'Historic' football regulator bill becomes law - what it means for fans
What powers will the independent football regulator have?
Tough new financial regulation to make sure clubs have a long-term sustainable futureStronger tests to stop rogue owners New standards for fan engagement in club decision-makingBan on clubs joining closed-shop competitions and breakaway leagues'Backstop powers' to ensure a fair financial distribution between leaguesProtections for key club heritage aspects like home shirt colours and club badges and stadium moves
'Watershed moment' for English football
Nandy highlighted some of the future changes supporters will see, now the bill has been passed into law. "For fans like Sheffield Wednesday, who I spoke to at the start of this journey, it will mean you can't have the colours changed without fans being in the room and part of the decision-making process," she said. "For Wimbledon supporters it will mean your stadium can't be relocated without you having a say. It will put fans back in the rooms where decisions are made, it will mean all clubs have to reach the standard of the best clubs." English Football League (EFL) chairman Rick Parry said the bill is a "watershed moment in the history of English football" and would mean clubs could "rise and fall through the pyramid without the threat of financial catastrophe". The IFR could also help the EFL and Premier League reach an agreement on a new funding deal, which Parry says is currently "destabilising, ever widening, and deeply unfair" . Kieran Maguire, Associate Professor in Football Finance at University of Liverpool, said the legislation will protect clubs from "exploitation", and the IFR is a necessary safeguard to ensure clubs "are not treated solely as assets". Miles said the FSA will work with the IFR to ensure fans' voices remain "at the forefront of the debate".He added: "We are very proud that the FSA was at the heart of change, helping to bring in laws which can help protect the clubs we love from the worst excesses of owners throughout the professional game."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Thursday's briefing: Rashford unveiled at Barcelona and Liverpool sign Ekitike
At Euro 2025, Aitana Bonmati's extra-time winner saw Spain set up a final clash against England with a 1-0 win over Germany. We have reached an agreement for the transfer of Eintracht Frankfurt forward Hugo Ekitike, subject to international clearance 😎 — Liverpool FC (@LFC) July 23, 2025 Liverpool have completed the signing of striker Hugo Ekitike from Eintracht Frankfurt. A deal was reached between the two clubs on Monday for the 23-year-old to join Arne Slot's Premier League champions, which the PA news agency understands to be for a guaranteed £69million plus a potential £10million in add-ons. The striker, who scored 22 goals for Frankfurt in all competitions last season, flew to England on Tuesday to undergo a medical ahead of the deal's completion and will now travel to Asia to join his new Liverpool team-mates on their pre-season tour. 🏴 England's finest. From Lineker to Rashford. — FC Barcelona (@FCBarcelona) July 23, 2025 Marcus Rashford said Barcelona 'feels like home' after joining the LaLiga champions on loan as he refused to criticise Manchester United. Rashford has become the first of United's five wantaway players to find a way out of Old Trafford, landing the move he has desired since January when he instead joined Aston Villa on loan until the end of the season. Barca's agreement includes an option to make the deal permanent. That clause is reported to be 35million euros (£30.3million) and PA understands the deal sees Barcelona cover Rashford's wages for the campaign. 'I want to win the biggest trophies and feel like Barcelona is a huge club in the football world so it is the perfect place,' Rashford said. 'It feels like home. I feel I made the right decision. I'm excited to get going and eager to play the first game in front of the fans.' Time to go again. We will face Spain in the #WEURO2025 final. 🤩 — Lionesses (@Lionesses) July 23, 2025 Lucy Bronze insisted England had nothing to prove after booking their place in the Euro 2025 final with a dramatic 2-1 comeback victory over Italy in Geneva. The defending champions were the heavy favourites in the semi-final, but it took another tournament-saving late equaliser from 19-year-old substitute Michelle Agyemang and Chloe Kelly's extra-time winner to ensure England would fight on. The Lionesses' never-say-die attitude has elicited plenty of deserved praise, but opening their tournament with a loss to France, then twice eking out knockout victories from the brink of elimination, has also sparked concern about England's ability to overcome their toughest challenge yet – a meeting with Spain for the title. 'It's hard to stay at the top in international football, so many teams, they have performances, then it's up and down, they develop, but this team just keeps fighting until the end,' Bronze said. 'I feel like we didn't have anything to prove because we've been there, we've done it many, many times. 'It's just the fact that the game's getting better, international football's not as easy as it used to be. Everybody's fighting and everyone wants to win and everyone feels like they can win.' BonMAGIC 🪄#WEUROPOTM || @VisaUK — UEFA Women's EURO 2025 (@WEURO2025) July 23, 2025 Aitana Bonmati's extra-time winner saw Spain reach the European Championship final with a 1-0 win over Germany. Spain eventually found the breakthrough with seven minutes of extra time remaining when Bonmati was played down the right and struck from a tight angle to send her side into Sunday's showpiece, where they come up against England in a repeat of the 2023 World Cup final. Hibernian travel to Denmark to face Midtjylland in the first leg of their Europa League second qualifying round tie. Northern Ireland side Larne host Kosovan side Pristina in the Conference League second qualifying round, whilst fellow Irish Premiership outfit Linfield travel to Lithuanian side Zalgiris and Shamrock Rovers of the League of Ireland travel to Gibraltar to play St. Joseph's.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock
