheelchair seats in the close season, others could act more creatively.

Helen Southworth MP: In the past, I have worked with people with disabilities.  I was shocked when I organised an event and told people that it was at a fully accessible venue, but I would arrive to sort stuff out and find that there were a couple of steps that I had not noticed.  Presumably, that sort of thing happens all the time.  Can you provide support for people to go around and undertake an audit, and help them to see some of the problems that might arise for people with disabilities?

Joyce Cook: Definitely.  We are very keen, and would be happy, to be involved in any audit process.  Of course, we would need some financial help for that.  We have user experience and more than 10 years of background, so we would be ideal to take a role.

Helen Southworth MP: Out of curiosity, what is the situation with season tickets for people with disability?

Joyce Cook: The situation varies, so I am not sure how to answer that question at the moment.  Clubs have different systems.  Some clubs at which demand for tickets is far in excess of supply will not sell season tickets to disabled supporters, which, again, takes our rights away.  It is every fan’s right to be a season ticket holder or to be on a waiting list, but that does not happen.  That is not all clubs, of course.

Clive Betts MP: To follow the point that Helen made, an audit of all clubs is absolutely key to finding out what is there to begin with.  Clearly, we do not know, and some clubs do not know what they have and what they do not have.  How would you go about organising that?  Would you leave it to local people who support clubs to go in and help with an independent audit, or would your organisation do it?  Would the £94,000 enable you to conduct that sort of exercise?

Joyce Cook: With £94,000, we could certainly do audits over a number of years.  However, I feel, as do NADS trustees, that audits should be done more independently, perhaps, for example, by the Football Licensing Authority, so that they have more gravitas.  Otherwise, I am worried that evidence would be considered anecdotal, or user-evidence, rather than that of experts.  Audits need to be jointly conducted by an independent recognised body and disabled supporters.

Clive Betts MP: So the FLA will not be conducting the audit, but taking advice from people with disabilities or supporters, who can see the trees, as it were.  As Helen rightly said, when you go around places, you do not always spot problems that might be very apparent to someone with a disability.

Joyce Cook: Access audits should be undertaken in accordance with best practice in other arenas. An access audit is performed in consultation with an access panel or group of disabled people (pan disability) who are the end users, in this case disabled fans or NADS.  That is current best practice and would be ideal for football.

Clive Betts MP: Do you know of a club that employs best practice in that respect, namely one that has already undertaken an audit or has an advisory group of supporters with disabilities whom it consults frequently?

Joyce Cook: Manchester City football club is very keen.  It has a social inclusion manager, who is particularly hot on this sort of thing.  The matter is slightly dependent on the change in ownership, but the club has showed an absolute willingness to work with a local disabled supporter group and nationally with NADS—we have already had a meeting.  There is a willingness out there.  West Ham United, for example, recently had an access audit done by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and NADS, but it is sporadic: nothing is really organised and we feel that the football authorities should give some direction and co-ordination.

Clive Betts MP: Is it common for supporters with disabilities get involved in the process when new grounds are being built?  I remember going to Doncaster a few years ago.  I spoke to supporters in wheelchairs at the old ground who congratulated the club for involving them at an early stage of the new stadium project.  They got access to the director with responsibility for the new stadium, which I thought was good sign for improvements in how things are done.

Joyce Cook: Clubs that receive football stadium improvement funding are required to consult NADS, which gives us a good opportunity for involvement.  On the other side of the coin, when clubs fund improvements themselves, they very often liaise with their own disabled supporters group, which varies between clubs.  Some local groups are really for social events, and some are more clued-up on the ASG, disability legislation and such.  Very often, fans, whether disabled or non-disabled, are slightly apprehensive about locking horns, as it were, with their football club by making further recommendations.  Also, a lot of the time, the disabled liaison officer hands out tickets to disabled supporters.  It is a personalised service, which, in itself, can be intimidating for fans who may want to raise objections or issues or challenge practice. Whether or not there is a reason to be intimidated—there is paranoia. Therefore, not all consultation is representative of all disabled fans and their issues.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Manchester City has been praised, and we have a Manchester City supporter here today.  To show how magnanimous football supporters can be, I think the City team did well to score a goal against Middlesbrough, especially as eight went in the other way.

Mark Hendrick MP: I think we did well to get six points from the premier league champions and the winners of the European cup as well. 

