The National League: A Competition Spiralling Out of Control

Last weekend, Billericay Town took to the pitch against St Albans City with a team composed of under-23 and non-contracted players. The club had put its entire first-team squad on furlough, unable to sustain the costs of competing. The makeshift side earned an impressive 2-2 draw against a team third in the table, but the result papers over a chasm opening up across the National League system.

Maidstone United have since confirmed they will follow Billericay’s lead, furloughing their contracted players and office staff. More are expected to do the same. This is the reality of a competition whose governing body appears to have lost all authority, leaving its members to take desperate measures while it remains conspicuously silent.

The current crisis is entirely of the league’s own making, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of the financial support available to clubs. Clubs were told a second tranche of funding would arrive as grants. Instead, they have been offered loans, a proposition many have stated they simply cannot afford to take on. To do so would burden them with debt they have no realistic prospect of repaying, an action that could see company directors fall foul of the law for trading while insolvent.

Threats and Sanctions

Instead of addressing this financial impasse with clear direction, the National League’s general secretary, Mark Ives, has been busy issuing letters. Clubs including Chippenham Town, Dulwich Hamlet, Slough Town, Bath City, Southport and Concord Rangers have all received notice of disciplinary action for the non-fulfilment of fixtures. The move has been met with disbelief and anger.

Antony Smith, the chairman of Concord Rangers, was forceful in his reply, stating his club would not answer the charge. He cited the league’s failure in its duty of care to provide testing and highlighted the fact that his club’s accounts, submitted to Sport England, show it will be trading insolvently within weeks as “just cause” for not playing.

Dulwich Hamlet, who earlier in the week published an open letter detailing their impossible position, described the league’s actions in starker terms.

So after laying out the farcical situation we find ourselves in, the league at least offer some clarity. We will be charged for not playing. The bullying continues.

The league eventually released a statement of its own, describing the charges as a “mechanism” and promising that an Independent Panel would assess each case for “just cause” only after the outcome of club resolutions on the season’s future is known. This procedural explanation does little to calm the situation. It confirms the intention to proceed with disciplinary action against clubs who feel they cannot play, placing the blame squarely on them rather than on the chaotic governance that has brought them to this point.

A Failure of Governance

The core questions at the heart of this mess remain unanswered. There has been no explanation as to why clubs were led to believe they would receive grants when only loans were available. This single issue was critical in persuading clubs to start the season in the first place. Had they known they would be expected to take on significant debt from the new year, it is highly likely the season might never have begun.

The entire affair has been an exercise in either profound incompetence or deliberate dishonesty from the league’s leadership.

While this unfolds, clubs further down the pyramid in steps 3-6 have had their deadline to apply for actual grants extended to 17th February. The fixed amounts, ranging from £27,000 for a Step 3 club to £7,500 for one in Step 6, will be welcome, though some may question why a club’s specific needs are not considered. Jim Parmenter of Dover Athletic resigned his position on the league’s board on Monday, but its chairman, Brian Barwick, has remained silent throughout.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the National League’s governance is its handling of the investigation into the distribution of the first round of funding. After requesting a report from Lord Bernstein, the league has refused to make its findings public. This secrecy, combined with the misleading information given to clubs about subsequent funding, paints a picture of a senior body that is untrustworthy and fundamentally broken. They failed to suspend the season until a vote was held and everyone knew where they stood. They failed to be transparent about finances. They failed to lead.

What did Lord Bernstein’s report actually say, and why has the National League refused to publish it?