Section 34: What Happens After IFR Owner Approval

Almost everything written about the IFR's owner suitability regime concerns getting through it: the fitness criteria, the source of wealth test, the application process, the timeline. Almost nothing addresses what happens once an owner has cleared that hurdle. The answer, under section 34 of the Football Governance Act 2025, is that an affirmative determination is not a certificate that sits in a drawer. It is a live status the IFR can revisit at any time and every existing club owner, whether newly approved or in position for decades, needs to understand exactly how.

Lagom Article Header CTA

This article is brought to you by Lagom Sports Compliance -- the leading governance, risk, compliance and anti-financial crime consultancy built exclusively for professional football. We help clubs, agents and leagues navigate the IFR, UEFA licensing and EU AML obligations with proportionate, practitioner-led support.

Want to talk through what this means for your club?

Get in touch → Email us →

The distinction most commentary misses: prospective versus incumbent owners

The Football Governance Act draws a clear structural line that most general commentary on IFR owner suitability blurs. Sections 27 to 32 of the Act deal specifically with prospective owners and officers -- the notification and determination process that applies before someone becomes an owner or officer of a regulated club. Section 34, by contrast, deals with incumbent owners: people who already hold that position. It gives the IFR a distinct power to make determinations about the suitability of an owner to continue in that role, entirely separate from the process that got them there in the first place. Section 35 does the equivalent for incumbent officers.

This distinction matters because it changes the nature of the compliance obligation entirely. The prospective owner process under sections 27 to 32 is a one-off gateway: notify, apply, receive a determination, proceed. Section 34 is not a gateway. It is an ongoing supervisory power that persists for as long as a person remains an owner of a regulated club.

Determination Not A Certificate Callout

⚠

An affirmative determination is not a certificate. It is a status the IFR can revisit at any point for as long as a person remains an owner.

The two grounds on which an incumbent owner's suitability can be reopened

Section 34 gives the IFR two determination powers in relation to incumbent owners. The first is engaged where the IFR has information giving it grounds for concern about whether the individual meets the individual ownership fitness criteria. The second is engaged where the IFR has information giving it grounds to suspect that the individual has a source of wealth connected to serious criminal conduct.

Under section 34(1): a finding that the individual does not meet the individual ownership fitness criteria. This mirrors the honesty, integrity and financial soundness assessment applied to prospective owners under section 37 -- but applied retrospectively, to someone already in position, on the basis of information that may not have existed, or may not have been known to the IFR, at the point of the original determination.

Under section 34(2): a finding that the individual does have a source of wealth connected to serious criminal conduct. This is the incumbent-owner equivalent of the source of wealth test applied to prospective owners, and its inclusion as a distinct, standalone ground under section 34 confirms that source of wealth is not a box ticked once and forgotten. It is a status the IFR retains the power to reassess against an existing owner at any time new information comes to light.

Before making a negative finding under section 34, section 36 requires the IFR to give notice to the individual and the club, explain why it is minded to make the negative finding, invite representations, and specify the means and period for making them. That period must be not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given. This is not an informal or summary process.

How a review actually gets triggered: section 33's notification duty

Section 34 does not operate in isolation. The mechanism that most often brings an incumbent owner's suitability back under IFR scrutiny is the separate notification duty in section 33, which requires clubs, owners and officers to notify the IFR where there has been, or may have been, a material change in circumstances relevant to whether an individual who is an owner or officer of the club is suitable to hold that position.

This duty applies both to the club and to the individual concerned, which means it cannot simply be left to the owner's own judgement about what to disclose. A club's governance function carries an independent obligation to notify the IFR if it becomes aware of a material change, regardless of whether the owner has already done so, or intends to. The consequences can become significant if the material change leads the IFR to make, or be treated as making, an unsuitability determination. At that point, the Act's wider Part 4 consequences may include removal directions and, where the statutory conditions are met, further ownership-related action.

What counts as a material change is not narrowly defined in the Act, and that is deliberate. A change in an owner's personal financial position, a new criminal investigation or conviction anywhere in the world, a change in the ownership or management of a connected corporate structure, or new information emerging about the origin of an owner's wealth could all, depending on the facts, meet the threshold. The test is relevance to suitability, not the existence of a fixed checklist which places a genuine burden of ongoing judgement on clubs and owners alike, rather than a simple annual box-ticking exercise.