I am pleased to hear of the progress that you are making with Manchester City.  Apart from clubs doing audits of how far they are making their facilities and games more accessible, have you ever thought about producing disability-friendly league tables, so to speak, based on the experiences of disabled fans at various grounds?  You could do those and ask whether people are getting wet at games clubs do not provide seats in the stands, whether audio commentary is provided and so on.  Naming and shaming clubs could lead to them taking action, and clubs that are making progress would get credit for so doing.

Joyce Cook: We hold information on football clubs and always take that and feedback from disabled supporters as end-users.  Unfortunately, our website is down at the moment, which is directly linked to funding.  Fortunately, recently we have found a company that provides a free website, but we need to wait until it can give us some time.  When it is back up and running, the website will enable supporters to find out what facilities each club provides.  We have not put anything into a league table and have not named and shamed so far, because we have always taken the approach of working with football clubs and we do not want an ‘us-and-them’ situation.  However, I take your point.  Clubs are competitive, so that might be a good solution.  Again, funding is essential for us to continue the good work that we are doing.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Thank you ever so much, Joyce.  There could not possibly be a better advocate for football supporters with disabilities.  Thank you for giving us your time.  It is privilege to have you here.

Lord Faulkner: Thanks for coming at such short notice.

Joyce Cook: Thank you.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): I first of all welcome Ivo Belet and Neena Gill.  They have come all the way from Strasbourg today, so we are honoured.  I was a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which visited Brussels a few months ago.  We were impressed by you, Ivo and Neena, which is one reason why we invited you to give evidence today.  I believe that you would both like to make opening statements before we ask questions.

Ivo Belet MEP: Thank you for inviting us, chairman, sincerely.  We are honoured to have the opportunity to participate in this inquiry.  I congratulate you on ratifying the Lisbon treaty, which is important for all of us.  The treaty will make the EU more efficient, less bureaucratic and more transparent, at the same time as respecting subsidiarity.  That is what it is all about.

The European Parliament adopted two reports in 2007-08, one on sport in general and one on football.  I was a rapporteur on the latter.  I mentioned subsidiarity because several British newspapers and others wrote that the EU wanted to regulate football, which is, of course, complete nonsense.  Some perceive it that way, but the EU, to make it utterly clear, cannot regulate sport and does not wish to do so.  That must be clear from the start.

The European Parliament supports those forces in sport who seek better governance, which is what we will be talking about, and those who enhance the ethical dimension of sport.  On football and sport in the UK, it is generally perceived that the premier league is the most successful league in the world, with the highest quality of football.  In past months and years, I have visited several community programmes, in Belgium, England and throughout the UK—I visited community programmes at Tottenham, Arsenal and Glasgow Celtic. 

We had a good structural compact with premier league representatives in Brussels, which included Mr. Bill Bush and his team.  We worked very closely with them when preparing the parliamentary report.  Let me stress that the two reports from the European Parliament were not made in splendid isolation: on the contrary, we had a lot of contact and several hearings with stakeholders from football from several EU countries.  We met your delegation, as you said.  We were also in contact with the right hon. Mr. Richard Caborn, especially when preparing my report, but also when preparing Mr. Arnaut’s independent sports review.

What is at the core of the parliamentary report?  I shall be brief, because I have only five minutes for this introductory statement.  You will remember the all-party parliamentary football group’s first inquiry and report in 2004, which I reread when preparing for this meeting.  The five broad headings in the report and most of the recommendations are in the European Parliament report.  We are on the same lines.

You explicitly asked for the premier league to double the broadcasting revenue that is redistributed to the rest of football, and we have asked leagues in other European countries to do likewise.  We are not imposing that, but asking them to do it.

You referred to club insolvencies in the report, as we did.  We recommended that some sort of cost control system is included in the licensing system. 

On corporate governance, you asked for the immediate introduction of a fit-and-proper person test, which is literally incorporated into our report and has been adopted by a large majority in the European Parliament.  The test applies not only to owners, but managers of clubs.

Someone referred to democratic deficits when it comes to football governance, and talked about the representation of supporters on the boards of clubs, tax breaks offered to supporters’ trusts and football supporters’ federations supported by football authorities.  All those things are in the European Parliament report.

