What Can the IFR Demand in an Information Notice?

An information notice under the Football Governance Act 2025 can be much broader than a request for a few existing documents. Section 65 allows the IFR to require specified information from any person where it considers the information necessary for one of its functions. A notice may describe categories of information, cover drafts and information in any other form, and require information to be obtained, generated, collected or retained. But the power is not unlimited: the material must be responsive to what the notice specifies or describes, the IFR must consider it necessary for a statutory function, and privileged communications remain protected. This article explains how those rules may apply to emails, board papers, models and information held by advisers.

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 statutory starting point: broad, but tied to necessity and scope

Section 65 permits the IFR to give an information notice to a person requiring specified information where the IFR considers it necessary for the purpose of exercising its functions under the Act. “Specified” means information specified or described in the notice, or information falling within a category specified or described there. A notice can therefore use categories rather than identify every document separately, but only information responsive to those descriptions is required.

The IFR’s final Information Gathering and Enforcement Guidance confirms that information includes a document in draft or final form and information in any other form. Emails, messages, spreadsheets, presentations, meeting notes and system-held data may therefore be within scope when they answer a description in the notice and satisfy the statutory necessity test. A section 65 notice is a standalone information-gathering tool and does not, by itself, mean that the IFR suspects a breach or is considering enforcement.

Section 65 Broad Not Limitless Callout

⚠

Section 65 is broad, but not limitless: the notice may describe categories and reach information in any form, yet the information must be responsive to the notice and considered necessary for an IFR function.

Illustrative examples: what this actually looks like for a football club

The Act does not list these document types, and no category is automatically producible merely because it appears below. These are Lagom’s illustrations of material that may be responsive if a notice specifies or describes it and the IFR considers it necessary for the relevant function.

Emails and informal communications. Correspondence between board members, executives and staff—including on messaging or collaboration platforms—may be responsive if its subject matter, custodians and date range fall within the notice. The form or informality of a communication does not put it outside section 65.
Board papers and minutes. Board packs, minutes, committee papers and supporting material circulated before a decision may be specified or described. Their relevance will depend on the function and request at issue; the corporate governance regime does not make every board record automatically responsive to every notice.
Financial models and underlying assumptions. A notice may describe models, scenario analyses, assumptions, reconciliations or working papers, rather than only a final plan or summary. Section 65(3) also allows the IFR to require an analysis or other information to be generated for the purpose of providing it to the IFR.
Matchday, operational and commercial records. Depending on the IFR function and the descriptions used, responsive material could include ticketing data, sponsorship or supplier records, or fan-engagement information. Relevance alone is not the complete legal test: the material must also fall within the notice and the section 65 necessity condition.

Third parties can receive notices, but the legal routes must be distinguished

Section 65 applies to “a person”, not only to regulated clubs, owners or officers. A bank, auditor or professional adviser could therefore in principle receive a notice directly where the IFR considers the requested information necessary for a statutory function. That does not make every adviser file producible: the information must be responsive, and section 73 protects privileged communications. Information flows involving public authorities and designated regulatory or industry bodies may also occur under the separate disclosure and information-sharing provisions in sections 86 to 89; they should not be presented as proof that every such body will be served with a section 65 notice.

For readiness purposes, a club should understand which relevant records it and its external providers each hold, and agree lawful notification and coordination arrangements where contracts and professional duties permit. A notice addressed to an adviser imposes obligations on that recipient; it does not automatically require the adviser to notify the club, waive privilege or provide the club with the notice. Early coordination can nevertheless reduce duplication, inconsistent searches and missed deadlines.

Power New Ongoing Information Box

The power to require new or ongoing information

Section 65(3) goes beyond existing records. It allows the IFR to take copies or extracts; require a person to obtain or generate information for the purpose of giving it to the IFR; require collection or retention that would not otherwise occur for that purpose; and require the person to say, to the best of their knowledge and belief, where missing specified information is and why it was not given.

A notice may require information on an ongoing basis. The final Guidance says the IFR expects to engage before requiring generation, to understand capability and resource implications. That expected engagement informs the IFR’s decision, but it does not remove the statutory power or guarantee that every notice will be preceded by a draft.

What genuinely limits the power, and what does not

Three distinctions matter under time pressure: whether information is responsive, whether it is privileged, and how commercial or personal sensitivity should be handled.

Responsiveness and legal privilege are genuine limits. The IFR’s Guidance says only information falling within the notice’s descriptions must be provided. Section 73 also prevents section 65 from authorising the IFR to require, possess or copy a communication protected by legal professional privilege in High Court proceedings. Privilege must be assessed properly; the IFR may require confirmation that responsive material was withheld, an explanation of the review process and a non-privileged privilege log.
Commercial or personal sensitivity is not, by itself, a reason to withhold responsive information. However, the Act does not impose a blanket rule that all such material must remain confidential or prevent its use for a different IFR function. The final Guidance says lawfully obtained information may generally be used within the IFR to facilitate any statutory function, and the Act permits defined disclosures and publication in some circumstances. Recipients should identify sensitive material and explain the likely harm: the IFR says it will consider those representations and possible redaction, anonymisation or aggregation, alongside data-protection and statutory disclosure safeguards.

Why this matters for evidence readiness, not just live investigations

The breadth of section 65 has practical implications beyond a live notice. A prepared club understands that a request may reach informal communications, information held by third parties and material that must be generated or collected on an ongoing basis. It also understands the limits: scope, necessity and privilege must be assessed rather than treating every record connected with the club as automatically producible.

Evidence readiness means knowing where governance, financial and operational records sit; how systems preserve content and metadata; who can run a documented search; and whether information can be provided in the notice’s required form and timeframe. Where practicable and appropriate, the IFR says it will usually engage before a final notice—for example on scope, availability, format, actions and deadline—and it expects pre-engagement when considering a requirement to obtain or generate information. That engagement is useful, but it is not guaranteed.

For the IFR’s related expert-reporter power and how it differs from section 65, see Lagom’s guide to section 66. For a practical first-response plan after an investigation opens—and the separate minimum representation period that begins only if the IFR later gives a warning notice—see Lagom’s investigation-response guide.

A section 65 notice can reach more widely than many clubs expect…

This can include information held by another person and material that must be generated. The practical protection is to understand both the breadth and the legal limits before a deadline starts to run.

Lagom Sports Compliance is the leading specialist governance, risk, compliance and anti-financial crime consultancy built exclusively for professional football, globally. We support clubs through IFR licensing and enforcement support, including evidence-readiness work: mapping governance, financial and operational records; testing search and production workflows; managing privilege and confidentiality review; and coordinating lawfully with advisers and other providers. If your club wants to assess its readiness before a notice arrives, or needs support responding to one already received, get in touch.

For licensing, we offer:

Review Only support for clubs preparing their own application who want an independent, criterion-by-criterion review before submission;
Part Support for clubs that want to lead certain work-streams while we own others; and
Full Support, where a named senior consultant leads the entire licensing project from readiness assessment through to post-submission.

For ODSE specifically, we help CEOs and their leadership teams map exactly who in the organisation is in scope, assess individual readiness against the fitness and source of wealth tests, and build the material change notification process that keeps you compliant for as long as you hold the role, not just at the point of your original determination. If any of the concerns above sound genuinely familiar, get in touch and we will talk through what the right level of support looks like for your specific position.

We have also built a self service IFR readiness assessment tool. It takes around 15 minutes to complete and gives you a guide as to what you may need to, based on what you already have in place.