Incumbent Owner Deeming Provision Box

The incumbent owner deeming provision: who is caught without a fresh application

One further detail is essential to understanding section 34\'s practical reach, and it explains why owners who have held their position for years, long before the IFR existed, are not exempt from this regime.

Section 34(3) defines which incumbent owners are within scope. It captures an individual who is an owner of a regulated club and either has been an owner since immediately before section 34 came into force, or, if later, since the time the club became a regulated club, or has an effective affirmative determination under section 28. In practical terms, long-standing owners are not outside the regime simply because they acquired their position before the IFR became active.

The mechanism that ends an existing determination: section 34(10)(b)

The most operationally important detail in section 34, and the one existing guidance addresses least, is the specific mechanism by which an affirmative determination actually comes to an end before an owner voluntarily exits the club.

Section 28, the provision governing the original grant of an affirmative determination to a prospective owner, states explicitly that the determination has effect until the person ceases to be an owner of the club, or, if earlier, the IFR gives the person a notice under section 34(10)(b) in relation to the person's suitability to be an owner. In other words, the Act itself builds the possibility of early termination directly into the definition of what an affirmative determination actually is. It was never drafted as a permanent status. It was drafted as a status that persists only until either the person leaves, or the IFR issues a specific notice under section 34(10)(b) bringing it to an end.

Section 34(10)(a) provides the companion mechanism: where certain conditions are met, the IFR is treated as having determined that the person is not suitable to be an owner -- a "deemed determination" that carries the same practical consequences as an explicit negative finding, without requiring the IFR to restate the finding from scratch each time. Where a deemed determination of this kind arises, section 39 then engages the IFR's removal direction power: the IFR must give the person a direction requiring them to take all reasonable steps to cease to be an owner of the club before the end of a defined removal period, which can itself be extended or further extended.

The practical chain, in other words, runs: a material change is identified (section 33) or otherwise comes to the IFR's attention; the IFR conducts a review and, following the section 36 representations process, makes or is treated as making a negative finding under section 34; the previously granted affirmative determination is brought to an end via a section 34(10)(b) notice; and, where the deeming mechanism under section 34(10)(a) applies, a removal direction under section 39 follows, requiring the owner to take steps to exit the club within a defined period.

Why this matters more for clubs than for owners alone

It would be easy to read section 34 as principally an owner's problem -- a personal compliance obligation resting on the individual whose suitability is under review. That reading understates the exposure for the club itself. A club whose owner is subject to a section 34 negative finding, a deemed determination and an eventual removal direction is facing a governance crisis with direct operational consequences: uncertainty over control of the club, potential disruption to banking and commercial relationships that depend on ownership stability, and reputational exposure from a public process that, consistent with the IFR's approach across its enforcement powers generally, is unlikely to be resolved quietly.

This is precisely why the section 33 notification duty is framed as a duty on the club as well as the individual. A club's governance and compliance function cannot treat an owner's personal circumstances as entirely outside its remit. Where a material change becomes apparent -- whether through the owner's own disclosure, through media reporting, through a connected business development, or through the club's own ordinary governance oversight -- the obligation to assess its relevance to suitability and notify the IFR where appropriate sits with the club as an independent duty, not merely as a matter the club can leave to the owner to manage.

For clubs building genuine governance capability under the IFR's mandatory conditions, this means the question "has anything changed that we should be telling the IFR about our own owner?" needs to become a standing item of board-level review, not a one-off question asked only at the point of the original application.

For the full detail of how the ODSE regime's Specified Senior Management Functions and the underlying suitability test work in the first instance, see Lagom's existing guidance on the ODSE regime and what it means to be an SMF at a football club. For what happens where an IFR determination is refused, or needs to be challenged through internal review or the Competition Appeal Tribunal, see Lagom's separate guide to the IFR's licence refusal and appeals process.

An affirmative determination is the beginning of an ongoing relationship with the IFR, not the end of one.

Understanding whether a specific change in an owner's circumstances is genuinely material, and how to approach a section 33 notification if one is required, is often a focused, time-sensitive question rather than a full engagement. Lagom Sports Compliance offers ad hoc hourly support for exactly this kind of situation: a single booked session to work through a specific material change question or a section 34 process, or a fixed number of hours each month at a discounted rate for clubs and owners who expect to need this kind of input on a recurring basis. If your club or its ownership structure has changed, or may be about to, get in touch to talk through what that looks like.