On regulation, your report asked for licensing for players’ agents.  You explicitly asked the European Commission to regulate that one thing because we know how delicate the matter is, and how difficult it is to regulate anything in football, because there is no real legal basis on the European level.  That exception was made because the Stevens report made a lot of recommendations; we took those up, and explicitly asked the European Commission to see whether it was possible to introduce compulsory regulation of players’ agents.  The Commission is studying that proposal.

On broadcasting, you stipulated that a limited number of games must be broadcast on free-to-air channels, and referred to listed events, which were also aspects of our parliamentary report.  Largely, we are on the same lines.

Finally, another concern of ours is the traffic of young players, which is related to the discussion of FIFA’s six-plus-five proposal, and UEFA’s home-grown proposals on the training of young players.  There is a lot of criticism of the home-grown rule that has been implemented by UEFA in the champions league and the UEFA cup, because it could produce a perverse side effect and trafficking young players could become a bigger problem.  We must find a solution to that problem and are working on it.  One solution could be that the FIFA regulation that explicitly forbids transfers of under 18-year-old players could be implemented more intensely.  Currently, there are many exceptions to the regulation, and perhaps we simply have to close the back door to avoid the traffic of young players becoming a bigger problem in the months and years ahead.

I have spoken for more than five minutes, for which I apologise.  I conclude by saying that we are well aware that sport, professional sport and football are big business.  At the same time, as was mentioned, the market must play a role in football.  That is the point.  I do not think that football is simply big business.  There are some political forces in the European Parliament that do not consider football in terms of economics.  Some say that football must comply with EU competition law.  We are aware that football is big business, but it is more than that: sport has social and educational dimensions.  We want to plead for that view.  We do not want a general exemption of football from EU competition and other laws, but we are pleading for a specific treatment of sport.

Neena Gill MEP: I am delighted to be here and to have the opportunity to talk about football and its positive impact on society.  I know that most of you are most of you are familiar with the issues, but throughout the EU, football is seen as one of the things that joins us.  Football succeeds in bringing people together because it is accessible—it does not discriminate people in different locations, or of different age, gender or race.  It is a positive force.  It is a good educational tool, because it teaches people about fairness, keeping to the rules and teamwork, so there is a lot to be said for football’s ability to tackle some of the other problems that society faces.

I did the White Paper on sport and provided the legal committee’s opinion on it.  Interestingly, the paper focuses on how football helps the integration of migrants.  Many countries are looking at that because football promotes a shared sense of belonging and fosters participation.  In many member states, it has been pivotal and critical to greater integration.  Of course, you are all familiar with health issues.  Again, we are trying to tackle obesity, and football helps.  Most importantly, football is a great instrument in enabling socially vulnerable youngsters to keep off the streets.  There are many examples in the UK.  I often tell my colleagues in the European Parliament about how the English and Scottish leagues work with city councils and local community groups to enable many young people to be involved in inclusion projects.

I refer to “young people” guardedly, because football tends to relate mainly to young boys.  That is a shame, and there should be equal focus on girls.  I took “Bend It Like Beckham” to the European Parliament, and I am trying to encourage people to believe that more needs to be done on women’s football, especially in the UK.  In other countries, especially Germany, women’s football is becoming as big as men’s, so we need to do more to address the issue, and the FA needs to do more.

Football is about the people, whom it benefits.  However, people are the most important contributors to it.  Without fans, the professional game would not function.  I am concerned when I compare average ticket prices here—about £30—with other countries.  Clubs in German leagues have much lower ticket prices, and much higher turnouts.  Many young people have complained to me and said, “I am a real football fan, but I can’t afford to go to every Birmingham or Aston Villa or Man U game” or whatever team they might support.  That needs to be looked at.

The distribution of tickets is also worrying.  I do not believe that there is a proper audit or governance of the way in which tickets are distributed.  It is important that the sale of tickets is fair at all levels.  Many fans feel pushed out by corporate hospitality.  That is important because it gives revenue to clubs and helps them to cross-subsidise many of their other activities, but we need to look at these things in a balanced way.

People have also spoken to me about the sale of free-to-air rights, which continues.  The logic is that football fans are not going to be interested in a game between Turkey and Sweden, but I do not believe that that is true.  True football fans like to see a lot of international games. 

