Parry also expressed concern over “a whole host of competition law cases which are impacting the way we run the game”.

He continued: “After being left more or less free to set their own rules for many years, the competition law authorities… now seem to be saying: ‘we don’t think the people who run football are doing a very good work.’ ‘.

“Looking over our shoulder all the time at clubs challenging if they don’t like the rules… the game will stop if we don’t find a solution to that.”

In September, Leicester City won an appeal against a possible points deduction for an alleged breach of financial rules, when an independent panel ruled that the Premier League did not have jurisdiction to punish the club because it had been relegated to the Championship during of its accounting year. finished. The decision states that the wording of the Premier League regulations is not legally valid.

Last month, two aspects of the Premier League’s associated party dealing rules – which govern commercial transactions involving club owners – were ruled illegal by a court after being challenged by Manchester City, who have since threatened to new legal proceedings.

“It’s definitely getting a lot harder,” Parry said.

“I have no problem with us being more professional and at the top of our game because that’s where we should be. But it’s the desire of the clubs to challenge the whole system in the blink of an eye. ‘eye.

“You have to ask yourself how long you can operate effectively while this mentality exists, and we have to find a solution to that.

“The way we ensure consistency in financial regulation between the two leagues is not working. One thing a single, independent regulator would provide is consistency.”

The legislation will “explicitly require clubs to engage effectively” with supporters on changes to ticket prices and any proposed relocation of their ground. There will no longer be a need to take government foreign and trade policy into account when approving club takeovers, and there will be “a clear commitment” to do more to improve equality, diversity and inclusion .

Nineteen amendments were proposed by campaign group Fair Game, including excluding the possibility that a club’s owner could be a state or state-controlled entity, and requiring review of the state of the game to assess player welfare, as well as a review of several club-owned properties.