The Football Safety Authority - Its Powers and Authorities - Essay Example

The Football Safety ity – Its Powers and ities Introduction Under the government framework of the United Kingdom, there are agencies denominated as non-departmental bodies. There are three types.1 An executive body is one that undertakes a good number of tasks involving its own operations and regulations in connection with its defined powers and authorities. It also deals in commercial and semi-commercial transactions. Another kind is the advisory body which is usually comprised of a team of people highly skilled in their specific fields of endeavours and, within that ambit, renders advices and recommendations to the government on a certain concern. Tribunals are those which have judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In the case of the Football Safety Authority, it is a creation of law through an act of the Parliament, that is, the Football Safety Act 2009. As can be gleaned from Sections 1 to 3 of the enacted law, it is an executive body because it has operational powers and authority to regulate matters and issues pertaining to professional football organizations. Also, its activities are cultural in nature because football is a sports venture and thus within the coverage of culture. Lastly, since the Football Safety Authority (or FSA for brevity) may impose financial sanctions, it can be considered as having commercial or semi-commercial affairs. It has to be also observed that the FSA is tasked to oversee that measures are installed within precepts imbued with public safety owing to the fact that it is empowered to adopt a Code of Conduct that may contain provisions on the safety of the attending public in professional football stadiums during games. Along this line, it can also be construed to be within the purview of public law in the course of exercising its powers and carrying out its authorities. It has to be importantly noted that penalties in the form of money may be meted out by the FSA upon those who are answerable for their infractions of delineated policies, rules and regulations. Accordingly, it appears that the Football Safety Authority has quasi-judicial responsibilities. Powers over amateur clubs Section 1 of the Football Safety Act 2009 is very clear in defining the powers that it granted unto the Football Safety Authority. These cover regulating every professional football organization over its activities and the facilities or amenities of its stadium. Within that unequivocal scope, football clubs which do not qualify as professional are necessarily and naturally not included within those given powers. Amateur clubs are not professional organizations. Stated in another way, a group where the members are amateur football players may not be categorized as a professional football club. Within the import of that distinction, Beverley Town Football Club cannot be classified as falling within the authority of the FSA precisely because its members are not professional football players and the club cannot therefore be construed as a professional football club. It is a fundamental axiom in law that what is not included must be excluded. And this legal precept is applied not only in the United Kingdom.2 It is true in most parts of the civilized world. In United States taxation, for instance, what is not included in the list as taxable must have been excluded on purpose.3 All these being the circumstances, it was inappropriate for the Football Safety Authority to send a letter to Beverley Town Football Club in which the former apprised the latter being within the powers of the non-departmental body. In view of all the foregoing, the amateur group has to be advised to politely inform the Football Safety Authority in a written answer that there is no basis for the latter to include Beverley Town Football Club within the powers of the body. While the association may actually disregard FSA’s letter, responding courteously in writing will do more good and no harm. Besides, it will drive the legal point. Consultation with professional football clubs The Football Safety Act clearly stipulates in Section 2 thereof that the FSA is mandated to craft a Code of Conduct regarding safety measures in the stadiums of the football clubs and how the players and fans have to behave. It is also provided for in the said Section 2 that in the drafting of the afore-said Code of Conduct, the FSA is enjoined to consult all those involved in representing the interests of the clubs, the supporters of the games and the players of the sport. This is self-explanatory. Any legal semblance pertaining to duties and responsibilities must have the consensus of the people who will be affected thereby. In short, the participants and stakeholders are entitled, as a matter of course and as a matter of right, to be consulted. Consultation is generally a part of any process toward lawmaking or policy formulation. The reactions of those consulted usually contribute to how effective the law or the policy will turn out to be.4 The Professional Players Union (PPU) was not consulted at all before FSA passed and approved its Code of Practice intended for safeguards on safety for football stadiums. For the Code of Practice, it was consulted on issues of behaviour among supporters and players but on a very tight timeframe of one week within which the professional union could respond. In the latter instance, despite the short notice, it submitted objections and presented proposals which were not considered by the FSA. There was sufficient reason for PPU to be offended. The legal implications are apparent. FSA failed to do its duties as provided for by Section 3 of the law on the matter, that is, the Football Safety Act 2009. The lapses of FSA became more grievous considering that the codes in question were about public safety, professional ethics and audience behaviour. The latter actually also has bearings on the safety of persons and property. Safety is such of primordial importance that consultation on codes having to do with it is always required. As a point of comparison, this is also a prerequisite sine qua non under the Health and Safety Work Act.5 The omission and neglect of FSA in the consultation process as far as concerning PPU was illegal because it did not follow the mandatory provision in Section 3 of the Football Safety Act 2009 requiring the non-departmental body to consult the interested parties in drafting the Code of Conduct. On the one-week time that it gave to PPU for the Code of Practice, the manner or methodology used by FSA was not reasonable due to the utter lack of opportunity. Lastly, having received the objections and proposals of PPU even with the period constraints, FSA should have at least conferred or deliberated with PPU what the latter opposed to and what it recommended. It was glaringly an improper procedure as it did not listen or even consider the plaints of PPU. Even in the spirit of fairness which is a generally considered view in the legal jargon, FSA fell short.6 The Professional Players Union is therefore hereby advised to apply for judicial review with the appropriate administrative court raising as issue the censurable actions of FSA which are all well embraced in the grounds wisely defined by Lord Diplock in the case of the Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of the Civil Service where it was resolved that there could have been consultations although the want of the same was excused for national security reasons.7 Fundamentally, the decision of the FSA as a regulatory body falls within the power of judicial review.8 Warning on safety FSA definitely has the powers to issue warnings within the realm of its regulatory functions as provided for by law. More so because the authority granted it by the enabling statute is more on safety both to persons and property, an essential segment of public interest and welfare for the protection and preservation of society. Presuming Gull City Football Club to be a professional group, it follows that it is within the mantle of the regulatory command of the FSA and its attention can be called by the executive body if there are reasons to believe that safety rules are broken which might pose some hazard and detriment to the public. However, a warning is neither a penal sanction nor an imposition of a punishment. There is therefore no abuse of power or authority on the part of FSA when it sent the notice to Gull City Football Club. Considering the premature apprehension of the football association, there is not an iota of a legal basis upon which Gull City Football Club may take action in a judicial or quasi-judicial forum except possibly for unjust vexation. At the most, it may seek a clarification or a bill of particulars from the FSA as to the warning. Works Cited Consultations & legislation. HM TREASURY. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS AND OTHERS AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE 1984 Oct. 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16; Nov. 22. Reported in [1985] A.C. 374. House of Lords. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: FAIRNESS AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN JUDICIAL REVIEW. CASE AND COMMENT. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL. March 1, 1997. p 1. volume 46 part 1. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: Judicial review. JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: Lord Archer of Sandwell. Parliamentary Business. Lords Hansard text for 23 October 2000. www.parliament.uk. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: Non Departmental Public Bodies and Agencies. department for children, schools and families. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: Regulations and Codes of Practice. General duties on employers and others. The Health and Safety at Work Act. Health and Safety Home Pages. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: The Short Tour. What isTaxed.com. [internet] Accessed January 26, 2010. Available at: Read More