I ask you to look how we are moving away from the European structure of football.  There used to be no big difference between professional and amateur football.  Basically, there was a pyramid, and clubs went up or down.  The American model is not about winning or losing in that way, because things stay the same.  We can see that kind of system creeping in.  More and more, clubs are listed on the stock market, and I am not sure whether, ultimately, it is about winning the games, or whether it is about merchandise and ensuring profits for shareholders.  That can be a good thing, but it could mean a change to the successful competitive model.  Under the traditional model, football became the most popular sport in Europe, and perhaps in the world.  It contributes something like 3 or 4 per cent. of EU gross domestic product.  It led to the increase in value of television rights, sponsorship and so on, and contributes significantly to another Lisbon strategy, namely job creation.

These are the questions we need to answer.  How do we ensure that big groups, especially broadcasting groups, do not actually end up buying football clubs?  How do we prevent major private investors from owning a series of clubs?  For governance, we need a legal framework to ensure that they cannot do so—I am talking about the ownership of clubs in different member states, with reference to European competitions. 

Most people with whom I have discussed the issue at Commission and EU level support self-regulation.  In fact, the EU sees itself as complementary rather than regulatory.  That is the position of me, Ivo and others in the Friends of Football group in the European Parliament.  Self-regulation is good, but the clubs often ask the Commission to take decisions or a view on this or that.  Royal Charleroi Sporting Club, for example, did so because it did not like the FIFA ruling on releasing players for the national team.  There are problems with the governing model.  On the one hand, we do not want more European legislation, but, on the other, it is not fair for clubs to go to the Commission to ask it for guidance on a case-by-case basis.

Legal certainty is important, so maybe the Commission should say when football acts within EU legislation, which, as most of us know, it does, on things such as competition, social issues and the internal market.  However, because of the many grey areas and the amount of money in football, litigation is becoming more frequent.  Therefore, there is a resort to the European Court of Justice and the Commission.  We need to ask what sort of rules and regulations there should be at European level, and what should be dealt with at national level.  We should recognise that, historically, the game is managed by national bodies and that it is important to retain that for competition.

Alan Keen MP (Chair):  Before I call Lord Faulkner, I should say that there is nothing like having something in common to bring us closer together.  I notice that neither Belgium nor England have been particularly prominent in the celebrations of the last week or so, and will not next week.

Lord Faulkner: My question is directly linked to that—it is on the absence of England-eligible players playing at the top levels in English clubs, and Sepp Blatter’s six-plus-five proposal.  I guess that he is seeking an EU derogation for the specificity of sport, to take it outside normal employment law.  The measure was passed overwhelmingly, as you know, at the FIFA congress in Sydney; the FA voted for it; everybody says that they want to encourage home-grown players to come through: what has to happen to European law for it to become legal if it is decided that it is a good idea?

Neena Gill MEP: Clearly, as you said, there needs to be a derogation, because the measure would be against freedom of movement of persons.  I am unsure whether the six-plus-five proposal is any better than the home-grown rule that UEFA has proposed.  The latter seeks to address the problem that you and others are worried about, namely that not enough national players get experience at the most senior levels.  However, there were 10 English players on the field in the last champions league match.  Somehow, sometimes people think that the national team does badly because foreign players dominate the domestic game.  I do not think that that is the case.  Most fans and people want those who play at a club understand their locality and live nearby or have played for the club.  The big clubs will get around the nationality issue just as they have got around many other rules.

Lord Faulkner: How would they get around the nationality rule?

Neena Gill MEP: In certain sporting contexts, nationality is granted quite quickly.  I am not talking about the UK, but it can happen in many other countries.  In Italy, if people like a Brazilian player, suddenly a great-great grandfather of Italian origin can be found, and he will be granted nationality.  You can get around the nationality rule in exactly the same way as you can get around other rules.

I prefer the UEFA proposal.  When you start asking for derogation on one issue, other clubs will ask for derogations.  They will say, “We don’t want joint television rights” or whatever.  It is difficult to take a pick-and-mix approach to European legislation.

Ivo Belet MEP: I wish to add something on the six-plus-five proposal.  The FIFA Sydney congress did not adopt six-plus-five, but the objectives of the measure, which is different.

Lord Faulkner: By 2012.

