Wendy Saunders\u2019s articles from Lewis Silkin are most popular:<\/p>\n
Lewis Silkin are most popular: <\/p>\n
\n within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
<\/p>\n
The Independent Football Regulator (\u201cIFR\u201d) is brand
\nnew. With it come lots of unknowns. To get a good understanding,
\nand indeed level of comfort, about what the new regulatory regime
\nunder the Football Governance Act 2025 (\u201cFGA 2025\u201d)
\nmight mean for football clubs in practice, it is helpful to
\nconsider the regulatory models that inspired its design \u2013 the
\nkey one being that of the Financial Conduct Authority
\n(\u201cFCA\u201d). By doing this, we can anticipate how the IFR
\nis likely to apply the new regime and flex its new powers.<\/p>\n
Why the FCA?<\/p>\n
The FCA’s statutory objectives include protecting
\nconsumers and the integrity of the UK financial system, promoting
\ncompetition in the interests of consumers and ensuring relevant
\nmarkets function well. Essentially, the FCA plays a key role in
\nensuring that the financial system works well for the UK
\npublic.<\/p>\n
While financial institutions and football clubs are vastly
Establishing the appropriate regulatory model for football
The Fan-Led Review of Football
In terms of financial regulation for clubs the Review proposed a
\ndifferent beasts, the level of their importance to the country is
\nnot dissimilar. The\u00a0Fan-Led Review of Football
\nGovernance<\/a>\u00a0recognised the place of football clubs in
\nBritish people’s lives and society \u2013 acknowledging the
\ncultural significance of clubs and their role in maintaining
\ncommunity cohesion. It also recognised the potential for clubs to
\ncontribute positively to the economy, but also the perilous
\nfinancial position of many of them. It is therefore not surprising
\nthat the law-makers turned to the FCA for inspiration on how to
\ncreate a protective regime, which could also allow well run clubs
\nto thrive economically.<\/p>\n
\nclubs<\/p>\n
\nGovernance<\/a>\u00a0considered several regulatory models and
\nconcluded that regulation needed to be led by an independent
\nregulator created by an Act of Parliament. Further, it noted the
\nregulator should be independent from football clubs and government
\nand have a clear statutory objective with strong investigatory and
\nenforcement powers. The Review panel acknowledged the contribution
\nof many experts who were willing to assist with its work,
\nparticularly the supervision team at the FCA.<\/p>\n
\nsimple system based on capital and liquidity requirements used
\nalongside a financial resilience supervision model operated by the
\nFCA. Firstly, clubs would be obliged to ensure they had enough cash
\ncoming into the business, control of costs and suitable processes
\nand systems to ensure the sustainability of the business. Clubs
\nwould need buffers in place for shocks and unforeseen
\ncircumstances. The regulator would look at clubs’ plans,
\nconduct its own analysis and if a club plan was not credible, the
\nclub did not have enough liquidity, costs were too high or risk not
\naccounted for properly, the regulator would be able to demand an
\nimprovement in finances (e.g. inject some cash into the business or
\nlower the wage bill). Essentially, a club would be able to invest
\nto seek to improve its competitive position but would no longer be
\nable to gamble with a club’s future. For a club to do this,
\nthe money would need to be in the club upfront and committed.<\/p>\n