An independent report being published on Friday morning is expected to highlight failures that led to disorder before, during and after the Euro 2020 final at Wembley Stadium.
The FA responded to the ugly scenes by commissioning Baroness Casey of Blackstock to examine what went wrong on the day of the showpiece final between England and Italy on Sunday 11 July.
Ticketless fans fought with stewards and police and other supporters as they tried to break into the stadium. They were aware that the game was being played with a reduced capacity and there would be 30,000 empty seats because of Covid restrictions in place at the time.
All approaches to the stadium were packed hours before the 8pm kick-off, with many supporters feeling frightened and shaken by incidents inside and outside the ground.
In contrast to other finals, there was no security cordon around the stadium keeping ticketless fans away from the ground. Wembley is now surrounded by shops, apartment blocks, bars and restaurants making it almost impossible for authorities to set up effective security cordons.
In October UEFA ordered England to play one game behind closed doors as punishment for the unrest. It also fined the FA €100,000 (£85,000) and imposed a second game ban suspended for two years.
England will serve the ban when they play their next UEFA fixture which is likely to be a Nations League game in June. It will be the first time England have played a home game behind closed doors as a punishment.
Baroness Casey has looked at the planning and security arrangements for the game and decisions which were made on the day inside and outside the stadium.
She has spoken to all the relevant bodies who were involved in the staging of the final including the FA, UEFA, the Metropolitan Police, the Greater London Authority, the Stadium Advisory Group for the stadium and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
Premier League clubs’ owners and directors will speak out against government-backed proposals for a football regulator and a transfer tax on Friday morning.
The review has made 47 recommendations, including an independent regulator for football as well as a 10 per cent tax on Premier League transfers, but all 20 clubs are expected to be united in their opposition to both of these key areas.
The Premier League’s position is that it is open in principle to an independent regulator as long as it operates within existing football structures.
Fan-led review: Key recommendations
- The UK government should create a new independent regulator
- The independent regulator should oversee financial regulation in football
- The independent regulator should establish a new ‘fit and proper persons’ test to replace the existing system which would also include an ‘integrity’ test on potential owners and ‘real time’ financial checks
- Fans should be consulted on all key off-field decisions through a ‘shadow board’
- Equality, diversity and inclusion plans should be mandatory for all clubs
- Key items of club heritage should be protected by a ‘golden share’ for fans
- A new corporate governance code should be set up
- Women’s football should be treated equally and given its own review
- Stakeholders should work to increase protection of welfare of players leaving the game
- There should be more support from the Premier League to the pyramid through a solidarity transfer levy
Talk of a transfer tax is particularly controversial because some of the proceeds would go to Championship owners who are richer than their Premier League counterparts.
“Would anybody suggest Tesco pay a 10 per cent surcharge on their staff wages or stock and the money goes to Lidl or all the corner shops so they can compete better with Tesco?” one Premier League owner said.
“The Premier League is an enormous worldwide success. Why change it and risk destroying it?”
Premier League owners and executives such as Christian Purslow, Steve Parrish, Karren Brady and Angus Kinnear have since come out in opposition.
The Premier League is currently paying £1.2bn to EFL clubs from 2019-22, £647m (52 per cent) of which is in parachute payments.
Clubs feel that recommending a regulator was always the direction of travel once the review was set up.
A compromise deal has been discussed whereby a regulator would operate within FA structures instead of being “independent” and indirectly government-appointed.