Matt Maher: You can tell a good idea by the people who oppose it

Yesterday, all of that changed.

If you wanted confirmation of just how big a moment the government white paper confirming the introduction of an independent regulator was, it could be found in the Premier League’s official response.

“We will now carefully consider the Government’s plan for England to become the first major nation to make football a government-regulated industry,” it read.

You could almost hear teeth grinding.

West Ham co-owner David Sullivan was rather more blunt. “A football regulator is a terrible idea,” he moaned. “The government are terrible at running everything.”

Sullivan might have a point there. Yet neither he, the Premier League or the FA – the other organisation which argued against the need for outside regulation – can have any complaints. Truth is the game has been given long enough to get its house in order and while the top flight might be happy with the status quo, they are the only stakeholders who are.

Anything which gives supporters more power, tightens rules on ownership and helps address the financial imbalance in the English pyramid can only be a good thing, albeit the response from those who have long campaigned for change might best be described as cautious optimism, with the recognition the devil will ultimately be in the detail.

“The question now is to ensure that any new regulator is fit for purpose and has real teeth to make a difference,” said Niall Couper, chief executive of Fair Game, who urged the government to now move quickly to introduce a bill.

“We’re deep in time added on for the introduction of the regulator,” he added. “Every minute that passes clubs move closer to the abyss.”

The desire to prevent repeats of financial disasters seen at Bury, Macclesfield and Derby has been a driving factor of reform. This week delivered a rather timely reminder on the need for greater scrutiny on ownership with the news Birmingham City face yet more charges from the EFL, this time due to the circumstances surrounding Maxi Lopez and Paul Richardson’s failed takeover. Another league investigation, into who actually controls the club, remains ongoing.

Blues have already been sanctioned twice by the EFL in the past four years and they are far from the only club to have contravened financial rules. The introduction of a regulator is likely to come as huge relief to league officials being asked to work through a backlog of more cases than they can realistically handle.

While a tougher owners’ and directors’ test will be a centrepiece of the new regulation, it is also true many clubs have strayed into trouble due to the unrealistic ambitions of otherwise well-intentioned custodians. That you can give clubs more money but not teach them to spend it properly is undoubtedly true.

The introduction of a licensing system, requiring clubs to prove they have a sustainable business model, may therefore prove most significant in the long-term. If the threat of being kicked out of the competition entirely doesn’t focus the mind, nothing will. It is also interesting to note the licensing system will extend to the National League where the spending of some clubs has, in a proportional sense, been almost as reckless as that seen in the Championship.

The latter is comfortably the country’s most out-of-control division with clubs frequently prepared to gamble on the dream of promotion and Premier League riches. Last year a majority of clubs in the second tier spent more on wages than they earned in revenue, a state of affairs which simply cannot continue.

While the Premier League continues to hold most of the cards in ongoing negotiations over the redistribution of wealth, the introduction of a regulator means it will have no option but to offer the EFL a decent deal – perhaps even close to the 25 per cent of broadcast revenue desired by league CEO Rick Parry – or risk arbitration.

The top flight might argue it already gives the lower leagues 15 per cent of its revenues but the vast majority of that is in parachute payments. There is perhaps no better indicator of financial disparity than the fact a club relegated from the Premier League gets more in one year than every club in League One, League Two, the National League, the National League South, the National League North and the top two tiers of the women’s game put together.

Parry wants parachute payments scrapped and the Premier League’s own distribution of prize money amended to reduce the financial cliff edge currently between the country’s 20th and 21st best team.

A regulator makes a fairer deal more likely and while those in the Premier League might warn of killing the golden goose, having so much power concentrated in the top division has been unhealthy for the game, regardless of the top flight’s financial success.

We should not kid ourselves legislation will suddenly make everything OK. But at long last a chance to secure the long-term future of the sport outside the elite is there.