ON THURSDAY the government released a “strengthened” Football Governance Bill, which aims to “address the significant issues facing the financial sustainability of elite men’s football in England.”

It is an update to the previous Bill proposed under the previous government and the “strengthened” version is a much better proposition, even though doubts naturally remain given the political and financial environment in which an independent football regulator would be operating.

The main improvement is that it dropped the requirement to consider government foreign policy. It claims that this now “cements the regulator’s full independence.”

An “independent” regulator subject to the latest trends and whims of government foreign policy would have been fairly useless and not really independent at all, as so much of top-level football is intertwined with geopolitical manoeuvrings and which rich countries the British government is cosying up to at any one time.

A lot of football ownership at the top level that is now deemed problematic has been encouraged by previous governments.

Whether that be the Russian ownership of Chelsea and investment in other clubs, encouraging the Saudi ownership of Newcastle, or the Western capitalist consortiums across the league, governments have always been happy to use football clubs as bargaining chips for political and economic relations.

As a result, the removal of the requirement to consider government foreign policy is a welcome one, if (and it’s a big if) it works in practice.

Other changes to the Bill give the regulator the ability to assess parachute payments as part of a wider remit to assess financial sustainability post-relegation, and the ability to compel owners to consult fans on things like ticketing and cultural and heritage-related issues such as the stadium and club identity.

The EFL welcomed the changes in a statement (though surprisingly didn’t mention parachute payments) but the Premier League was less enthusiastic.

“We remain concerned about the regulatory framework,” the Premier League said.

“Specifically, we believe rigid banking-style regulation, and the regulator’s unprecedented and untested powers to intervene in the distribution of the Premier League’s revenues, could have a negative impact on the League’s continued competitiveness, clubs’ investment in world-class talent and, above all, the aspiration that drives our global appeal and growth.”

The Premier League did say it “recognises that key elements of the Bill can help make the English game stronger, including the principles of strengthened fan engagement, protecting club heritage, preventing breakaway leagues and encouraging responsible ownership.”

Premier League owners have long had the chance to consult fans in a more constructive and meaningful manner as part of the way the league is run, but have failed to do so.

The Premier League is made up of the teams playing in the league at any one time, so if the fans had more say in the running of their teams at organisational and cultural levels, working alongside owners and other stakeholders, then the Premier League itself could be set up for more supporter input at the decision-making level.

Instead, Premier League owners treated fans like customers. There are many views on the different types of ownership: which ones are good and which ones are bad, but from Saudi and UAE state ownership to Western capitalists and consortiums, most will all at some point have taken advantage of fan loyalty.

With its (sort of) democratic set-up, the Premier League might have been ideal for a system of fan engagement, but owners and groups of owners ruled for so long with little care for fan input.

The prospect of a regulator has seen them scrambling at the last minute to convince everyone that they care about supporters, though the actions of some in recent times with regard to ticket pricing and concessions have just further confirmed they view fans as customers.

This scrambling has included desperate attempts at financial restraints, which have unfairly punished some clubs. As the Premier League accuses the regulator of introducing “rigid banking-style regulation,” it has been dealing out plenty of rigid regulation of its own.

These financial rules have also had adverse effects on the pathway for club-trained, local youth players, as it is now more beneficial for a club to sell a promising youth player for profit than it is to use them in their first team.

In a botched attempt to fix one thing, they have completely broken another, and taken away the part of these clubs’ identities which comes from promoting youth players.

Would the new regulations and fan engagement enforced by an independent regulator be an improvement on the current situation?

The Football Governance Bill defines a “fan engagement threshold” that clubs have to reach to meet this requirement.

It consists of two main requirements, one, that “the club consults its fans about the relevant matters,” and two, that “the club takes the views of its fans into account in making decisions about the relevant matters.”

Relevant matters include things like “the club’s strategic direction and objectives; business priorities; operational and match-day issues, including ticket pricing; and the club’s heritage.”

These would certainly be put to the test if a club wanted to introduce an unpopular but lucrative stadium name sponsor, and the definitions of “strategic direction” and “business priorities” will no doubt be challenged by certain owners as they look to get their own way.

But overall this Bill seems to genuinely have been strengthened thanks to the tireless work of those pushing for meaningful change, including some politicians and many supporters’ groups.

There are some important upgrades to the previous version, but questions remain over how effective it will be in practice.

As often mentioned in this column, football is likely too far gone at this “elite” level to be reined in this way, and has been for some time.

The global system in which it operates prevents many of the desired overhauls to the way the game is run from happening at the top level, and artificial limitations and restraints placed on clubs within this system can often harm more than they help.

Given the owners of football clubs at this level usually hold considerable political power, either through their involvement in the state of global capitalism, or their control of a rich individual state contributing to that, a regulator could still find itself hamstrung from making meaningful change.

Looking at regulators in other industries also shows how they are not always the answer to the problems created by private capital and billionaire ownership of the assets in question, whether they be public utilities or football clubs.

In the final flourish of its statement, the Premier League cited the league as a “vital source of soft power,” stating in clear terms, perhaps inadvertently, that “elite-level” football will always be a tool for sportswashing and geopolitics.

The independent regulator faces an uphill task, but the improvements to the Football Governance Bill mean it should be backed and wished luck.