The wheels of British justice are appallingly slow. Back in 2016, I wrote that the conviction of Tom Hayes, the bank trader jailed for conspiring to manipulate the Libor interest rate, was unsafe. Today, finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to quash his conviction. The case of Carlo Palombo, the other trader who had his conviction quashed today, was not linked to Hayes. Palombo received four years in 2019. When ex-Citi and UBS banker Hayes was found guilty in 2015, he was sentenced to 14 years, an astonishing long term for a white-collar criminal in this country. That was reduced to 11 years on appeal, but as I remarked at the time, you get less for killing someone. There is no doubt he was being made an example of. There was considerable public anger at the way bankers had walked scot-free from the financial crisis – still is – and Hayes was seen as discouraging others. He was portrayed as being at the centre of a web, setting the benchmark rate used for millions of personal loans; he was therefore the worst of the worst, an arch-villain who profited from ordinary folks; he, everyone seemed to agree, deserved every moment spent inside. But in his case, there literally were no others. A year later, in a blow to the Serious Fraud Office, which brought the prosecutions, six brokers were acquitted of conspiring with him to fix the interbank rate. On their acquittals, in his cell at HMP Lowdham Grange, Hayes could be forgiven for raging against the iniquity of a system that saw his life ruined. Particularly, as in the professional hierarchy, Hayes was a junior. We were supposed to believe that others never condoned what he did. It simply never rang true that he was able to act without anyone above him at the bank knowing and agreeing. That unease only increased with details emerging about his personality. He was a bit of a geek, as many are in his area of work. He learned by heart the Highway Code from cover to cover when he was learning to drive. It was one of the traits that earned him his nicknames of 'Rain Man' and 'Kid Asperger's'. But, as he explained, it also meant he was ideally suited to futures trading. 'The success of getting it right, the success of finding market inefficiencies, the success of identifying opportunities and then when you get it right, it's like solving that equation,' Hayes said in court. 'It's make money, lose money, and it's just so pure.' Symptomatic of an underlying condition, he was also open and personable, not sophisticated at keeping something secret. Indeed, that was his defence, that what he did was common; he was encouraged to do what he did and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly. It would have been more reassuring if his bank bosses had joined him in the dock. But they never did. Nevertheless, the promise of the subsequent trial of his alleged co-conspirators did provide some comfort. Then they were acquitted. Hayes said he was delighted with the outcome. He was 'thrilled that the brokers can return to their families and their lives' but was 'bewildered' that he was left 'in a situation where he [was] convicted of conspiring with nobody'. Originally, there were 22 names on the draft indictment, including the six found innocent. At Hayes' trial, most of the evidence presented against him was in relation to those six – hence the Serious Fraud Office's decision to pursue only them. Most of the other names were thought to be peripheral. Hayes said he had never met or even spoken to them; there were some he'd been in touch with via email or other messaging, but just a few times. Ahead of Hayes' trial, the judge, Mr Justice Cooke, decided to separate his hearing from that of the brokers and his alleged co-conspirators. Their statements were not allowed to be submitted in Hayes' trial. Presumably, if they had been, given the jury's conclusion in their trial, this may have assisted his defence. Critically, his jury was unaware of evidence relating to whether or not an agreement between the co-defendants was ever reached. After their acquittals, David Green, then head of the SFO, said: 'The key issue in this trial was whether these defendants were party to a dishonest agreement with Tom Hayes. By their verdicts, the jury have said that they could not be sure that this was the case.' It was an odd use of words from Green. He was trying to justify the prosecution by saying that in the end, the jury could not be certain, so therefore they acquitted. Where, though, does the jury say that? Equally, the jury could surely have been certain there was no agreement – Green simply did not know. In Hayes' earlier trial, however, without the evidence from his alleged co-conspirators, the jury was certain there was a conspiracy. Later, with those not guilty verdicts, that did not seem right or fair. During his closing speech to the jury at Hayes' trial, Mukul Chawla QC for the prosecution was keen to point out that Hayes was the first but would not be the last. Again this was a reference to the six. But look what happened. In light of their acquittals and the non-submission of their statements in his trial, Hayes deserved a fair hearing. Shamefully, it took nine further years for that day to arrive.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's golfing weekend in Scotland is an even bigger headache than his state visit