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes, by 2012.  We agree 100 per cent. with the objective of six-plus-five, which is to stimulate clubs to invest more in home-grown talent.  However, as Neena said, six-plus-five is based on restricting nationality.  One famous ex-player from Barcelona wrote a column in one of the big Dutch newspapers to attack the European Parliament on the ground that we were blocking a good measure.  However, we agree with the objective of six-plus-five, and we are not blocking it.  It is not about the law, but about European treaties on free movement and discrimination based on nationality.  We cannot permit the rule, because we are against that.  For the past three years, we have been trying to agree a measure that has the same affect as six-plus-five, but that is compliant with the treaty, and we came up with the home-grown rule.

I admit that—I agree with Neena—six-plus-five is more efficient than home-grown.  The latter is a step in the right direction, but it is not as efficient as the former.  Six-plus-five is about limiting a squad of 11 players to a maximum of five foreign players.  That would be good.  I have figures for all the leagues.  In squads of 11 players in the premier league, there are an average four English players.

Lord Faulkner: English or British?

Ivo Belet MEP: English—I am talking about the premier league.  In Scotland, there are six Scottish players out of every 11, which is much higher.  In Italy, 7.3 players out of every 11 are Italian; in Spain, 6.9 out of 11 are Spanish; and in Germany, in the Bundesliga, 4.9 of every 11 players are German.  In England, there is an average of 3.9 English players from every 11.  I do not whether there is a direct link with the English national team’s performance, but it is not only about that, but about social cohesion, which you mentioned.  All those young players who go to training every day want to play for the first team, but they will be blocked.  Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool—the big four—have an average of 2.64 English players.  Not even three out of every eleven are English, which is a pity.  That is why we are supporting UEFA enthusiastically on the home-grown measure, although we know very well that it is not perfect.  Six-plus-five is not compatible with the EU treaty—it is not about changing the law, as Johan Cruyff said, but the treaty.

Lord Faulkner: Would the home-grown proposal be compatible with the law? 

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes.  For three years, we have negotiated with the Commission.  Two weeks ago, the day before FIFA’s Sydney congress, it gave us a green light for the home-grown measure.

Lord Faulkner: Chairman, could we have a paper on how the home-grown policy would work?  We do not have time to go into it today, but it would be interesting.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): I am sure that we could do that.  We had a non-elected representative of the European all-party sports group meeting last week, before the vote in Ireland.  I asked him about this matter, and he said that there was no possibility whatever for the six-plus-five rule.  I also asked whether a way would be found through the problem if we had a referendum next Thursday and it was certain to go the wrong way from a European point of view, and was met with stony silence.  It is very difficult to inspire people, certainly in this country, to vote in European elections.  What would happen if we tried to inspire 1 million football supporters to vote for freeing sport and making it different?

That only English-born players are allowed to play for the England team is obviously an exception to the beliefs of the EU.  There have been many twists and turns: I am very pro-European, and I would guess that if the issue made a difference to whether the UK is in the EU or not, some solution could be found.  Do you think that that would be the case, or is it absolutely black and white?

Neena Gill MEP: I am sure that anything is possible.  To be honest, England has not been managed by an English national for a very long time—I cannot remember when it was.

Several people: Steve McClaren. 

Neena Gill MEP: The question is whether the fans are concerned.  I think that they are concerned about the home-grown issue.  People who have an allegiance to a club want players in club academies to get opportunities to play.  People have put that point to me very strongly.  However, people never said, before this debate, “We want more British nationals”.  Rather, they have always said, “We want local people playing for our local clubs.  They should be given the opportunity to play in the big games”.  Everyone knows how difficult it is to get a treaty ratified by 27 member states, and rewriting the treaty on freedom of movement would be a major undertaking.  I am not sure that it would ever pass Ireland, even if this country agreed to it.

Mark Hendrick MP: Welcome, Nina and Ivo.  I had the privilege of serving in the European Parliament between 1994 and 1999, representing an area that hosts the Football League, the famous Preston North End and the National Football Museum—it is very much a footballing area of England.  I also had the privilege of getting the European Parliament involved in European football.  At the time, UEFA was threatening to withdraw the UEFA cup place for the Football League cup winners and give it the premier league.  We managed to stop that.  The influence of the European Parliament on, not regulation of, UEFA, stopped that move.  It was proper for the European Parliament to exercise such influence.

