FSA AGM – Fan Engagement
One of the key discussion topics at the recent FSA AGM was fan engagement. David Riley, from the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) General Counsel, gave the keynote speech and led a subsequent breakout session on ‘The Regulator and Supporter Engagement – Regulator’s Remit’.
He reminded everyone that, going forward under the provisions of the Football Governance Act 2025, to be able to participate in the top five tiers of the English football league system, a football club will have to obtain a licence from the IFR and, as a requirement of that licence, must meet certain standards of fan engagement.
David explained that to meet those standards clubs will be required to meaningfully consult regularly with supporter representatives. Currently, the Premier League requires that every club must have a Fan Advisory Board (FAB), and this is the route that both the IFR and Football Supporters Association (FSA) will be encouraging.
David explained that the representatives on a FAB will either be;
- Elected by the club’s fans to represent their views, using a process that is openly democratic, independent, fair and proportionate; or
- Appointed by the club but with the strict proviso that these persons should be both independent and representative of the fan base in the eyes of the Regulator.
He also highlighted that the IFR and FSA will work together to help clubs prepare themselves for the full implementation of the new provisions. Each club will be assigned a ‘Supervisor’, working for the IFR, to monitor compliance with all aspects of the requirements of the Act and the IFR, including fan engagement.
He made clear the IFR stance on several important areas of fan engagement.
Firstly, clubs will need to avoid appointees nominated by the club itself on the basis that they will ‘toe the club line’. Therefore, independent fan representatives should ideally be elected or, if not elected, the club will have to demonstrate to the IFR how its FAB members are independent and representative of the fan base.
Secondly, in any election process fans should be involved in the development of that process and the election itself, to ensure that it is open, transparent and not unduly manipulated by the club.
Thirdly, the election process and how it will work will need to be clearly explained to fans well in advance of any election.
David also indicated what wouldn’t constitute proper consultation or engagement, namely:
- holding meetings of supporters to tell them about club decisions, when supporters have had no input into decision-making in the first place; and
- paying lip service to consultation with fans by ignoring their input if consulted.
Clubs will have to provide an Annual Fan Consultation Report which will be a public document. This should provide evidence of the discussions with fan representatives, and why they came to their decisions, to demonstrate that fans views have been considered.
David made it clear that any properly constituted supporter organisation (not just the FAB) can raise issues with the IFR Supervisor if they believe that the club’s report is flawed. He explained that the IFR would want to get the widest view they can to confirm that the club is complying with its obligations regarding fan engagement.
David highlighted that the IFR recognises that there may sometimes be issues of confidentiality which might mean that fan representatives are not able to disclose certain information to the wider fan base. However, it is also their view that this cannot be used as an excuse by the club to withhold information which the fan representatives might have a legitimate right to know. For example, where overspending might tip a club over a financial cliff edge.
While the intention of the IFR is to operate with a light touch in enforcing the new provisions, the legislation gives it the teeth to act where it believes clubs are flouting the rules and David indicated that the IFR would not shy away from this.
The sessions were well attended and highly informative. The Trust will continue to liaise with IFR as its work progresses.
Blues Trust
By making comments:
- All we ask is that it relates to the Club that we all love. It can inform, question, challenge, criticise even….but it should not be written to threaten and/or cause personal offence.
- By making comments on the above article, you agree to Blues Trust retaining your email address should we need to make contact with you for admin purposes. Let us know at admin@bluestrust.org if you do not wish us to do this. We will not give out your email address to any 3rd party sources.
The Trust reserves the right to moderate any comments made (in consultation with the writer) or to deny publication if comments are considered to be inconsistent with the requirements identified above.
Birmingham city have to be careful in the transfer market make good buys but donot break the bank.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out with our club. I’m not sure our owners will want to wear it. I suspect the business men will not be keen to reveal the details and rationale of their decision making. It’s not the American way. After all, they have had long enough to explore the idea of an advisory board at Blues and have shied away from it. Instead, we have a faux model of fan engagement lifted from Manchester City by Garry Cook. Working groups that we hear nothing about, limited and unaccountable club controlled OSC’s, and Open Houses that are called very infrequently.
Incidentally, it was interesting to learn recently that Man City supporters have now formed their own supporters trust because of frustrations with their clubs approach to fan engagement. And that it is flourishing.
Which is all a bit of a shame really, because Blues are in a far better position now than they have been for a long, long time and, I would suggest, most supporters have full confidence in Tom Wagner and his colleagues. So I don’t see why they should be reluctant to talk with independent supporters who care about the club just as much as them. Albeit, perhaps, for different reasons.