Will an independent regulator make any difference in English football?
That's what we want to know in our latest instalment of The Debate, in which two of our esteemed team take on one another to argue for or against.
This month, deputy editor Matthew Ketchell takes on senior staff writer Mark White but we want to hear from you: vote in our poll below and leave a comment.
YES: Independent regulation brings fans back closer to the heart of the game, says Matthew Ketchell (@ketchell)
What makes me confident that an independent regulator will make a positive difference is that Premier League CEO Richard Masters and directors of leading clubs opposed it.
Too much focus is on cash flow at the top of the game rather than the chasms growing throughout the pyramid beneath it.
For the past two Premier League seasons, the three promoted clubs have mustered anaemic efforts to stay in the league. In 2020/21, parachute payments from the Premier League to five recently relegated clubs totalled �233m three times as much as the other 19 Championship sides received in total.
That only increases the pressure to overspend, prompting the rest of the EFL to do the same. Its not worth the risk ask fans of Bury, Macclesfield, Southend, Wigan or Morecambe.
The Independent Football Regulator (IFR) will have power to look at all the elements of footballs distribution mechanisms, with parachute payments high on the agenda.
One change the IFR could implement is to send more money down the chain and distribute it more evenly.
That may well improve competitiveness in the EFL, increase standards and mitigate reckless spending. The top tier is nothing without firm foundations.
Independent regulation brings fans back closer to the heart of the game, thanks to the bill ensuring that supporters have a genuine say on ticketing and club heritage.
Like listed buildings, football clubs need to be protected, maintained and accessible. A regulator will ensure they are.
Individual owners always act in self-interest; you could argue that politicians do, too. The difference is a regulator can be held accountable.
NO: Football has never benefited from another layer of bureaucracy, says Mark White (@markwhlte)
On paper, an Independent Football Regulator looks like its a great idea. But the game isnt played on paper.
Its not that I dont want football to be better run, its that I dont have faith that yet another anonymous acronym will offer any solutions. This July, MPs were asked to vote on giving football fans 10 free-to-air matches a season, and they chose not to.
From the Super League fiasco to the PGMOL mess, committees fail to hold anyone accountable.
The fact that the bill references things were already supposed to have, such as owners tests and fan consultation, is proof that the current bodies arent working. So what makes this one different?
For more than 30 years, the Premier League has governed itself, splitting some TV revenue equally and voting on rule changes. Its become one of the countrys biggest exports: a billion-pound industry, with investors from the US elite and the Middle East, with the Championship not far behind.
Some will argue that an independent regulator intervening in a successful industry puts that at risk but that horse has bolted.
In theory, the IFR will prevent owners in English football from being able to compete with foreign leagues in practice, the rich and powerful are far too rich and powerful to be scuppered by a faceless ombudsman. Were trying to install stabilisers on the Millennium Falcon here.
At many European clubs, supporters are at the core, whether through socios or the 50+1 rule, and English football needs an equivalent something stronger than just a golden share to veto decisions. We need proper change, not hollow gestures.
Id love a regulator to make a difference, but when has football ever benefited from another layer of bureaucracy? Its like suggesting we need another VAR room to catch all the errors from the first one.