Donald Trump's golfing trip to Scotland this weekend has started to look like a few days of welcome relief for the US president. From Downing Street's perspective, however, it may all look a bit different. At home, Trump is embroiled in linked controversies that seem to have come out of the blue. Having seen off most of the legal challenges to the orders he issued in his first days back in office, he now faces a quasi-rebellion from his hitherto loyal and largely unquestioning base over a case that has little obvious bearing on high politics at all. These die-hard Trumpists were disappointed by official findings that the accused child-trafficker and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, did indeed die by suicide in prison and that there is, and was, no secret client list. They had shared a conspiracy theory that Epstein was part of a shadowy elite, that he had been killed to keep him quiet, and that after Trump came to power, the truth would emerge. Now, Trump is himself being accused of an establishment cover-up, and is confronting a social media storm that even this master of the medium is struggling to control. Trump has also launched lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, and two journalists, denying a report of links between Trump and Epstein, including a bawdy birthday greeting allegedly sent by Trump. The prospect of a court confrontation between the two titans is tantalising. Trump has also ordered files relating to the Epstein case to be published, and both his attorney general and Congress want to question Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with the case so far. It may be surmised that they hope to tempt Maxwell with a reduction in her 20-year sentence and persuade her to offer some 'helpful' evidence. With only a year until the start of the midterm congressional election campaign, Trump needs to keep his base intact. No wonder four days in the wilds of Scotland – the homeland of his late mother and two Trump-owned golf courses, including a new resort on the Menie Estate, outside Aberdeen – might look like a welcome distraction. His foes on this side of the Atlantic are already tuning up – wags have put up a spoof sign at his golf course near Aberdeen that says 'twinned with Epstein Island' – and elaborate police and security operations are in train. When Trump last visited his Scottish businesses two years ago, he was not president. Now, even on a private visit, he requires presidential-level security, at least some of which must be supplied and paid for by the host country. The timing of this trip, less than one month before Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK, adds risk. Any infelicities, real or perceived, on either side now are in danger of negatively colouring the later visit, the invitation for which was conveyed by Keir Starmer during his trip to the White House soon after Trump's inauguration. Since then, content, timing and tone have all been in contention. The recent state visit by France's President Macron, with its especially high pageantry, address to parliament, and prominent deployment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, seemed top-of-the-line. Like the Macrons, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle, but this occasion has been timed to exclude the possibility of a parliamentary address and the visit to Balmoral that Trump angled for. Nor, the Palace has made clear, will the King be meeting Trump during his golfing weekend. The private and state visits are wisely being kept distinct. At government level, in contrast, a different choice has been made. The prime minister is expected to hold talks with Trump, potentially on every current issue, from trade tariffs to Ukraine, in or near Aberdeen, and possibly at Trump's golf course. There will also be a meeting with Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, who has decided that it is his duty 'to engage, to protect and to promote the interests of the people of Scotland', despite vocal opposition from other groups. Now, it could be said that Starmer, in particular, was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Given that the decision has been taken, however, the aim must be to limit any damage. Anything that smacks of paying tribute must be avoided, and that includes meeting Trump at his golf course and any announcement about awarding the 2028 British Open to the now Trump-owned Turnberry, as the president would reportedly like. By meeting Trump in Scotland, Starmer risks not only becoming the focus of protests himself but also party to the negative blowback from British public opinion. As much can go wrong as go right. The prime minister should have followed the Palace and left all official encounters for the main event, where the protocol is clear and risks of all kinds are minimised. After all, there are fewer than four weeks to wait.
