Is a powerful figure in football doing a complete 180? It certainly looks that way, and the implications could be huge for the future of the sport! Baroness Karren Brady, Vice Chairman of West Ham and a member of the House of Lords, seems to have dramatically changed her tune on the highly debated topic of a 'football regulator.' But here's where it gets controversial... what caused this change of heart? Let's dive in.
Just eleven months ago, Baroness Brady was a vocal opponent of the proposed independent football regulator. Speaking before her peers in the House of Lords, she warned of "dangers lurking in this (football governance) bill," essentially doing everything in her power to block its passage. She passionately argued that the legislation risked "suffocating the very thing that makes English football so unique: the aspiration that allows clubs to rise and succeed in our pyramid system. The ambition that means fans can dream!" Think of clubs like Leicester City, who against all odds, rose to win the Premier League. Brady feared that a regulator might stifle such Cinderella stories.
Brady, a Conservative peer, went on to say that planned "extreme redistribution" of wealth within football would "replace our brilliant but brutal meritocracy with the likelihood of a closed shop where survival, not aspiration, becomes a ceiling." She believed that forcing Premier League clubs to share more revenue with lower league teams could weaken the top tier and disincentivize ambition.
Adding fuel to the fire, the government rejected her calls to publish a letter from UEFA (the Union of European Football Associations) that reportedly warned of dire consequences. According to Brady, UEFA suggested that English clubs and even the national team could be banned from prestigious competitions like the Champions League and the Euros if the incoming football regulator was seen as interfering too much. She described the letter as "alarming" and demanded transparency. But Labour frontbencher Baroness Twycross stated the letter was private and would not be made public. This secrecy only intensified the debate and raised questions about the regulator's potential reach. And this is the part most people miss: the fear of UEFA sanctions was a major weapon in the argument against the regulator.
Fast forward to today, and Baroness Brady has seemingly executed a complete U-turn, expressing support for David Kogan's appointment as chair of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) in her column for 'The Sun' newspaper.
"I GET it, football governance isn’t the kind of thing that sets pulses racing," she wrote, acknowledging that the topic might not be the most exciting for the average fan. "It doesn’t make for the drama of a 4–3 comeback or a late winner. But make no mistake — an imminent appointment will shape the future of the game for decades."
She continued, "I’ve always had my doubts about whether we truly need an Independent Football Regulator (IFR). But since one is coming, we’d better make sure we get it right." This is a key admission: even though she wasn't initially convinced of the regulator's necessity, she now accepts its inevitability and wants to ensure it functions effectively.
Brady then lays out her reasons for supporting David Kogan. She highlights his extensive experience in media rights, sponsorships, and TV deals – the very lifeblood of modern football. "He understands where the money comes from, where it goes, and why that matters," she explains. "That gives him insight into one of football’s big pressure points: financial sustainability." Kogan's experience isn't limited to the Premier League; he's also worked with the EFL (English Football League), UEFA, the women's game, and international bodies. This broad perspective is crucial, according to Brady, because "football isn’t just about the elite — it’s a pyramid, and if the top crumbles, the base cracks with it."
She believes Kogan's non-regulatory background is actually a strength. "The IFR needs a leader who can build transparent, robust structures. Kogan isn’t a regulator by trade, I see that as a positive." She also emphasizes his experience in governance roles that demand accountability.
Brady addresses concerns about Kogan's political donations to Labour MPs, including Sir Keir Starmer, stating, "Personally, I don’t have a problem with that — having political views shouldn’t disqualify anyone from public service." But is this truly a non-issue? Some might argue that such donations could create a bias, a point that could spark differing opinions.
She then points to the ongoing turmoil at Sheffield Wednesday as a prime example of why football needs oversight. "Owner Dejphon Chansiri has faced furious calls from fans to sell the club after repeated financial crises — tax debts, embargoes, unpaid wages," she writes. "It’s a sad saga that shows exactly why football needs oversight that works." She highlights that the Football Governance Act gives the regulator "more practical powers to stop another Wednesday-style meltdown."
Brady reveals that Kogan's team has already been meeting with clubs, including West Ham, to discuss how regulation can help the game. She stresses the importance of listening to the experience and expertise within the Premier League, where valuable lessons have been learned over decades. "Premier League clubs will welcome a regulator if — and it’s a big if — it genuinely improves ownership standards, strengthens fan engagement, protects club heritage, and prevents breakaway leagues." She insists that the aim should be to support well-run clubs, not punish them or burden them with unnecessary bureaucracy. Is this a realistic expectation, or wishful thinking?
She emphasizes that the Premier League is the most competitive and watched league in the world, generating significant revenue that benefits the entire football pyramid. "That’s a system worth protecting, not meddling with," she argues. Brady believes Kogan's mission should be to ensure sustainability, not necessarily profitability, recognizing that football is a risky business. She notes that most clubs reinvest every penny of revenue back into the team, staff, and infrastructure, highlighting West Ham as an example where shareholders don't take a salary or dividend.
Brady concludes by reiterating the importance of consultation and listening to those who have built the Premier League into the global phenomenon it is today. "If they ignore that experience, and blunder into heavy-handed oversight, the damage could be severe," she warns. "Football is more than a business, it’s a heartbeat that connects millions. It’s history, identity, and pride."
So, has Baroness Brady truly changed her mind, or is this a pragmatic acceptance of the inevitable? Perhaps she believes that by supporting Kogan, she can influence the regulator's approach and protect the interests of the Premier League. What do you think of this apparent U-turn? Is it a betrayal of her previous stance, or a sensible adaptation to a changing landscape? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
