On November 9, 2025, Lisa Nandy, the UK’s Culture Secretary, found herself at the center of a political storm after admitting she failed to disclose donations from David Kogan, the man she later appointed as England’s new football regulator. The controversy, which has drawn fierce criticism from opposition parties and sparked calls for further investigation, shines a spotlight on the importance of transparency and ethical standards in public appointments.
According to a report by the commissioner for public appointments, David Kogan, a media rights expert, donated a total of £2,900 to Nandy during her 2020 campaign for the Labour leadership. The report, released just days ago, concluded that Nandy had “unknowingly” breached the government’s code on public appointments by not declaring the donations during the process that led to Kogan’s selection as chair of the Independent Football Regulator.
In a candid interview on the BBC’s “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg” program, Nandy did not shy away from accepting responsibility. She admitted, “We didn’t meet the highest standards – that is on me.” Nandy further explained, “I take full responsibility for it. We didn’t meet the highest standards throughout this process, that is on me. I’m responsible for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and our appointment processes, and I’ve unreservedly apologised.”
The commissioner’s report also highlighted that the government’s appointment of Kogan breached the code in three distinct ways: Nandy’s failure to declare donations, the lack of discussion about the potential conflict of interest during Kogan’s interview, and the failure to make public his links to the Labour Party. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the report said, should have disclosed Kogan’s political activity, especially given that he and his company had donated £33,410 to the Labour Party and its candidates over the previous five years.
Nandy, for her part, insisted that while Kogan’s status as a Labour donor was mentioned during the interview process, the specific donations to her campaign were not discussed because she was unaware of them at the time. “It was discussed at the interview, it just wasn’t discussed that he donated specifically to me because I didn’t know about that. He hadn’t recalled it, but as soon as that was discovered, as I said, as soon as I was given that information, that same day, I’d put that information into the public domain and recuse myself from the process,” she told the BBC.
As the revelations came to light, the Conservative Party swiftly condemned the oversight, labeling it a “serious breach of public trust.” They have called for a broader investigation, not only into Nandy’s conduct but also into Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, who also received financial contributions from Kogan. Alex Burghart, a senior Conservative MP, wrote to Sir Laurie Magnus, the government’s independent standards adviser, questioning whether the Prime Minister faced “the same conflict of interest, if not a greater one, given the 2024 general election donation” from Kogan. The Conservatives also pointed to what they described as Sir Keir’s “extensive hospitality from the football industry,” arguing that he should have recused himself from any part in the process of appointing Kogan.
For her part, Nandy denied that the episode undermined Labour’s manifesto pledge to “reset public life” with the “highest standards of integrity and honesty.” Asked if the saga made that commitment look “farcical,” she replied, “I don’t think it does, and I’ll tell you why: because as this lengthy and very thorough report has concluded from an independent commissioner, I didn’t know about the donation. I was the leadership candidate. I was out on the road, I was doing several hustings, I was doing interviews with you on that process… I wasn’t involved in fundraising for the campaign, and as soon as I found out I declared it and recused myself and I complied fully with the process.”
Nevertheless, critics have accused Nandy’s department of either “sloppiness” or outright “cronyism.” In her BBC interview, Nandy sought to clarify the sequence of events, asserting that her department had disclosed Kogan’s donations “on a number of occasions,” but admitted, “what they didn’t do was add a line to a particular press release about David Kogan having donated previously to the Labour Party.”
When pressed by BBC host Laura Kuenssberg about the appearance of impropriety, Nandy pushed back, noting, “Well, the difficult question for the Conservatives is if he is simply a crony, why on earth did they put him on the shortlist in the first place?” She further argued that Labour’s approach to such incidents differs from its rivals, saying, “The difference between us and the Conservatives is that when we make mistakes we put ourselves through those independent processes and respect the outcome.”
The fallout from the incident has not been limited to Nandy alone. Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader and Prime Minister, reprimanded Nandy in a written reply, stating that “the process followed was not entirely up to the standard expected,” but also acknowledged that she had “acted in good faith.” Meanwhile, David Kogan himself responded to the findings, stating he had never been “aware of any deviation from best practice” in the appointment process and that he could “now draw a line under the process.”
The situation has ignited a broader debate about accountability, transparency, and the standards expected of public officials. While Nandy has committed to “put in place processes to make sure that doesn’t happen again,” the incident has provided fresh ammunition for critics of the government’s handling of public appointments. It also highlights the complexities inherent in political fundraising and the need for rigorous oversight to maintain public trust.
As the dust settles, the episode serves as a stark reminder that even unintentional oversights can have significant political repercussions. For Nandy and the Labour Party, the challenge now is to restore confidence by demonstrating a genuine commitment to transparency and ethical governance—no easy task in today’s climate of heightened scrutiny and skepticism.