On the question of foreign and home-grown players, following Lord Faulkner’s question, it was my understanding that to get the derogation, heads of Government would have to instruct the Commission to come forward with a proposal, which obviously would be considered by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, to exempt football or perhaps sport in general, and to allow certain aspects of EU law, specifically internal market law and the two other things that Neena mentioned, not to be applied.  Clearly, it is one thing for the European Parliament to express an opinion on that, but nothing will change until a derogation and an exemption is introduced.

Someone stated that you could rule in favour of home-grown players, but I would be interested in the legal opinion on that, because it would still discriminate against foreign players.  Do either of you think that it is important that somebody who sells their labour as a footballer should be able to sign and play for a club in any member state of the EU, based on his ability?  How do you weigh that against the need, especially in countries such as England, to encourage home-grown players?  The premier league has a financial pull and attraction, because of money from television, and the average of 3.9 English players in English premier league teams is low, so not enough of our top players get the experience that they need to make the England team as good as they should be, or good enough to compete, for example, at Euro 2008. 

Ivo Belet MEP: First, the freedom of EU citizens to travel and work throughout the EU is a holy principle of the Union.  It applies also to sports people.  It is important for footballers to have the opportunity to play everywhere in the EU.  The home-grown measure will not hinder that; on the contrary, players who play in the premier league need not be English—they could be Belgian, Dutch or Moroccan—but they need to be raised and trained by the club.

Mark Hendrick MP: Does this go back to the issue of trafficking?  Arsenal brings in very young players from other countries.  Do you object to such trafficking? 

Ivo Belet MEP: That is the back door of the home-grown measure and it must be closed.  UEFA, FIFA and the European Parliament explicitly mentioned the danger to which you alluded in our resolution adopted on 8 May 2008.  The rule would oblige clubs to raise players between 15 and 21 years old.  A perverse side effect could be that clubs look for good players aged from, say, 12 or 13 years old in Brazil, Argentina or Africa, and bring them to Europe with their families.  If they did so, it would be possible to get an exemption from the general rule that under-18s cannot so move.  We must tackle that problem.  There are European recommendations on directives on the traffic of people or the labour of minors.  Those recommendations and laws could close that back door and eliminate the risk a growing problem of traffic of minors in sports.  I hope that that answers your question.

Mark Hendrick MP: It seems slightly contradictory.  You said that a home-grown player could be from anywhere around the world, who is trained from a young age in England to play for an English club, but I thought that the objective was to improve the national game by getting people who are born in England into the higher echelons of football, so that they can compete at the highest level and play for the national team.  Are those two things contradictory?

Ivo Belet MEP: There is no contradiction.  That aspect of the home-grown rule also explains why the Commission had problems.  As a matter of fact, on the field, it will lead to some sort of indirect discrimination, because most of the home-grown players in the premier league will not be Moroccan, Dutch or Belgian, but English.  That is natural and logical.  That is why the Commission said that the measure could lead to indirect discrimination between players.  In fact, it will raise the number of English players who play in the premier league.

Neena Gill MEP: I share your view that home-grown should mean local children, in Birmingham or Wolverhampton, say, having the opportunity to be in the local club academy and to move forward.  However, there is a danger, as you pointed out.  I am aware that there is a lot of trafficking of young minors from west Africa.  The families of people with potential are seduced by clubs who say, “Let us take your 12 or 13-year-old to Europe and he will have an incredible future”.  We need to find mechanisms to prevent such situations, but I think that it is down to the clubs.  Legal measures to prevent those situations are in place, but it is a question whether the clubs will operate the rule according to its intentions.

Mark Hendrick MP: If there are so many foreign players in the premier league, why do you think that a high proportion of English players will be brought up as home-grown players?

Ivo Belet MEP: The measure will not be revolutionary—the home-grown rule is moderate, because it will oblige one third of a squad of 25 to be home-grown.  That is not much.  It is accepted by the Commission, as we hope it will be before the judges at the court of justice in Luxembourg.  We are not sure whether it will be accepted by them: there is no case at the moment, and we hope that there will not be in future, but it is possible.  It is a proportional measure and applies to eight out of 25 players, which is not a half or two thirds of 25, but one third.

Mark Hendrick MP: Would you say that it is quite prescriptive?

Ivo Belet MEP: How do you mean?

Mark Hendrick MP: It fixes the numbers.

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes, it fixes the numbers.  It is already being implemented at UEFA level, for teams in the champions league and UEFA cup.  It also applies in some national leagues, but not yet in the premier league.

