UEFA has reportedly issued a warning to the UK Government that England could be banned from the men’s Euro 2028 Euro Championships if the UK proceeds with plans for an independent football regulator.

This stark caution (which also extends to Premier League teams who face being banned from UEFA club competitions including the Champions League, Europa League and Conference League) stems from UEFA's long-standing stance against political interference in football.

Could this really be true? Have the UK's plans to protect the beautiful game irked UEFA to the point where expulsion from Europe's major tournaments is the only recourse? Might this ultimately spare us the agony of a third straight Euro final defeat for England? Or could this merely be ‘sabre rattling’ from a European football body anxious not to allow political authorities to meddle in footballing matters?

The UK Independent Football Regulator: What is Being Proposed?

The independent football regulator, proposed by the UK government under The Football Governance Bill, is intended to have significant powers over English football clubs - particularly in the areas of financial oversight, governance, and club ownership. It aims to ensure financial sustainability, greater accountability, and fan representation in the running of football clubs, especially in the aftermath of high-profile collapses such as that of Bury FC. This move is part of a broader initiative to safeguard the integrity of English football, particularly at the club level.

A central aspect of the regulator’s proposed powers will be the introduction of a new ‘licensing model’, which every club in the top five tiers of English football will be required to adhere to. Under this model, football clubs will need to obtain and maintain a licence to operate. This licence is expected to be conditional upon clubs meeting certain standards of financial health, governance, and fan engagement. Key aspects of the proposed licensing model include:

  • Financial Sustainability Rules: Clubs will be required to submit regular financial reports to the regulator, demonstrating that they are operating within their means. Clubs would also need to show they have adequate financial plans to avoid insolvency. This is aimed at curbing reckless spending, particularly in the pursuit of promotion or success in European competitions, which has led many clubs to the brink of bankruptcy.
  • Ownership and Governance Standards: The regulator will ensure that club owners and directors meet specific "fit and proper" tests, akin to those already in place under the Premier League and EFL, but with additional rigour. This could include assessments of the owners’ financial resources and ethical suitability to run a football club.
  • Fan Engagement: A critical component of the new regime will be giving fans a stronger voice in how their clubs are run. It is expected that a certain level of fan representation will be mandated within clubs, either through formal consultation or by establishing "shadow boards" with fan participation. The regulator may also provide clubs with guidelines on fan ownership models, inspired by the ‘50+1’ rule in Germany.

UEFA’s concerns

UEFA's concerns around the UK's plans to regulate football domestically are rooted in its statutes, which prohibit "government interference" in football affairs. Article 59(1) of the UEFA Statutes specifically outlines that "matters concerning football should be settled by the appropriate football organisations" and not by external political bodies. 

FIFA echoes this in its regulations, particularly in Article 14 of the FIFA Statutes, which ensures that member associations, such as the FA, remain autonomous and free from governmental or political influence. Article 15 of the FIFA Statutes further requires members to be neutral in matters of politics and religion, to be independent, and avoid any forms of political interference.

UEFA General secretary (Theodore Theodoridis) has expressly highlighted concerns about the potential for “scope creep” within the independent football regulator. Writing to UK Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, he expressed: “While the initial intent of the [IFR] is to oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets, there is always a risk that, once established, the IFR may expand its mandate beyond these areas”.

However, just this week, Keir Starmer refused to budge on the issue - insisting the UK's plans for an independent football regulator are fully compliant with existing football regulations and stating a clear intention to continue with the objective as planned. 

Is there precedent for domestic regulation of football?

This is not the first time the UK government has regulated to intervene in football matters. The Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 both legislated on issues such as hooliganism and crowd control without concerns from UEFA or FIFA at the time. However, these acts focused on public safety rather than the governance of ‘football’ as a sport, which explains why they escaped opposition from football’s governing bodies.

France provides a compelling example of more direct ‘football’ regulation however. The “Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion” (DNCG) is an independent body established by legislation that regulates the financial affairs of football clubs in France. This body operates without apparent issues from UEFA, even though its scope includes financial scrutiny similar to that proposed for the UK regulator. Furthermore, the Fédération Française de Football (FFF) operates in close coordination with the French government’s sports ministry, yet no bans or sanctions have been threatened by UEFA over this set-up.

Political interference and sporting bans

UEFA and FIFA do ultimately have the power to suspend or expel members (including national associations like the FA) as a disciplinary measure for failing to adhere to applicable statutes and regulations. Previous examples of UEFA and/or FIFA exercising these rights in the context of political interference include:

  • Greece: In 2006, Greece was briefly suspended from international football after the Greek government passed a law that interfered with the autonomy of the Greek Football Federation, in violation of UEFA and FIFA regulations.
  • Moldova: Moldova's clubs and national team faced a temporary ban from UEFA competitions in 1999 after political interference was detected in the running of its football federation.
  • Zimbabwe and Kenya: In 2002, FIFA suspended Zimbabwe and Kenya from international competitions due to government interference in their football administrations. Zimbabwe’s government-run Sports and Recreation Commission refused to cede control of its football association, while Kenya’s sports ministry dismissed the football federation's leaders over corruption allegations. The bans resulted in both countries’ exclusion from international events and a freeze in FIFA funding. Zimbabwe’s ban was only lifted in July 2023, while Kenya’s was lifted in November 2022.

Conclusion

The UK's proposed football regulator certainly raises interesting questions about the balance between safeguarding the financial health and integrity of football clubs (on the one hand) and respecting the autonomy of the sport's existing governing bodies (on the other). While UEFA’s warning may seem stringent, it aligns with a long-standing policy of ensuring football remains free from political interference and EUFA has deemed it necessary to pull the trigger on membership suspensions in the past. 

That said, any UEFA decision to force Lee Carsley's England team to watch Euro 2028 from the sofa will likely turn on the structure (and limitations) of the new regulator. Examples such as France's DNCG would evidence that, with appropriate structuring and dialogue with UEFA, an independent regulator can work in compliance with UEFA regulations. Ultimately, finding a workable solution that satisfies both UEFA’s statutes and the UK government’s objectives will be key to avoiding a potential clash.