Andy Burnham was on the Sports Agents podcast a week or so ago and made an important point in this respect. He said that there was an obvious conflict of interest between the PL being both the promoter of a product and the regulator of it. I think that is spot on. Plainly there is a potential conflict between the role of developing the PL brand as much as possible and the role of ensuring regulatory compliance amongst its members. One of the reasons a lot of non-blues think we will "get off with it" is precisely because of that conflict. In recent years there have been a fair few instances of, for instance, professional bodies having their trade union and regulatory functions separated, so that for instance doctors' interests are promoted by the BMA but their conduct is regulated by the General Medical Council. Solicitors are protected by the Law Society but regulated by the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority.
In the case of the PL, the reality however seems to be even more nuanced. I would say there is wide recognition, at least on this forum, that the red top clubs, rags and dippers in particular, have a disproportionate amount of influence over the PL. The example everyone knows of is their role in the recruitment of Richard Masters, with the additional interview and the surprising withdrawal of other candidates who would have been offered the job before him. Surprisingly, or not according to perspective, that story (whilst plainly true as I recall it) did not get much traction amongst the mainstream media.
It seems to me the appointment of an independent regulator can only be a good thing. At the very least, we could be satisfied that a regulator with a statutory remit would be much less likely to do the bidding of the red shirts. At the very least, we would know that disciplinary charges were not brought from a desire to nobble a competitor. At best, an independent regulator can bring an end to some of the corruption that has surrounded the game at PL level.