Mark Hendrick MP: So it is not random, but managed?

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): We are going to finish at a quarter to five, so you have five minutes. 

Clive Betts MP: At what age does a young player have to start at a club to qualify under the home-grown rule?

Neena Gill MEP: It will start at 15. 

Clive Betts MP: Does that age stipulation get around the possibility of players from outside the EU being given a permit to work here, but they will not yet be 16?

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes.  You have to be trained for three years within a club, or at another club in the same competition. 

Clive Betts MP: So you cannot therefore bring players from Africa or Latin America over here because they could not get a work permit at age 15?  As long as you stop people coming over as families, you will avoid the trafficking issue.

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes, exactly.

Clive Betts MP: Do you agree that the problem must be addressed, because at some academies, a number of players have nothing to do with the locality of the club?  They come from Africa in particular. 

Ivo Belet MEP: Allow me to give one concrete example.  I am a supporter of Anderlecht.  The manager told me last week that the club has a young player—a 14-year-old—who has African roots and Belgian nationality.  Several clubs from the English premier league are trying to grab him.  FIFA regulations forbid that, but not if the player moves from Brussels to Manchester or London with his whole family.  There is no longer a problem with such a situation.  FIFA forbids the movement of players on non-sporting grounds, but how can they prove that?  The regulation must be implemented and the situation monitored and controlled much more intensely.  It is terrible if a player of 14 is taken from Brussels in such a way.

Clive Betts MP: We ought to be concerned not simply about the odd successful player for whom such a situation could be justified, but about the dozens of others who fail.

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes, precisely.

Clive Betts MP: The UEFA licensing regime is the only common feature of regulation for clubs—they must be part of it to participate in UEFA competitions.  Are you looking to go further?  I understand that UEFA had taken a view on a second stage of licensing, but it seems to have been dropped.  Is not the licensing regime pretty tame?  Is the reality that some football associations are not good at self-enforcement?

Neena Gill MEP: There have been discussions on whether we need a more level playing field for clubs in different member states.  That does not happen because different rules govern different clubs.  However, overall, the view is that we should stay clear of such proposals.  It is difficult to achieve a level playing field by more regulation from Brussels.

Ivo Belet MEP: This is a really important question.  As you will know, the Lloyds annual review came out in May.  It is interesting.  When we talk about licensing, we are talking not only about UEFA licensing, but national licensing.  There is an interesting comparison of licensing for Bundesliga and premier league clubs.  I do not think that the Bundesliga is holy, but it has a much higher ethical standard than the premier league.  I am sorry to say that, but it is in the Lloyds report.  In the Bundesliga, all clubs must have sound and healthy finances, whereas some premier league clubs have large debts.  Such debts would not be allowed in the Bundesliga.  There is a huge difference regarding the ownership of clubs.  In the Bundesliga, most clubs are supporter associations and cannot be controlled or bought by an investor from England, Germany, America, Thailand or wherever.  Rules forbid such things.

That means that teams in, for instance, the Bundesliga, which, according to Lloyds, has higher ethical standards, are punished on the pitch.  Because of the strict rules, such teams have less access to the big capital, which means that there is no level playing field in the champions league or UEFA cup.  That is why German clubs are not represented anymore in the final stages of the champions league.  They are punished for the fact that the Bundesliga is well run.  It is not for the European Union to regulate such a situation—our function and yours is to put pressure on UEFA and the premier league to take into account what is happening.

Clive Betts MP: I was going to ask whose job it is.  You say that it is UEFA’s job, but that the European Parliament and Commission should raise the issue.  

Ivo Belet MEP: Yes.  We should raise the issue, not regulate.  We do not have the competence to do that.  However, you should put pressure on your association and leagues.

Clive Betts MP: It is pretty evident that there is UEFA does not properly enforce compliance with its existing standards on football finances and administration, particularly in eastern Europe.  Clubs from those places are still allowed to play in UEFA competitions.

Ivo Belet MEP: Exactly.

Alan Keen MP (Chair): Neena made the perceptive point that football keeps people off the streets.  That principle is even more important as applied to Members of Parliament, some of whom still play football.  I suspect that most of our constituents would agree that we do much less damage to the nation when playing.  I cannot thank you enough for coming all this way.  Thank you both for coming.